POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

POTUS obama is: from 1 (worst: Devilish) to 10 (best: Messiah)

1 Lying Demonic Monster/Community Organizer Lawyer for the Devil and out to destroy America as we know it.
3
43%
2
0
No votes
3
0
No votes
4
0
No votes
5 Maybe as good as President Millard Fillmore or James Buchanan....
2
29%
6
0
No votes
7
0
No votes
8
0
No votes
9
0
No votes
10 Saint Barack Obama the Messiah. Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Giver of Free Health Care, G_d's Greatest Gift to the World.
2
29%
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Doc »

Zack Morris wrote:Republicans' worst nightmare has come to life: Obamacare is working!

It's working so well that Republicans have grown fearful of opposing it.
In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell — who had vowed publicly and privately to “repeal this monstrosity” — was asked whether he would repeal the insurance exchange in his own state, and replied with word salad (“I think that’s unconnected to my comments about the overall question here”). When asked about repealing his state’s Medicaid expansion, he replied, “I don’t know that it will be taken away from them.”

Unpopular Pennsylvania Republican Governor Tom Corbett recently agreed to accept Medicaid expansion. Four more Republican governors — in Tennessee, Utah, Indiana, and Wyoming — have taken steps toward following suit. In Washington, the river of attacks against Obamacare issuing from Republicans has slowed to a trickle. (The number of Congressional news releases attacking the law has fallen by 75 percent this summer from last.) The Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson is warning darkly of an “anti-repeal wing” within the party. “Root and branch repeal is starting to look more like twig and leaf,” concedes Reason’s Peter Suderman.
Is that something like shovel ready jobs? :lol:

Three years and it will crash and burn.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6216
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Doc wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Republicans' worst nightmare has come to life: Obamacare is working!

It's working so well that Republicans have grown fearful of opposing it.
In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell — who had vowed publicly and privately to “repeal this monstrosity” — was asked whether he would repeal the insurance exchange in his own state, and replied with word salad (“I think that’s unconnected to my comments about the overall question here”). When asked about repealing his state’s Medicaid expansion, he replied, “I don’t know that it will be taken away from them.”

Unpopular Pennsylvania Republican Governor Tom Corbett recently agreed to accept Medicaid expansion. Four more Republican governors — in Tennessee, Utah, Indiana, and Wyoming — have taken steps toward following suit. In Washington, the river of attacks against Obamacare issuing from Republicans has slowed to a trickle. (The number of Congressional news releases attacking the law has fallen by 75 percent this summer from last.) The Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson is warning darkly of an “anti-repeal wing” within the party. “Root and branch repeal is starting to look more like twig and leaf,” concedes Reason’s Peter Suderman.
Is that something like shovel ready jobs? :lol:

Three years and it will crash and burn.
Now you are getting into the spirit of things. Traditional insurance died with jobs. It's all about pushing the traditional model ahead until the next election, and dragging out the rape of the middle class as long as possible. Single payer is the only logical endgame, but if more real assets can be drained from the middle class to support the insurance industry in the meantime it's government's job to screw them over.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Doc »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Doc wrote:
Zack Morris wrote:Republicans' worst nightmare has come to life: Obamacare is working!

It's working so well that Republicans have grown fearful of opposing it.
In Kentucky, Mitch McConnell — who had vowed publicly and privately to “repeal this monstrosity” — was asked whether he would repeal the insurance exchange in his own state, and replied with word salad (“I think that’s unconnected to my comments about the overall question here”). When asked about repealing his state’s Medicaid expansion, he replied, “I don’t know that it will be taken away from them.”

Unpopular Pennsylvania Republican Governor Tom Corbett recently agreed to accept Medicaid expansion. Four more Republican governors — in Tennessee, Utah, Indiana, and Wyoming — have taken steps toward following suit. In Washington, the river of attacks against Obamacare issuing from Republicans has slowed to a trickle. (The number of Congressional news releases attacking the law has fallen by 75 percent this summer from last.) The Weekly Standard’s Jeffrey Anderson is warning darkly of an “anti-repeal wing” within the party. “Root and branch repeal is starting to look more like twig and leaf,” concedes Reason’s Peter Suderman.
Is that something like shovel ready jobs? :lol:

Three years and it will crash and burn.
Now you are getting into the spirit of things. Traditional insurance died with jobs. It's all about pushing the traditional model ahead until the next election, and dragging out the rape of the middle class as long as possible. Single payer is the only logical endgame, but if more real assets can be drained from the middle class to support the insurance industry in the meantime it's government's job to screw them over.
Yeah eah yeah. Obamacare is a complete sucess Unfortunatelly however, the patient died ....Single payer is a bigger steaming pile than traditional insurance. How about banning health insurance except for catastrophic instead of throwing money away literally for nothing, on procedures rather than actual cures?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Thanks to obama and obamacare single payer will now never ever happen in the US. People are happy with their private insurance and always will be.

The only good thing to come from the obama Presidency is the guarantee that single payer will never happen.
Censorship isn't necessary
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Sarah Palin is right and obama is wrong again, making clear once again SP's superior intellect. What would it be like to know that Sarah Palin is smarter than you.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Sarah- ... id/594267/
Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has called on President Barack Obama to “go big or go home” when taking on the “animalistic” Islamic State (ISIS).

But in a long Facebook posting, she says that she has serious concerns about whether he will follow through on his promise to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State.

“War is hell, so go big or go home, Mr. President,” Palin wrote Wednesday night. “Big means bold, confident, wise assurance from a trustworthy Commander-in-Chief that it shall be worth it. Charge in, strike hard, get out. Win.”
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
“War is hell, so go big or go home, Mr. President,” Palin wrote Wednesday night. “Big means bold, confident, wise assurance from a trustworthy Commander-in-Chief that it shall be worth it. Charge in, strike hard, get out. Win.”
Charge in, strike hard.
We always do that. Nothing new there.

Get out.
Yup, we always do that, too. Did it in Vietnam. Did it in Iraq. Did it in Afghanistan. And it always leads to:

Lose.

This sounds more like a strategy for a good old-fashioned white trash brawl. Yeeee-haw!
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: We always do that. Nothing new there.
Not at all. In Iraq, AFG and Vietnam one of the most common criticisms is that we went in half @$$ed. And I think those were valid criticisms, especially since things improved with the surge. Rumsfeld had a term for a small force, can't recall it.
Get out.
Yup, we always do that, too. Did it in Vietnam. Did it in Iraq. Did it in Afghanistan. And it always leads to:

Lose.
And I just cleared that up for you above.
This sounds more like a strategy for a good old-fashioned white trash brawl. Yeeee-haw!
No need for the racist attack Zack Morris. Wondering when you will get around to looking at the dysfunction inside obama's family. All the dirt poor brothers and relatives the multimillionaire has neglected, while telling everyone else to be their brother's keeper.

BTW well past time for you to apologize for your lies and false charges.

Looks like you gave up on obamacare. Thanks for the softballs.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: We always do that. Nothing new there.
Not at all. In Iraq, AFG and Vietnam one of the most common criticisms is that we went in half @$$ed. And I think those were valid criticisms, especially since things improved with the surge. Rumsfeld had a term for a small force, can't recall it.
We dropped more bombs, burned more children, and raped more women than in all of WWII. That doesn't strike me as half-assed.
No need for the racist attack Zack Morris. Wondering when you will get around to looking at the dysfunction inside obama's family. All the dirt poor brothers and relatives the multimillionaire has neglected, while telling everyone else to be their brother's keeper.
All we can say for sure is that the Obamas are the better people to have over at one's party.
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

An obama Party that Could Save America ;-)

Post by monster_gardener »

Zack Morris wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: We always do that. Nothing new there.
Not at all. In Iraq, AFG and Vietnam one of the most common criticisms is that we went in half @$$ed. And I think those were valid criticisms, especially since things improved with the surge. Rumsfeld had a term for a small force, can't recall it.
We dropped more bombs, burned more children, and raped more women than in all of WWII. That doesn't strike me as half-assed.
No need for the racist attack Zack Morris. Wondering when you will get around to looking at the dysfunction inside obama's family. All the dirt poor brothers and relatives the multimillionaire has neglected, while telling everyone else to be their brother's keeper.
All we can say for sure is that the Obamas are the better people to have over at one's party.
Thank You Very Much for your post, Zack Morris.
All we can say for sure is that the Obamas are the better people to have over at one's party.
I'm not so sure.....

Not real keen on have a LYING Blow Hard like obama ,who one has to try to be polite to because he is the POS POTUS, at a party.... :roll:

Latest unbelievable lie: ISIL is not Islamic. :shock: :? :roll:


Plus possibly nobody except vegans would like Michelle's food.....

tBRFDTOi0-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBRFDTOi0-k


And watch out for mass vomiting if barack sneaked in some Indonesian dog & snake meat treats and the guests find out what the mystery meat was.... :twisted:

Zb9kwK35UpM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zb9kwK35UpM


But wait ;) Maybe you are right..... :twisted:

It might be fun to watch barack flirt with a blonde looker ;) like he did at Nelson Mandela's funeral ;) :twisted:

sUmoESLK5IU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUmoESLK5IU

And it would be immensely entertaining to see an enraged jealous Michelle attack barack for his infidelity maybe breaking his jaw with her strong arms ;) :twisted: :lol: :lol: :lol:


3XBr1xb0AF8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XBr1xb0AF8


That might stop him from LYING so much..... ;) :twisted: :lol:


Who knows.... Maybe a gun battle would break out between Michelle's Secret Service detail and Barack Secret Service detail...... :lol: 8-) :twisted:


A party like that could have side effects ;) :twisted: that might save America :D especially if Joe Biden was there too... :lol:
Last edited by monster_gardener on Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: We dropped more bombs, burned more children, and raped more women than in all of WWII. That doesn't strike me as half-assed.
It did for almost all the Democrat Party. I can introduce you to boatloads of Democrats who will really take you to task here.
All we can say for sure is that the Obamas are the better people to have over at one's party.
We can say a lot more than that. We can say that obama is complete morally and intellectually bankrupt hypocrite.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
monster_gardener
Posts: 5334
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:36 am
Location: Trolla. Land of upside down trees and tomatos........

obama a complete morally & intellectually bankrupt hypocrite

Post by monster_gardener »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: We dropped more bombs, burned more children, and raped more women than in all of WWII. That doesn't strike me as half-assed.
It did for almost all the Democrat Party. I can introduce you to boatloads of Democrats who will really take you to task here.
All we can say for sure is that the Obamas are the better people to have over at one's party.
We can say a lot more than that. We can say that obama is complete morally and intellectually bankrupt hypocrite.
Thank You VERY MUCH for your post, Mr. Perfect.
We can say that obama is complete morally and intellectually bankrupt hypocrite.
Seconded.
We can say a lot more than that.
Also seconded...... ;) :twisted: :lol:

I imagine one might be able to make an alphabetized list of obama, the POS POTUS's defects with at least one defect for almost every letter of the alphabet....

Maybe I'll try that sometime.... ;)

Again.... ;)
For the love of G_d, consider you & I may be mistaken.
Orion Must Rise: Killer Space Rocks Coming Our way
The Best Laid Plans of Men, Monkeys & Pigs Oft Go Awry
Woe to those who long for the Day of the Lord, for It is Darkness, Not Light
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: We dropped more bombs, burned more children, and raped more women than in all of WWII. That doesn't strike me as half-assed.
It did for almost all the Democrat Party. I can introduce you to boatloads of Democrats who will really take you to task here.
Sure you can. Point is, the US has never figured out how to satisfactorily win these kinds of conflicts. Arguably, no state has. You can't even identify the problem or the enemy here.
All we can say for sure is that the Obamas are the better people to have over at one's party.
We can say a lot more than that. We can say that obama is complete morally and intellectually bankrupt hypocrite.
Yeah but Palin is all that and a brawlin' white trash yokel. Double ouch!
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: Sure you can. Point is, the US has never figured out how to satisfactorily win these kinds of conflicts. Arguably, no state has.
Winning wars is not particularly hard, how to win a war goes way back to the beginning of civilization. You wipe out the other side.

Not knowing these simple facts of life is why US citizens are abandoning you and embracing me in droves.
You can't even identify the problem or the enemy here.
Me? This your war, and obama's war. You are the one running headlong into a war where you can't identify the problem or the enemy. Way to go Zack Morris.
Yeah but Palin is all that and a brawlin' white trash yokel. Double ouch!
Palin does not tell me to look after my brother when she doesn't look after hers. She is not fundamentally a hypocrite, like obama is.
Censorship isn't necessary
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Zack Morris »

Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: Sure you can. Point is, the US has never figured out how to satisfactorily win these kinds of conflicts. Arguably, no state has.
Winning wars is not particularly hard, how to win a war goes way back to the beginning of civilization. You wipe out the other side.
No, that's genocide. Relatively few wars have been truly genocidal. Historically, most wars have been won by defeating an opposing army, thereby forcing the political leadership to capitulate, or allowing the enemy's political structure to be replaced entirely, even absorbed into the victor's. It's easiest when there is an existing, compatible political structure that can be interfaced with. This is how empires were historically built. And even then, wars did not necessarily end decisively but were followed by continuous challenges to the imperialists for decades or centuries that had to be dealt with over and over and over again, requiring a perpetual military and political presence.

That's going to be really tricky here where there is no coherent nation state or civilization that can be identified. Indeed, this whole problem is about the region trying to establish a political order in the first place.
Not knowing these simple facts of life is why US citizens are abandoning you and embracing me in droves.
The power of imagination. Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, Republicans have been relegated to a whites-only party and are nervously lowering their expectations for this coming election.
Me? This your war, and obama's war. You are the one running headlong into a war where you can't identify the problem or the enemy. Way to go Zack Morris.
Actually, numerous Republicans have penned breathless essays about how we should rush headlong into war with no strategy. McCain is one of the more prominent ones, for example.
Palin does not tell me to look after my brother when she doesn't look after hers. She is not fundamentally a hypocrite, like obama is.
Palin likes to talk about her wholesome Christian values and cultivates a phony image of being a political agent for change in order to empty the wallets of gullible rural people. She is dishonest, sleazy, petty, and vindictive. She rails against the evils of looking after one's brother while quietly using Federal programs to provide healthcare for her children. A cursory review of her family and its numerous pathologies is enough to demonstrate the hypocrisy of her carefully crafted media personality.

But it's great entertainment! Yeeee-haw!
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Doc »

Zack Morris wrote:
Mr. Perfect wrote:
Zack Morris wrote: Sure you can. Point is, the US has never figured out how to satisfactorily win these kinds of conflicts. Arguably, no state has.
Winning wars is not particularly hard, how to win a war goes way back to the beginning of civilization. You wipe out the other side.
No, that's genocide. Relatively few wars have been truly genocidal. Historically, most wars have been won by defeating an opposing army, thereby forcing the political leadership to capitulate, or allowing the enemy's political structure to be replaced entirely, even absorbed into the victor's. It's easiest when there is an existing, compatible political structure that can be interfaced with. This is how empires were historically built. And even then, wars did not necessarily end decisively but were followed by continuous challenges to the imperialists for decades or centuries that had to be dealt with over and over and over again, requiring a perpetual military and political presence.

That's going to be really tricky here where there is no coherent nation state or civilization that can be identified. Indeed, this whole problem is about the region trying to establish a political order in the first place.
Not knowing these simple facts of life is why US citizens are abandoning you and embracing me in droves.
The power of imagination. Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, Republicans have been relegated to a whites-only party and are nervously lowering their expectations for this coming election.
Me? This your war, and obama's war. You are the one running headlong into a war where you can't identify the problem or the enemy. Way to go Zack Morris.
Actually, numerous Republicans have penned breathless essays about how we should rush headlong into war with no strategy. McCain is one of the more prominent ones, for example.
Really>
Democrats SOP of going to war.

1)Send in military trainers

2)When that doesn't work let the military trainers go into combat

3)When that doesn't work send in special forces

4)When that doesn't work send in a limited number of troops

5)When that doesn't work create an "incident" to get approval to send in a massive number of troops Carefully managing what they do from the Washington.

6)When that doesn't work bug out.

Of course Obama he has pretty much ignored getting congressional authorization for any of the above and now he is in repeat mode.

The Iraq war was won. Obama pull the rug out and now it is a terrible mess. How many millions of dead do you suppose there will be once Obama leaves office? (Assuming that he does leave office after the 2016 elections if they are even held)

Obama is saying he is going to create immigration law himself without congress. What a lesson to teach millions of illegal aliens. That dictatorial powers are setting them 'free' :roll:
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Zack Morris »

Doc wrote: Really>
Democrats SOP of going to war.

1)Send in military trainers

2)When that doesn't work let the military trainers go into combat

3)When that doesn't work send in special forces

4)When that doesn't work send in a limited number of troops

5)When that doesn't work create an "incident" to get approval to send in a massive number of troops Carefully managing what they do from the Washington.

6)When that doesn't work bug out.
How is this a Democrat thing? This sounds like standard operating procedure for the DC foreign policy establishment.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Doc »

Zack Morris wrote:
Doc wrote: Really>
Democrats SOP of going to war.

1)Send in military trainers

2)When that doesn't work let the military trainers go into combat

3)When that doesn't work send in special forces

4)When that doesn't work send in a limited number of troops

5)When that doesn't work create an "incident" to get approval to send in a massive number of troops Carefully managing what they do from the Washington.

6)When that doesn't work bug out.
How is this a Democrat thing? This sounds like standard operating procedure for the DC foreign policy establishment.
I would disagree in that the Democrats except for FDR all went to war half A%%ed. Reagan Bush I sent in over whelming fire power when they went to war. Bush II did not back into war but did it on a budget. Largely because his father and Clinton gutted the Military/
Wilson's campaign slogans for reelection 6 months before US entry into WWI "He kept us out of war" "He proved the pen mightier than the sword."
As opposed to:
Roosevelt's campaign slogan 1944 "We are going to win this war and the peace that follows"

Do note the "Win the peace" part that is really important. George Bush warned about its importance in his warning about the Leftist-incompetence complex in 2007

84ukJlcpqEY

Interestingly the winning Democrats since LBJ have all campaigned on "Change" Do they expect to campaign on "change" eternally?
A Leader, For a Change - Jimmy Carter
For People, for a Change — 1992 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Bill Clinton
It's Time to Change America — a theme of the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign of Bill Clinton
"Change We Can Believe In." Also, simply: "Change." — 2008 US presidential campaign slogan of Barack Obama during the primaries
.

Code: Select all

"Change We Need." and "Change." - 2008 U.S. presidential campaign slogan of Barack Obama during the general election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U. ... ogans#1916
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by YMix »

Doc wrote:
Wilson's campaign slogans for reelection 6 months before US entry into WWI "He kept us out of war" "He proved the pen mightier than the sword."
As opposed to:
Roosevelt's campaign slogan 1944 "We are going to win this war and the peace that follows"
Come on, you can't compare a pre-war slogan (Wilson's) with a mid-war slogan (Roosevelt's). Especially since Wilson knew very well that the people of the USA wanted no part of the European war. Roosevelt was faced with the same situation, which is why he had to goad Japan into attacking.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Doc »

YMix wrote:
Doc wrote:
Wilson's campaign slogans for reelection 6 months before US entry into WWI "He kept us out of war" "He proved the pen mightier than the sword."
As opposed to:
Roosevelt's campaign slogan 1944 "We are going to win this war and the peace that follows"
Come on, you can't compare a pre-war slogan (Wilson's) with a mid-war slogan (Roosevelt's). Especially since Wilson knew very well that the people of the USA wanted no part of the European war. Roosevelt was faced with the same situation, which is why he had to goad Japan into attacking.

Wilson had opportunities to go to war long before he made that slogan. Two year prior the Germans sunk the Lusitania resulting in many American deaths. Wilson did not go to war to fight the Germans so much and he went to war to protect the interests of the Robber Barrons First he was for no arms sells to Europe Then he was for arms sells on a cash and carry basis. But since the British had a very effective blockade of Germany the only major buyers were Britain and France. When they started running out of money Wilson was told the Economy would collapse because the British and French would no longer buy arms. SO Wilson allowed arms sales on credit. Only when it looked like the British and French were going to lose the war and the argument was made that the economy was going to collapse again because of all the money owed via robber Barons salesdid Wilson decide to go to war. That is as "backing into war" as it gets.

Then after the war the only country to pay the US back was Finland.

The British were extremely clever BTW in that they made JP Morgan their purchasing agent for North America and insisted that he throw plenty of business John D Rockefeller's way.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by YMix »

Doc wrote:Wilson had opportunities to go to war long before he made that slogan. Two year prior the Germans sunk the Lusitania resulting in many American deaths. Wilson did not go to war to fight the Germans so much and he went to war to protect the interests of the Robber Barrons First he was for no arms sells to Europe Then he was for arms sells on a cash and carry basis. But since the British had a very effective blockade of Germany the only major buyers were Britain and France. When they started running out of money Wilson was told the Economy would collapse because the British and French would no longer buy arms. SO Wilson allowed arms sales on credit. Only when it looked like the British and French were going to lose the war and the argument was made that the economy was going to collapse again because of all the money owed via robber Barons salesdid Wilson decide to go to war. That is as "backing into war" as it gets.

Then after the war the only country to pay the US back was Finland.

The British were extremely clever BTW in that they made JP Morgan their purchasing agent for North America and insisted that he throw plenty of business John D Rockefeller's way.
It's not about opportunities, but support. Wilson had to wait for his reelection before joining the war because he knew the people were dead set against it. Wilson went to war for a bunch of reasons and we could spend weeks discussing which were the crucial ones and why. And my opinion is that it was a deliberate decision on his part. He did not back into war, he was not dragged into war. He was spoiling for it from the beginning, at least for self-aggrandizement if nothing else.
Wilson had still another reason for endorsing the Republican large policy. Quite simply, it would give future American presidents something large and glorious to do. According to Wilson the most important advantage of the Republican "plunge into international politics and into the administration of distant dependencies" was the "greatly increased power and opportunity for constructive statesmanship given the President" by that plunge. This was to be perhaps the most revealing statement Wilson ever made, for it invoked a standard of political judgment that foreshadowed his entire future career. It was not a standard he shared with his countrymen. Americans are not in the habit of judging a national policy by its personal advantage to their president. Nor are they in the habit of considering themselves and their country as mere instruments in a president's quest for glory. It is the last thing that would enter the mind of most Americans, whatever their political views. Yet that judgment, so antithetical to the entire republican tradition in America, came readily to Woodrow Wilson, who was to become the first American president to look upon the United States of America as a stepping-stone to personal greatness.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Doc »

YMix wrote:
Doc wrote:Wilson had opportunities to go to war long before he made that slogan. Two year prior the Germans sunk the Lusitania resulting in many American deaths. Wilson did not go to war to fight the Germans so much and he went to war to protect the interests of the Robber Barrons First he was for no arms sells to Europe Then he was for arms sells on a cash and carry basis. But since the British had a very effective blockade of Germany the only major buyers were Britain and France. When they started running out of money Wilson was told the Economy would collapse because the British and French would no longer buy arms. SO Wilson allowed arms sales on credit. Only when it looked like the British and French were going to lose the war and the argument was made that the economy was going to collapse again because of all the money owed via robber Barons salesdid Wilson decide to go to war. That is as "backing into war" as it gets.

Then after the war the only country to pay the US back was Finland.

The British were extremely clever BTW in that they made JP Morgan their purchasing agent for North America and insisted that he throw plenty of business John D Rockefeller's way.
It's not about opportunities, but support. Wilson had to wait for his reelection before joining the war because he knew the people were dead set against it. Wilson went to war for a bunch of reasons and we could spend weeks discussing which were the crucial ones and why. And my opinion is that it was a deliberate decision on his part. He did not back into war, he was not dragged into war. He was spoiling for it from the beginning, at least for self-aggrandizement if nothing else.
Wilson had still another reason for endorsing the Republican large policy. Quite simply, it would give future American presidents something large and glorious to do. According to Wilson the most important advantage of the Republican "plunge into international politics and into the administration of distant dependencies" was the "greatly increased power and opportunity for constructive statesmanship given the President" by that plunge. This was to be perhaps the most revealing statement Wilson ever made, for it invoked a standard of political judgment that foreshadowed his entire future career. It was not a standard he shared with his countrymen. Americans are not in the habit of judging a national policy by its personal advantage to their president. Nor are they in the habit of considering themselves and their country as mere instruments in a president's quest for glory. It is the last thing that would enter the mind of most Americans, whatever their political views. Yet that judgment, so antithetical to the entire republican tradition in America, came readily to Woodrow Wilson, who was to become the first American president to look upon the United States of America as a stepping-stone to personal greatness.
I would submit that the statement above fully supports what I am saying. Wilson was a dupe. The Term "Yankee go home" was first used towards him in the Paris Peace talks after the war. He backed into that war because he thought he could get what he wanted afterwards. Namely his 14 points and the league of nations. Which were in and of themselves laudable goals. Even if they were highly unrealistic. Americans at the time hated him for his failed idealism. They went to war believing that they were contributing in "making the world safe for democracy" After the peace of Paris they realized that they had been swindled. Wilson had been lead around by the nose.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
YMix
Posts: 4631
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:53 am
Location: Department of Congruity - Report any outliers here

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by YMix »

Doc wrote:I would submit that the statement above fully supports what I am saying. Wilson was a dupe. The Term "Yankee go home" was first used towards him in the Paris Peace talks after the war. He backed into that war because he thought he could get what he wanted afterwards. Namely his 14 points and the league of nations. Which were in and of themselves laudable goals. Even if they were highly unrealistic. Americans at the time hated him for his failed idealism. They went to war believing that they were contributing in "making the world safe for democracy" After the peace of Paris they realized that they had been swindled. Wilson had been lead around by the nose.
I disagree. "Failed idealism" sounds to me like the typical propagandistic view of US history. It's another aspect of: "Regardless of what we've done, we always meant well. We are slightly idealistic and it leads us into trouble, but we are honest and our presidents are good". Nope. The people hated Wilson for lying, for starting a war hysteria and a witch hunt, for dragging them into a war they did not want on the side of England no less, USA's old enemy.
“There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent? Take a look at what we’ve done, too.” - Donald J. Trump, President of the USA
The Kushner sh*t is greasy - Stevie B.
User avatar
Zack Morris
Posts: 2837
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 8:52 am
Location: Bayside High School

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Zack Morris »

Doc wrote: I would disagree in that the Democrats except for FDR all went to war half A%%ed. Reagan Bush I sent in over whelming fire power when they went to war. Bush II did not back into war but did it on a budget. Largely because his father and Clinton gutted the Military/
Wow, what a bunch of confused nonsense. Let's just conveniently ignore the Truman administration and Korea, the Eisenhower administration and Vietnam, the Reagan administration and Afghanistan, the more than a decade of "containment" in Iraq started by Bush, Somalia under Bush and Clinton, etc.

Nothing has really fundamentally changed between Presidential administrations. There are multiple layers of deeply entrenched public and private organizations (the DoD, State Department, various think tanks and consultancies, CIA, etc.) that determine how the US interacts with the rest of the world. For a light introduction to the topic, I recommend Andrew Bacevich's "Washington Rules". After being whipped in Vietnam, the US military deliberately decided to ignore grappling with the unpleasant messiness of counterinsurgency and refocused itself on what it likes the most: conventional warfare. Tank battles in open space and air superiority. It's not surprising to anyone why Iraq was a complete and utter failure. The US foreign policy establishment does not understand strategy. And the American public certainly doesn't care -- every decade or two it and becomes impressed with saber-rattling and flashy investments in jets and ships.
Do note the "Win the peace" part that is really important. George Bush warned about its importance in his warning about the Leftist-incompetence complex in 2007
That's a nice slogan. If only there was some substance behind it.
Interestingly the winning Democrats since LBJ have all campaigned on "Change" Do they expect to campaign on "change" eternally?
Why not? You can stick to "Winning the Peace" and Democrats can promise "Change".
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12607
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Doc »

YMix wrote:
Doc wrote:I would submit that the statement above fully supports what I am saying. Wilson was a dupe. The Term "Yankee go home" was first used towards him in the Paris Peace talks after the war. He backed into that war because he thought he could get what he wanted afterwards. Namely his 14 points and the league of nations. Which were in and of themselves laudable goals. Even if they were highly unrealistic. Americans at the time hated him for his failed idealism. They went to war believing that they were contributing in "making the world safe for democracy" After the peace of Paris they realized that they had been swindled. Wilson had been lead around by the nose.
I disagree. "Failed idealism" sounds to me like the typical propagandistic view of US history. It's another aspect of: "Regardless of what we've done, we always meant well. We are slightly idealistic and it leads us into trouble, but we are honest and our presidents are good". Nope. The people hated Wilson for lying, for starting a war hysteria and a witch hunt, for dragging them into a war they did not want on the side of England no less, USA's old enemy.
Ymix, That is what I said. IN not so many words of course But I do agree with you, Even the part about it being beneficial to Wilson personally. Even if it turned into a complete failure from his perspective.

Presidents that do not know what they are doing back into wars that they do not understand. Wilson believed that people over seas think like he did. That it was only governments getting in the way. That he only had to convince governments that it was good for the people with out ever asking people what they felt was good for them. People like governments do what they feel is in their interests. If it is killing you then you have to convince them it is not worth it Not worth the suffering they will have to go through to kill you. If it is changing the way they are governed Like in having a democratically elected government then you have to convince them that is better. You have to make them understand that the minorities have to be protected if only because they might find themselves in teh minority at some point in the future. It takes time to do that. How long of US troops been in Europe? Japan? South Korea? Bosnia? How long were they in.... Iraq?

Bush called it exactly what would happen if troops left Iraq too soon in 2007. What would happen if we fail in Iraq. That is indisputable:

84ukJlcpqEY
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Mr. Perfect
Posts: 16973
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 9:35 am

Re: POTUS Obama | Pro and Con

Post by Mr. Perfect »

Zack Morris wrote: No, that's genocide. Relatively few wars have been truly genocidal. Historically, most wars have been won by defeating an opposing army, thereby forcing the political leadership to capitulate, or allowing the enemy's political structure to be replaced entirely, even absorbed into the victor's.
Same thing. I'm trying to speak in an emotionally intelligent way vs an Asperger way. "Wiping out" means decisive victory where the defeated give up. Often that includes large civilian death numbers.
It's easiest when there is an existing, compatible political structure that can be interfaced with. This is how empires were historically built. And even then, wars did not necessarily end decisively but were followed by continuous challenges to the imperialists for decades or centuries that had to be dealt with over and over and over again, requiring a perpetual military and political presence.
Yup, that's how to not do it, and that is the method you Democrats have adopted. Way to go Democrats.
That's going to be really tricky
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D

You crack me up Zack Morris. Brand new to the ME. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
here where there is no coherent nation state or civilization that can be identified. Indeed, this whole problem is about the region trying to establish a political order in the first place.
No that is not the problem.
The power of imagination. Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, Republicans have been relegated to a whites-only party and are nervously lowering their expectations for this coming election.
The power of polling. I know you get very little information in your lo info bunker, but for those of us in fact rich environment it just keeps getting better and better to be Republican.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/10/m ... op-issues/
Republicans lead on issues such as national defense (+38) and the federal deficit (+18), both highs for this series — but those issues are more relevant in polling. Even more relevant than those are the economy, for which Republicans have a +10 advantage. In the 2006 midterms, Democrats had a +13 advantage. On taxes, Republicans have a narrow edge at +4. On the issues that matter most to voters in this cycle — the economy, taxes, national security — Republicans are peaking while Democrats are fading.

Even more surprising is a new Republican edge on immigration. That has flipped from a D+5 to an R+7 over the last nine months, no doubt fueled by the present border crisis and the lack of action to stem it from the Obama administration. Nor is that the only erosion seen in the traditional Democratic positions on immigration. Support for amnesty for long-term illegal residents has dropped from 64% in April 2013 to 53% this month — still a majority, but a significant drop. Even the conditional comprehensive reform proposal to normalize those who pay fines and pass background checks has dimmed slightly. Only 32% strongly favor the approach, down from 39% in April 2013, although the overall favorable response has only dropped four points in the same period. If Democrats hoped to change the subject to immigration in this general election, Obama cut their legs out from underneath them, but it may not have made much of a difference anyway.
Who is looking nervous Zack Morris? Looks like MSNBC is looking nervous.

msgGegDhOd0

The thing about the bunker Zack Morris is that eventually you're going to get pried out of it. And it hurts.

I bet this hurts.
Republicans Expand Edge as Better Party Against Terrorism
GOP also holds advantage as party better able to keep country prosperous

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- The Republican Party has expanded its historical edge over the Democratic Party in Americans' minds as being better able to protect the U.S. from international terrorism and military threats. At this point, 55% of Americans choose the GOP on this dimension, while 32% choose the Democratic Party. This is the widest Republican advantage in Gallup's history of asking this question since 2002.
Image
Actually, numerous Republicans have penned breathless essays about how we should rush headlong into war with no strategy. McCain is one of the more prominent ones, for example.
Interesting how you've become just like the neocons that you hate. Psychologists tell us we often become like what we hate. I've never understood that but we have a good case of it here. You and McCain on the same baby killing page.
Palin likes to talk about her wholesome Christian values and cultivates a phony image of being a political agent for change in order to empty the wallets of gullible rural people. She is dishonest, sleazy, petty, and vindictive. She rails against the evils of looking after one's brother while quietly using Federal programs to provide healthcare for her children. A cursory review of her family and its numerous pathologies is enough to demonstrate the hypocrisy of her carefully crafted media personality.
In your imagination I'm sure. Why you guys hater women so much is hard for me to get, but I'm sure the karma will get you soon. Maybe this November.
But it's great entertainment! Yeeee-haw!
I think that's all Democrats are good for anymore. Not serious thought or national leadership.
Censorship isn't necessary
Post Reply