Did Obama DESERVE to become president??

[Cammmpbell]

Notice they have to post a list of his so called accomplishments over and over..

Not one of them have HELPED the economy or the American people..

just a list of GOVERNMENT bs.

84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters

So in your opinion, the American people would be better off if he hadn't returned this money? Note that this question requires a yes or a no or an i dunno.

Don't worry too much about it. This is the bunch who thinks when Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy then borrowed trillions from foreign banks to cover the shortfall it was a good thing. Then.....after Bill Clinton raised taxes and balanced the budget they thought it was a bad thing. Then.....after George W. Bush cut taxes twice in 2001 and again in 2003 and proceeded to double the national debt and for the first time in the nation's history began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks they think it was a good thing. They are very, very naive and foolish.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Naive

is not knowing that the Republicans controlled the House and submitted a balanced budget under Clinton

You really need some better sources than those radical leftwing web sites you must be using

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact,
it is their worst enemy

 

[FactFinder]

Did Obama DESERVE to become president??

Yes. He got the necessary votes. Period. Now, did he desreve to get all the shit he did? Just look to the current Congressional ratings.

 

[FactFinder]

Did Obama DESERVE to become president??

Yes. He got the necessary votes. Period. Now, did he desreve to get all the shit he did? Just look to the current Congressional ratings.

Oh, in that vein tell me who might win the currrent race?

 

[Neotrotsky]

Your equating of winning the vote to deserving to win,
misses the op point and is limited.

The question was not one of did Papa Obama actually win the vote.
It was one of worth. A valid question but subtle.

To equate deserving the office with just wining the vote and excluding all other factors,
is a poor attempt to be evasive of the real question.

 

[FactFinder]

Your equating of winning the vote to deserving to win,
misses the op point and is limited.

The question was not one of did Papa Obama actually win the vote.
It was one of worth. A valid question but subtle.

To equate deserving the office with just wining the vote and excluding all other factors,
is a poor attempt to be evasive of the real question.

Hardly not. He desreves the office because he won the vote just because a subversive Congress wants to be rebellious of that outcome and is suffering the overwhelming disapproval of the public for not honoring that mandate does not a valid point make. So who is being elusive and who is speaking to reality as it now stands. You need a bit of help lighting that next pipe?

 

[Oldstyle]

Naive

is not knowing that the Republicans controlled the House and submitted a balanced budget under Clinton

You really need some better sources than those radical leftwing web sites you must be using

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact,
it is their worst enemy

Clinton was a "miracle worker" as long as you overlook two things...1.) He was forced into cutting "his" budgets by the GOP controlled House. I believe at one point he submitted 3 budgets, each one substantially lower before the House would agree to one. Saying he gets credit for that is almost laughable. If he'd had his way we would have passed HillaryCare and REALLY gone into the red. 2) Clinton benefited from the Dot Com Boom. That was the reason he was able to balance the budget. Saying it was that he raised taxes on the wealthy and that we should do so now hoping for the same result is asinine. If he'd raised taxes on the rich without the Dot Com Boom the economy would have sputtered to a halt...just as it will now if you economically challenged progressives get your way.

 

[FactFinder]

Naive

is not knowing that the Republicans controlled the House and submitted a balanced budget under Clinton

You really need some better sources than those radical leftwing web sites you must be using

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact,
it is their worst enemy

Clinton was a "miracle worker" as long as you overlook two things...1.) He was forced into cutting "his" budgets by the GOP controlled House. I believe at one point he submitted 3 budgets, each one substantially lower before the House would agree to one. Saying he gets credit for that is almost laughable. If he'd had his way we would have passed HillaryCare and REALLY gone into the red. 2) Clinton benefited from the Dot Com Boom. That was the reason he was able to balance the budget. Saying it was that he raised taxes on the wealthy and that we should do so now hoping for the same result is asinine. If he'd raised taxes on the rich without the Dot Com Boom the economy would have sputtered to a halt...just as it will now if you economically challenged progressives get your way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just what does Clinton or Gingrich or the Congress of those years have to do with today?

 

[Oldstyle]

Your equating of winning the vote to deserving to win,
misses the op point and is limited.

The question was not one of did Papa Obama actually win the vote.
It was one of worth. A valid question but subtle.

To equate deserving the office with just wining the vote and excluding all other factors,
is a poor attempt to be evasive of the real question.

Hardly not. He desreves the office because he won the vote just because a subversive Congress wants to be rebellious of that outcome and is suffering the overwhelming disapproval of the public for not honoring that mandate does not a valid point make. So who is being elusive and who is speaking to reality as it now stands. You need a bit of help lighting that next pipe?

Hold on there, FactFinder...why would the Congress be "subversive" when many of them are in Congress because they were elected by the people in the mid-term elections of 2010? Don't you realize that Barack Obama lost his "mandate" with THAT election? To use his own words...elections have consequences. The 2010 mid-terms gave the GOP a mandate to stop Obama from passing anymore progressive nightmares like ObamaCare and the Stimulus. I'm sorry but THAT is reality.

 

[Oldstyle]

Naive

is not knowing that the Republicans controlled the House and submitted a balanced budget under Clinton

You really need some better sources than those radical leftwing web sites you must be using

Truth is hard for the Left
In fact,
it is their worst enemy

Clinton was a "miracle worker" as long as you overlook two things...1.) He was forced into cutting "his" budgets by the GOP controlled House. I believe at one point he submitted 3 budgets, each one substantially lower before the House would agree to one. Saying he gets credit for that is almost laughable. If he'd had his way we would have passed HillaryCare and REALLY gone into the red. 2) Clinton benefited from the Dot Com Boom. That was the reason he was able to balance the budget. Saying it was that he raised taxes on the wealthy and that we should do so now hoping for the same result is asinine. If he'd raised taxes on the rich without the Dot Com Boom the economy would have sputtered to a halt...just as it will now if you economically challenged progressives get your way.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Just what does Clinton or Gingrich or the Congress of those years have to do with today?

When progressives try to say that Clinton's ability to balance the budget back THEN was solely because he raised taxes on the wealthy...it's a dangerous distortion of what really happened. Yes, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy but he was able to do so BECAUSE of the Dot Com Boom. If you'll remember your Keynesian economic theory...the time to raise taxes is not during recessions but during booms. People like you conveniently overlook that.

 

[FactFinder]

Your equating of winning the vote to deserving to win,
misses the op point and is limited.

The question was not one of did Papa Obama actually win the vote.
It was one of worth. A valid question but subtle.

To equate deserving the office with just wining the vote and excluding all other factors,
is a poor attempt to be evasive of the real question.

Hardly not. He desreves the office because he won the vote just because a subversive Congress wants to be rebellious of that outcome and is suffering the overwhelming disapproval of the public for not honoring that mandate does not a valid point make. So who is being elusive and who is speaking to reality as it now stands. You need a bit of help lighting that next pipe?

Hold on there, FactFinder...why would the Congress be "subversive" when many of them are in Congress because they were elected by the people in the mid-term elections of 2010? Don't you realize that Barack Obama lost his "mandate" with THAT election? To use his own words...elections have consequences. The 2010 mid-terms gave the GOP a mandate to stop Obama from passing anymore progressive nightmares like ObamaCare and the Stimulus. I'm sorry but THAT is reality.

I concur that it gave them a mandate to stop extremism. It did not give them a mandate to reject him entirely. Nor did it give them mandate to just do nothing. We are a nation in need. To just be contrary is a neglect of duty. To do nothing out of rebelliousness and hatred is pitiful and unbecoming an officer & protector, & emissary of the people as to be traitourous. They all should be thrown forthwith from Congress and outcast as leches.

 

[Oldstyle]

Hardly not. He desreves the office because he won the vote just because a subversive Congress wants to be rebellious of that outcome and is suffering the overwhelming disapproval of the public for not honoring that mandate does not a valid point make. So who is being elusive and who is speaking to reality as it now stands. You need a bit of help lighting that next pipe?

Hold on there, FactFinder...why would the Congress be "subversive" when many of them are in Congress because they were elected by the people in the mid-term elections of 2010? Don't you realize that Barack Obama lost his "mandate" with THAT election? To use his own words...elections have consequences. The 2010 mid-terms gave the GOP a mandate to stop Obama from passing anymore progressive nightmares like ObamaCare and the Stimulus. I'm sorry but THAT is reality.

I concur that it gave them a mandate to stop extremism. It did not give them a mandate to reject him entirely. Nor did it give them mandate to just do nothing. We are a nation in need. To just be contrary is a neglect of duty. To do nothing out of rebelliousness and hatred is pitiful and unbecoming an officer & protector, & emissary of the people as to be traitourous. They all should be thrown forthwith from Congress and outcast as leches.

They haven't done "nothing". The GOP led House has passed quite a bit of legislation and sent it to the Senate. It's Harry Reid that's doing nothing. He's got a stack of GOP bills collecting dust on his desk. Where is your outrage over that?

 

[Oldstyle]

And you're right...we are a nation in need. We need jobs and we've needed them for four years now. So would you like to take a crack at explaining why we went after a radical revamping of health care that will cost jobs rather than concentrating on the things that would have created jobs?

 

[FactFinder]

Hold on there, FactFinder...why would the Congress be "subversive" when many of them are in Congress because they were elected by the people in the mid-term elections of 2010? Don't you realize that Barack Obama lost his "mandate" with THAT election? To use his own words...elections have consequences. The 2010 mid-terms gave the GOP a mandate to stop Obama from passing anymore progressive nightmares like ObamaCare and the Stimulus. I'm sorry but THAT is reality.

I concur that it gave them a mandate to stop extremism. It did not give them a mandate to reject him entirely. Nor did it give them mandate to just do nothing. We are a nation in need. To just be contrary is a neglect of duty. To do nothing out of rebelliousness and hatred is pitiful and unbecoming an officer & protector, & emissary of the people as to be traitourous. They all should be thrown forthwith from Congress and outcast as leches.

They haven't done "nothing". The GOP led House has passed quite a bit of legislation and sent it to the Senate. It's Harry Reid that's doing nothing. He's got a stack of GOP bills collecting dust on his desk. Where is your outrage over that?

From what I see the Senate passed a few things themselves and found them languishing in the House. Looks like they all been bad to me.

 

[FactFinder]

And you're right...we are a nation in need. We need jobs and we've needed them for four years now. So would you like to take a crack at explaining why we went after a radical revamping of health care that will cost jobs rather than concentrating on the things that would have created jobs?

Let's see.. Take a crack at that, heh? From where I sit I see pro business only House refusing to compromise on expense cuts because they will not let the Bush tax cuts expire on millionaires because that is where they get the lion's share of their reelection funds from. Sounds rather self centered to me. May they suck gutter.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Don't care If you liked his policies or not.

Do you really think someone with that shallow a resumee derserved to be elected president????????????????

No one "deserves" to be Pres.

he went out and did the work to "earn" the spot.

regardless of the fact he didn't have the basics to run a grocery store, he still was able to be the smooth black guy.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Your equating of winning the vote to deserving to win,
misses the op point and is limited.

The question was not one of did Papa Obama actually win the vote.
It was one of worth. A valid question but subtle.

To equate deserving the office with just wining the vote and excluding all other factors,
is a poor attempt to be evasive of the real question.

Hardly not. He desreves the office because he won the vote just because a subversive Congress wants to be rebellious of that outcome and is suffering the overwhelming disapproval of the public for not honoring that mandate does not a valid point make. So who is being elusive and who is speaking to reality as it now stands. You need a bit of help lighting that next pipe?

Your avoidance of the truth implies your posting name should be changed
to "NonFactFinder". Of course, your avoidance of the truth is understandable
Truth is hard for the Left
In fact, it is their worst enemy.


It is fully understandable why the Left avoids this subject and tries to spin it

It is no different then the current election cycle
Since they can't run on Papa Obama's record,
they have to go negative.

Of course, we all know, polls show that if the election was held
today, Papa Obama would lose

 

[Neotrotsky]

Don't care If you liked his policies or not.

Do you really think someone with that shallow a resumee derserved to be elected president????????????????

No one "deserves" to be Pres.

he went out and did the work to "earn" the spot.

regardless of the fact he didn't have the basics to run a grocery store, he still was able to be the smooth black guy.

Agree no one "deserves"

Some are just more worthy of the office
than others.

This was the op's question

 

[Oldstyle]

And you're right...we are a nation in need. We need jobs and we've needed them for four years now. So would you like to take a crack at explaining why we went after a radical revamping of health care that will cost jobs rather than concentrating on the things that would have created jobs?

Let's see.. Take a crack at that, heh? From where I sit I see pro business only House refusing to compromise on expense cuts because they will not let the Bush tax cuts expire on millionaires because that is where they get the lion's share of their reelection funds from. Sounds rather self centered to me. May they suck gutter.

Really? Then kindly explain why even a liberal economist like Christina Romer came out and said that raising taxes on ANYONE during a recession was bad economic policy? The GOP's position happens to be the correct one given the current economic situation but progressives like you want a tax increase on the wealthy and you don't care what the economic result will be. Now THAT sounds rather self centered to me.

 

[Oldstyle]

I concur that it gave them a mandate to stop extremism. It did not give them a mandate to reject him entirely. Nor did it give them mandate to just do nothing. We are a nation in need. To just be contrary is a neglect of duty. To do nothing out of rebelliousness and hatred is pitiful and unbecoming an officer & protector, & emissary of the people as to be traitourous. They all should be thrown forthwith from Congress and outcast as leches.

They haven't done "nothing". The GOP led House has passed quite a bit of legislation and sent it to the Senate. It's Harry Reid that's doing nothing. He's got a stack of GOP bills collecting dust on his desk. Where is your outrage over that?

From what I see the Senate passed a few things themselves and found them languishing in the House. Looks like they all been bad to me.

And what about all of the House bills that Harry Reid won't even allow on the Senate floor for a vote? The Democrats lost the mid-terms, FactFinder...the people giving a mandate to the GOP to act. It's been progressives like Reid who have refused to give ground and work towards a compromise, all the while continuing to point fingers at the other side and accusing them of being "obstructionists". Funny how you can't "see" that.