Because he has managed to improve this country in spite of every effort the repubs have nade to stand in the way of recovery. If his policies were so damned bad for this country the repubs would allow them to show that they have no possiblity of success. Instead they fear them and stand in the way of every effort to pull this country out of the desperate situation Bush and his band of religious fanatics put us in.
"If his policies were so damned bad for this country the repubs would allow them to show that they have no possiblity of success."
What would you like them to do?
Maybe all the republican candidates can drop out of the races so he can continue to make a mess of things.
Oh, oh I know we could just make him ruler of America and when he dies pass control over to one of his kids.
Or maybe, vote these idiots out of office before they ruin any more of our economy.
That sounds good, we'll do that.
Buh bye democrats.
How could the Republicans have stopped the Dems from doing what they wanted when they had a majority in both houses of Congress?
They could have passed anything they wanted no matter how much opposition the other side gave them. The Dems just didn't have the back bone after they spend so much time on Obamacare then saw how much a majority of the country hated it and them.
Come November 2nd, the Dems majority will be gone.
Obama will be even more lame than he is now. He will go down in history as the worst president this country has ever had and that's as it should be. Not an easy task considering Carter was horrible. Carter's legacy?
"At least I wasn't as bad as Obama."
Once the Republicans get in they better heed the word of the American people. If they don't realize they work of US, they'll be looking for work elsewhere. That doesn't mean the Dems will get back in. It means we'll elect TRUE conservatives.
And for the love of God, Stump, get past Bush. Seek help. Do something but get past Bush and move on with your life. You'll be much healthier for it.
"If his policies were so damned bad for this country the repubs would allow them to show that they have no possiblity of success."
Wait, what? That's about the most bass-ackwards reasoning I've ever heard, and I've been reading Reality Bytes' posts lately.
If the opposition opposes his policies, then it's their duty to try to stop those policies.
Of course, the policies of the GOP lately have been pretty much this: use every trick in the book to try to block anything Obama wants, and at election time, try to point out how ineffectual the Democrats have been. But as of now, Obama has a better get-stuff-done record than any president since Lyndon Johnson, and the economy is back on-track. Pretty good for only two years.
But as usual, the Dems suck at tooting their own horns. I won't be surprised if they lose control of both houses. Saddened, disappointed, but not surprised.
How many Americans like Obama's Rule? Hmmmmm, I didn't know he ruled. Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
Obama does not "rule!"
He is the "titular" head of a nation.
Our "forefathers" planned it that way.
No single facet of American gov't can "rule!"
If one should try, we, the armed "militia" will rise and return sanity and the "freedom" our forefathers created, to our nation!
Let no man take your gun!!
On a personal level I have no doubt I would really like Obama. That is why he is so frustrating. I can't stand the choices in his cabinet, although I can almost tolerate Hillary. And I like his policymaking and world apology tours less.
Because of the amazing amount he's accomplished in two years.
1. Prevented a depression.
2. Passed banking and consumer protection reform.
3. Passed health care reform which every Democrat president since Truman has tried but failed to do.
4. Restarted Palesitne peace talks and nuclear disarmament negotiations which Bush neglected.
5. Began the process of repairing relations with our allies and other countries which were damaged by Bush's foolish invasion of Iraq, torture, etc. Cooperation is the key to dealing with terrorism.
Why don't you like him?
6. Pulled 50,000 troops out of Iraq as promised.
7. Escalated in Afghanistan as promised. (I don't agree with this.)
8. Kicked the Evangelical Christians out of policy making positions in his administration, restoring the separation of church and state.
The only thing Obama and the Dem-led Congress has accomplished is spending me, you, our children, and our grandchildren in oblivion.
1. He has prevented anything yet and if it wasn't for his party and yours we wouldn't have been in this mess to be begin with, i.e. the Freddy Mae and Freddy Mac debacle.
2. The banking and consumer protection reforms will do nothing but benefit the government, not the people.
3. A majority of Americans don't want Obamacare and it will either be repealed or at least defunded. Face it, Deeds, you're in the minority of this one.
4. Palestinian Peace Talks will fall apart again as they always do. Those people are barbarians living in the 12th Century. They don't want peace. They just want to kill as many Jews as possible. Is that what you're for as well?
5. The only thing Obama has accomplished in repairing our relations with other nations is bowing far enough to see his reflection clearly in the other leader's shoes. An American President should NEVER bow to anyone - PERIOD. He has done nothing but project the image once again that we're the paper tiger we were during the Clinton administration.
6. You might be surprised to know I didn't fully agree with the Iraq War but, if we're going to get into one, lets go in to win, not screw everything up with political correctness. Go in, kick the crap out of the enemy, then come home. That's the way things should be done.
7. He only sent a portion of the troops requested in to Afghanistan and it took him months to do that. He's weak in oh so many ways but on this one, he was the worst.
8. This one amazes me the most. With the way Obama is screwing everything up, the only thing that's going to save us is prayer and lots of it. Also, please tell me where in the U.S. Constitution the separation of church and state is mentioned. Oh, WAIT, I'll save you the trouble. IT'S NOT IN THERE, DEEDS.
Today is November 1st and I can't wait for tomorrow, Election Day. I'm hoping and, just to piss you off, praying it'll be like a mid-Fall Independence Day, where it's so bad for your side that Pelosi quits and goes home. That would be just like a typical Liberal. Just take your ball and go home.
"if it wasn't for his party and yours we wouldn't have been in this mess to be begin with, i.e. the Freddy Mae and Freddy Mac debacle."
Um, that whole debacle happened because of unregulated trading of mortgage-backed securities, which incentivized reckless lending, since the original lender was able to hide how risky the loan was and sell it down the road to unsuspecting investors.
"The banking and consumer protection reforms will do nothing but benefit the government, not the people."
The banking and consumer protection reforms will do nothing. There, fixed it for you.
"A majority of Americans don't want Obamacare and it will either be repealed or at least defunded. Face it, Deeds, you're in the minority of this one."
We wanted it before the republicans messed with it. Now it isn't as good as it would have been. The majority of Americans wanted health care reform which included a government option. We didn't get it, and that's the disappointment.
"Those people are barbarians living in the 12th Century. They don't want peace." No, they want their land back. That's the challenge: to figure out an equitable solution to the problem of two groups with claim to the same soil.
"He has done nothing but project the image once again that we're the paper tiger we were during the Clinton administration."
Life was pretty good during the Clinton Administration.
"if we're going to get into one, lets go in to win, not screw everything up with political correctness"
Or no strategy beyond "Invade and wait for the spontaneous outpouring of gratitude?"
"He only sent a portion of the troops requested in to Afghanistan and it took him months to do that." He sent what he promised, and did it quicker than the last guy did.
"With the way Obama is screwing everything up, the only thing that's going to save us is prayer and lots of it."
I'm glad you think that. I hope that you and everyone else who shares this view spends all of election day in devout prayer.
"That would be just like a typical Liberal. Just take your ball and go home."
Like the former Gov. of Alaska did? What was her name again?
Sorry to disappoint you, Jeff, but I've already voted in early voting. Most everyone I know have as well. Tomorrow I will send one up that this country will be turned around and set back on the course it needs to be on.
The one we're on now certainly isn't it.
Hopefully and PRAYERFULLY, we'll make Obama a lame duck for the last two years of his only term and then he and Michelle Antoinette can do what they do best - go on vacation.
"Sorry to disappoint you, Jeff, but I've already voted in early voting."
Oh, well. I can't have everything. Where would I put it?
"Tomorrow I will send one up that this country will be turned around and set back on the course it needs to be on.
The one we're on now certainly isn't it."
Well, how certain are you? Because sometimes when we pray, we get not the answer we want, but rather the answer we need.
Certainty doesn't equal rightness.
Vacation. Okay. I'm sure you gave the last guy a lot of grief for all of his vacation time, right?
I'm ok with Obama on vacation.
I prefer he goes on vacation.
"The only thing Obama and the Dem-led Congress has accomplished is spending me, you, our children, and our grandchildren in oblivion."
You should take an elementary economics course. And take another look at the Constitution.
Deeds, again, tell me where in the Constitution it says anything about the separation church and state. You can't because it's not there.
but isn't it obvious...chruch has nothing to do with goerance and government has no business whom one worships...so separation is natural and forward way...
The phrase "separation of church and state" is not in there, no.
What is in there is a complete absence of any mention of god whatsoever, a mandate that no religious test shall be required as a qualification to hold office in the US (which, by the way, opens the door to Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and Atheists alike), and a prohibition against creating an official state religion.
Thank you, Jeff, and I can only hope Deeds reads your reply. Maybe he'll believe you. He refuses to believe me simply because we disagree politically.
You're also correct that God isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Hopefully not but you and Deeds may be surprised to know I agree that the Constitution should NOT mandate a "religious test shall be required as a qualification to hold office in the U.S." as you put it. Let me make something perfectly clear here - I couldn't care less if Obama is or is not a Muslim. He has freedom of religion in this country and I would no more want someone infringing on his religious rights than I would my own.
The thing that does bother me and should you and Deeds as well, in an effort to be fair and equal, is the same people who scream about this in support for Obama possibly being Muslim do nothing but smear and put down George W. Bush because he professed to be Christian. He isn't the only one as evident by the numbers below going through President Clinton.
Disciples of Christ 3
Dutch Reformed 2
Jehovah's Witness 1
Obama has professed to be Christian as well. Where are the words of ridicule of his profession of faith? Are these words absent simply because he has a "D" next to his name? How shallow!!!
A president's profession of faith under the mandate you acknowledge is something he should be able to profess freely. I for one am glad our presidents look for something bigger than themselves to rely upon. It will be good to get back to that.
We obviously don't have that now in President Obama.
"The thing that does bother me and should you and Deeds as well, in an effort to be fair and equal, is the same people who scream about this in support for Obama possibly being Muslim do nothing but smear and put down George W. Bush because he professed to be Christian."
Oh, agreed, to a point. Plenty of idiots dogged on W merely because he was a Christian and talked about it fairly often. That didn't bother me at all, just like it doesn't bother me when someone I know personally talks about their faith.
But W crossed a line, IMO, with his "faith-based initiatives." Giving money to churches so they can do good works is dangerously close to establishing a state religion. One of the reasons for the establishment clause is so that you don't have to pay taxes to support my church, and I don't have to pay taxes to support yours. And then W decided that if a faith based program wanted to fire you for not sharing their faith, they could, even if they received federal funding.
Now, I'm all for letting Catholic Social Services hire only Catholics. They're a religious organization, and stopping them from hiring only Catholics is an infringement on their free exercise of religion and their freedom of association. But if they get federal funding, that comes with (or ought to come with) the mandate that they can't discriminate based on religion.
That's my problem with W; not that he is a Christian, but that he tried to create some kind of privileged status for Christians.
I don't do forums because they confuse me, I don't know a thread from a piece of string.
My opinion is that Obama and the Democrats have the same mentality and success as his political brother Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who gave us the Social Security Ponzi scheme that Obama now wants to suck dry and give it the death trolls. I made that last word becaouse I liked the way it sounded.
Anyway, passing laws and making admin appointments are not accomplishments, and the economy after two bailouts is still pathetic and the unemployment is still high. With all of the bailout money pretty well gone, the stimilus is alive but the patient is dead.
And for those that say the republicans are opposing democrat progress, have them take a look at how the democrats played with the republicans when the republicans owned the court. They did the very same things they are accusing the republicans of doing.
Don't you know it is good politics when the Dems do it.
It tis a party of hypocrites!
"I made that last word becaouse I liked the way it sounded."
Yeah, that's pretty much been the strategy of the Right these past couple years.
I do. I love him as President. I can't stand the Senate, the ill informed reactionary Glenn Beckers, or the Democrats who want to play re-election rather than taking their opportunity to make a difference in the future of our country, and Republicans, but yes...I love Barrack Obama as President of the United States. I am proud that I am alive in a time where this man served.
Obama doesn't rule..that was Cheney who wanted the Unitary Executive....remember?? God--your memories are short.
But I can very well see Palin, or Gingrich going for the Unitary Executive thing.
And Obama cannot "do whatever he wants", nor can the Dems. There is such a thing called Filibuster, which the Repubs have used in record amounts since BO took office. The Dems need 60 votes in the Senate to get anything through. Remember? And so far, 290 bills are stalled in the Senate, and 80% of Obama's Cabinet nominations are being blocked...
That is not legislating, that is obstructing gvt.
And don't think this LMC cant' figure out what their skanky plan is.
Should the R's win seats,they will go forward with the Dems plans, as if they were their own. Dems will have no choice but to go along, since they actually CARE about America, and the R's will take all the credit. They are slime-balls, pure and simple. Skanky slime balls IMO. And I'm being polite.
Look, I am just as annoyed with the GOP's stonewalling as you are, but I need to point this out: Obama and the Democrats have a bigger majority now than what the Republicans had under W in his first term, and W did whatever the heck he wanted to.
Either the dems are trying to be too nice (they did promise to reach across the aisle, after all) or they're just inept. I hope they were trying to be nice, but fear that they're inept.
Which leads me to the next question: which is the better choice for me? An inept person trying to do what I see as right, or an effective person trying to do what I see as wrong?
There is such a thing called Filibuster, which the Repubs have used in record amounts since BO took office.
What legislation did the GOP filibuster?
are you kidding me? they have 290 bills just sitting there needing approval. all the employees that the pres requested and much more. they have bottle necked the gov't and for no reason other than to make it appears as though the pres was failing.now after election day, they will be "forced" to work with the pres or show the people that they truly(just like we say) do nothing. i can't wait to see how they smuggly side up with the pres. what lies will they tell now to save face? this is gonna be fun to watch
"they will be "forced" to work with the pres"
Its nice to see you are conceding defeat.
But, you have that backwards.
Obama will have to work with them.
Or veto everything they pass.
Can't believe I'm saying this but Obama is no Bill Clinton.
JIM- historically, ... "historically"..."THAT'S HISTORICALLY" JIM the house changes to the opposite of the president in the mid-term. so whatever it is that you think you may be doing you actually have nothing to do with, except for the noise!
look and see how much Obama accomplished singlehandedly. imagine, it will be twice as much now.
You have been watching way too much MSNBC if you think this is just business as usual.
don't belive me go and check it! check it for your self then come back and give me ahms!
I'm not debating the historical fact just the reason this time around.
the reason is always the same jim. it's to prevent ( so to speak) a dictatorship. the people vote in the pres, then they vote in an opposing house. w's mid term election did the same, clinton and right on down the line.
what you will find is that they never speak of the good of a good pres.they always say he was terrible. and the ones that were terrible they say were great. e.g.reagan- horrible.cut the taxes left the country broke and in a recession just like now. they say he's great. clinton- stimulated the economy, boy did he do things and then not only paid off the debt but left it in surplus. if you look in history books or something like that then you will find the truth but if you listen to tv shows either they won't say or they say it opposite. i don't think this time around w. is gonna get the same treatment because he messed up horribly, the worst, but they will still try to make him seam great later!
Actually that happened to W in his second term.
The reason is to prevent a dictatorship?
Its interesting to me you chose those words.
This is a vote against Obama and his loony policies....Period
ok then you coulsd say the same for everyone. because they have "ALL" said the exact same things each time. do you know what rhetoric means?
You could and you would be right about 85% of the time.
This falls into the 15% of genuine dislike for the man and his loony policies.
oh i see lets see that has been said" every single race" ha ha ha
there's only two ways to do it. in this country. thats do it, or not. republicans "ALWAYS" choose, not! that is why they are called the party of no. you think that they are against abortion? they could care less. if you ask them to do anything other than get money, they just say "NO" always! and the people think that they are against i. they are for the status quo in other words leave it like it was. don't do anything, just make more money. that would be great if it worked like that. . . but it doesn't and someone "has" to step in. 'course they don't step in , they get voted in. the public sees the need for someone to get some money, then the public will see a need to make repairs. because each time you have two candidates, one from each philosophy. they stand on a shelf and the people pick them from the shelf, or not based on the countrys needs
Since the Democrats could have passed any legislation without a Republican vote, Why didn't they.
Can you show proof of a Republican filibuster under the Obama Regime!
"290 bills are stalled in the Senate, and 80% of Obama's Cabinet nominations are being blocked..."
A little something called google, if you really want to know...it's all there in black and white.
But as a person who reads people....I see skank written all over this crowd of GOPsters.
Like you have to take a shower after being around them...you know what I mean?
I don't like him as president. The Big Nope sucks at it. Why do you think the Demoncruds are losing?
What I like about Obama:
1. he reads well
2. he's a wonderful father
3. he kept his campaign promise to get the girls a dog
4. I honestly think he's a nice guy
(My list of things I don't like is significantly longer.)
well his popularity is dipping so i think that answers everything...but to be fair with obama anyone seating on hot seat with kind of issues which usa faces might have ended being as less popular as obama is currently...
"This post continues a list of bills that were passed by Democrats in Congress, and blocked by ALL of the Republicans in the Senate. Most of these bills had zero Republican votes in the House; a few of them had a handful of votes. A couple of them were even proposed by a Republican in the House. But every single one of these bills is being blocked by every single Republican in the Senate, all of whom are working in lockstep to prevent a vote. Keep in mind, there are enough Democrats willing to vote for these bills, most if not all of these bills could be law right now, if Republicans – ALL of them – weren’t using procedural measures to prevent the vote." ...per Milt Shook
http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/mai … rs.html#tp
Rachel Maddow does. On her show tonight she listed an amazing number of accomplishments by the Dem Senate and House and Obama in the past couple of years. I hope somebody puts it on YouTube. It was quite a list.
Well, if you are in love with government and subscribe to the notion that government provides the answer to all our problems, Obama is your guy.
If you believe in the power of the free market, smaller and more limited government, a strong national defense, and a nation committed to the idea of individual freedoms and personal responsibility, then you're pretty much screwed......
BTW, wasn't it Valerie Jarrett who made the claim that Obama would "be ready to rule on day one".
I think the man really does see himself as a ruler as opposed to a leader......
Minor point of correction, Longhunter.
Rachel Maddow is a female.
by Steven Escareno 8 years ago
Okay, I know this probably isn't that big of a deal to some folks, but i thought i'd bring it up anyway. On the radio the other day, I was listening to two political analysts, and one of them still insists on labeling O'Bama a moron for how he's handled things from day one of his...
by Nathan Bernardo 7 years ago
Is it not a little telling that it comes up at all? Questioning his nation of origin, and in other ways making reference to his race. It seems entirely irrelevant, though a person can definitely question many other things about his policies, and there's plenty of it to question. It seems his...
by Jack Lee 2 years ago
It has been almost a year since he left office. Though he seems to stick around DC and make his comments occasionally about policies...The question I have for all is this - what is your opinion of this President in his 8 years in office...?Overall, has he been good or bad for America?Please use...
by Rachel Woodruff 7 years ago
If the election was held tomorrow would you vote for Obama, or anyone else, and why?Television news outlets always like to ask the question if the election was held tomorrow, would voters reelect the current President or someone else. I am curious to see how the people of HubPages would vote, whom...
by Yves 5 years ago
What do you think of the Senate's vote to eliminate all filibusters for most presidential nominees?Is this decision good or balanced, or are we treading in murky waters? What's your opinion either way?
by pisean282311 7 years ago
what are ur views for this guys?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|