So back on November 4th, we had a voting thread here, to see who voted for who. We had 19 people on here vote for Obama.

My question to you 19, and anyone else who voted for Obama that didn't participate in the thread, is this:

Knowing what you know now, would you vote for him again? This is purely curiosity. As with the voting thread, this isn't a debate, just a poll. Please keep the posts short.

I'm Canadian, so I didn't vote, but it would have been a close vote for Obama then and would be a sure vote for him now. I loved McCain, that old soldier, but had to saddle himself with the Erin Brockovich of politics. And if you hang around idiots, well...

As much as it's easy to make fun of Bama now, you'd be in worse shape with McCain. You'd have Vice-President MILF saying the most ignorant retarded things in the universe and I seriously can't imagine the Republicans spending a dollar less than the Dems. The only reason Bush held back from opening the floodgates of taxpayer bailout money is because he wanted to make this recession the Democrat's problem.

i would have voted for Ron Paul, again.

guess what wouldnt have happened....? 1 trillion more in debt paid for by borrowing money from china and/or just printing it. guess what would have happened....? the beginning of the first presidency that was actually fiscally responsible.

way to @!#$ yourself, america. pick the pretty boy orator instead of someone with substance and a plan.

I wouldve chosen voter abstinance if I was old enough. Politics is getting old. Same !@#$ different people.

I've had some disappoints with Obama so far - and likely will have more - but would not change my decision. Not even close.

But if I had too, it would have been Barr since I think he also would have made a fine president. McCain/Palin... I'd vote for them approximately 3 weeks after hell freezes over - and I used to greatly admire McCain too.

(tabs) wrote:i would have voted for Ron Paul, again.

guess what wouldnt have happened....? 1 trillion more in debt paid for by borrowing money from china and/or just printing it. guess what would have happened....? the beginning of the first presidency that was actually fiscally responsible.

way to @!#$ yourself, america. pick the pretty boy orator instead of someone with substance and a plan.

How can you accurately evaluate his performance when he has been in office for a little over two months? I say you ask this question again in 3-4 years.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

^^ beat me to it! lets see what happens in a year. it wouldn't have cost so much to "reinvest in america" if our previous commander in chief hadn't give our surplus money away to his buddies through "military contracts"

Harrington (Fiber Faber) wrote:How can you accurately evaluate his performance when he has been in office for a little over two months? I say you ask this question again in 3-4 years.

Agreed. Everyone is jumping the gun here. While I would have rather had Ron Paul, but I would NEVER have voted for McCain/Palin.

The horse is dead, quicklilcav. Put away the baseball bat. Stop finding ways to link our administration to V for Vendetta.

First of all, this thread was not any attempt at arguing a point. I was curious. Obama's disapproval ratings have more than doubled since he took office, and his approval ratings have dropped by almost 10%. I was simply curious if anyone that had voted for him had changed their mind about him yet.

As for linking this administration to "V", it's actually too easy. It didn't take too much to see the similarities there, but it makes a point. And fitting that it was originally an attack on the last administration that it would more closely resemble what's being done by this one and the liberal congress. In case anyone doesn't get the Stephanopolous link, Rahm has a conference call with him just about every day. Stephanopolis, as an (supposedly) unbiased member of the media, is more like a PR member of the administration. Couple that with sliding the cencus bureau over to Rahm's perview, and the attempt to squash conservative radio in some version of the Fairness Doctrine, and you've got a genuine effort being made here to control what the public hears regarding the government and this administration.

At any rate, this thread can die if no one is going to participate in the basic poll. We have enough debate threads going already.

The lack of answers speaks volumes...

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

I think he is doing good, but we'll see

I would vote for him again. It is WAY too early to ask this now anyway, but I would.

I hope he does a great job and gets the country back on track and heading in a better direction, not just to prove people wrong, but we need him to do a good job.

Ya, I do hope for the best.

Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

James (ROLN19S) (JuicyJ) wrote:It is WAY too early to ask this now anyway...

Just out of curiosity, how many trillions more does he have to spend on wasteful programs, and increasing entitlement programs, before it's enough time to make a judgement call on him? Personally, the way the "stimulus" plan was rammed through was bad enough, but on top of that, already increasing this year's budget, and submitting by far the largest budget ever for next year, which there is absolutely ZERO hope to ever pay for, the only way I could possibly be convinced he's not destroying everything that makes this country great would be if he came out one day and announced that he had made a huge mistake, and he's going to push for the repealing of all the bullsh!t spending that's been going on. But that will never happen. He just wants more and more and more, with absolutely no care of ever paying for it.

Now they're already putting through tax increases. Get ready for the unemployment rate to double and quite possibly worse within the next couple of years. I can only hope that 2010 is the turnaround we had in 94, and that the Republicans actually get their sh!t together, and blow the tax increases out of the water before they take effect.

NewAmericanTeaParty.com is a good place to start for anyone looking to oppose this massive trend of screwing the American people.

I checked that website out. If your government cared at all about you, they would go down to these "tea parties" where people express their opinions and answer questions and state their plans. I have a feeling this will be ignored by politicians. I hope this brings together enough people to actually throw weight around on a political scale.

wysiwyg wrote:i would say they bang, they don't really pound so much. but if
you want to bump, then they will bump and hit real hard and a lot good.

LOL

I think if they start getting big enough crowds, they're going to get the attention.

I believe is going to get better, but it is going to take a lot of hard work from everyone to make it happen.

People in hell want water. and that means, we can't always get what we want and we can't just point the finger at Obama and the democrats. We are all in the same boat, I don't like it, you don't like it, no one likes it.

Quiklilcav wrote:

James (ROLN19S) (JuicyJ) wrote:It is WAY too early to ask this now anyway...

Just out of curiosity, how many trillions more does he have to spend on wasteful programs, and increasing entitlement programs, before it's enough time to make a judgement call on him? Personally, the way the "stimulus" plan was rammed through was bad enough, but on top of that, already increasing this year's budget, and submitting by far the largest budget ever for next year, which there is absolutely ZERO hope to ever pay for, the only way I could possibly be convinced he's not destroying everything that makes this country great would be if he came out one day and announced that he had made a huge mistake, and he's going to push for the repealing of all the bullsh!t spending that's been going on. But that will never happen. He just wants more and more and more, with absolutely no care of ever paying for it.

Now they're already putting through tax increases. Get ready for the unemployment rate to double and quite possibly worse within the next couple of years. I can only hope that 2010 is the turnaround we had in 94, and that the Republicans actually get their sh!t together, and blow the tax increases out of the water before they take effect.

NewAmericanTeaParty.com is a good place to start for anyone looking to oppose this massive trend of screwing the American people.

Just out of curiosity, why don't you wait to see what fruit comes of his actions rather than using your powers as a prophet to prove that he @!#$ed up? What we have here is just self-justifying logic combined with fortune telling.

Quote:

already increasing this year's budget, and submitting by far the largest budget ever for next year, which there is absolutely ZERO hope to ever pay for

Source? Preferably a politically unbiased one - but that may be too much to ask for so I guess I'll take what I get.

Quote:

the only way I could possibly be convinced he's not destroying everything that makes this country great would be if he came out one day and announced that he had made a huge mistake

Alright I must LOL at this quote. Destroying everything that makes this country great? Are you @!#$ting me? With such an "out there" statement as this, I'd like to hear in your words -
1. Exactly what it is that makes this country great in your estimation?!
2. Just how he is destroying all these things?!

Quote:

He just wants more and more and more, with absolutely no care of ever paying for it.

Ironic indeed, since the other side of the isle has correctly been saying something similar these past 8 years. And I might add -

Republican Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman Jr. wrote:"That's why no one is paying any attention," he said. "Our moral soapbox was completely taken away from us because of our behavior in the last few years. For us to now criticize analogous behavior is hypocrisy." We've got to come at it a different way. We've got to prove the point. It can't be as the Chinese would say, 'fei hua,' [or] empty words.

... and if the Democrats can't manage to balance the budget, the same fate awaits them. In the long run, the best scenario IMO is that Democrats prove to be just as big of @!#$-ups as the Republicans they replaced(and they where @!#$-ups), and the people give both parties the boot... in favor of alternative party candidates. That is probably our best hope we have for doing away with our 2 party political system.

Quote:

Now they're already putting through tax increases. Get ready for the unemployment rate to double and quite possibly worse within the next couple of years.

I thought you said - and right before this - that he had no way to pay for it? LOL. But on a serious note, that prophesy of yours has no chance to occur merely based off of his proposed tax code changes alone. You just refer to it as "Tax increases" but in this case, its actually tax increases for the few and tax breaks for the many.

Call it redistribution of wealth if you will(as if Bush didn't do the same but in the opposite direction), but giving the the consumers - who spend the greatest percentage of their income - more income(by slightly shifting the tax burden) does have the greatest positive impact on the economy. A better economy helps people of all tax brackets. Also, tax increases of some incarnation where really unavoidable at this point - no matter who the president ended up being - to pay for the out of control deficit that Bush passed along. So no matter what the president following him was gonna be forced to "be the bad guy" and do what needs to be done at this point. We'll see if the Democrats make this deficit any worse or not as time marches on as it always does.

It also just occurred to me - with your mention of record budgets - where you by chance referring to statistics that suddenly LOOK alot bigger due to the fact that this administration(unlike the last) isn't gonna *BS about what we are ALREADY spending. Even if they pass a budget IDENTICAL to last years, it looks much, much larger - a fact I think you're often gonna see ignored so that statistics can be easily misrepresented by Rush and the crowd to make Obama look much worse. Not exactly a new tactic, but still you may want to take that into account when listening in. It also goes to show that hands down the easiest way to mislead people is through manipulating statistics. "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

Also regarding the budget, Obama is speaking an awful lot about cutting spending - especially programs that don't work. Indeed in his latest speech (which you may want to catch if you have not already) he got huge applause from everyone - especially the right - when he loudly said something to the effect of "we must not pass these debts onto our children." He is definitely saying the right things, but the big question remains - will this be anything more than just talk?

i voted for mccain then after how the republican party acted handling the economic crisis. I think i would have voted for Obama. I did like how bush used the tarp funds before he left. Im not realy happy with the republican party right now. i hate to admit it but i guess i jump on band wagons too.

bk3k wrote:

Quote:

already increasing this year's budget, and submitting by far the largest budget ever for next year, which there is absolutely ZERO hope to ever pay for

Source? Preferably a politically unbiased one - but that may be too much to ask for so I guess I'll take what I get.

Pick a source. The size of the new budget was being reported everywhere yesterday. Chose who you think is the most unbiased, and read it. As far as no hope to pay for it, The Wall Street Journal did a great piece on the numbers, using actual IRS statistics. Statistics never lie. The short version is that Obama claims to be able to start balancing our budget simply by ending the tax breaks for the top 2% in this country, and that no one making $250K or less will see their taxes increase. If you do the math on the people who he plans on raising taxes on, it doesn't even come close to scratching the surface. As a matter of fact, if you simply took all of the income over $250K (doing the complete extreme socialist thing), it still wouldn't come close to covering the budget. If you took 100% of all income over a certain point, that point would actually have to be lowered to around $75K. Now take into consideration what happens to the economy when you increase taxes (if I have to explain that one to you, it's pointless to discuss statistics), you can easily see that this plan is not going to do anything but bankrupt this country.

bk3k wrote:

Quote:

the only way I could possibly be convinced he's not destroying everything that makes this country great would be if he came out one day and announced that he had made a huge mistake

Alright I must LOL at this quote. Destroying everything that makes this country great? Are you @!#$ting me? With such an "out there" statement as this, I'd like to hear in your words -
1. Exactly what it is that makes this country great in your estimation?!
2. Just how he is destroying all these things?!

1. What made this country great? The free market. The unfettered freedom to pursue happiness and wealth. And yes, absolutely, Capitalism. The Democrats have tried to demonize Capitalism, but in it's untainted form, it works better than any other system. The problems with it have been the government trying to balance things, and make things such as housing available to those who couldn't afford it in the name of fairness (read equal outcome, not equal opportunity). There is a reason that we became the super power that we became, being one of the youngest nations in the world. Because we did not have a large government to control every aspect of our lives. Because the government allowed the individual to live their dreams and earn their wealth.

2. By continuing to increase taxes on businesses, and "the rich", the government will only stifle that growth. Simply put, as the number of entitlement recipients increases, and the producers are made to give more and more to support those recipients, the number of producers is going to decline, for any number of reasons, but the most obvious is that who the f&$k wants to keep working their ass off to make more money, when you're barely allowed to keep any of it?

bk3k wrote:

Quote:

He just wants more and more and more, with absolutely no care of ever paying for it.

Ironic indeed, since the other side of the isle has correctly been saying something similar these past 8 years. And I might add -

Republican Governor of Utah Jon Huntsman Jr. wrote:"That's why no one is paying any attention," he said. "Our moral soapbox was completely taken away from us because of our behavior in the last few years. For us to now criticize analogous behavior is hypocrisy." We've got to come at it a different way. We've got to prove the point. It can't be as the Chinese would say, 'fei hua,' [or] empty words.

... and if the Democrats can't manage to balance the budget, the same fate awaits them. In the long run, the best scenario IMO is that Democrats prove to be just as big of @!#$-ups as the Republicans they replaced(and they where @!#$-ups), and the people give both parties the boot... in favor of alternative party candidates. That is probably our best hope we have for doing away with our 2 party political system.

You're right that the Republicans are to blame for where they are right now, but it's because a large majority of them (Bush included) kept trying to act more like the Democrats, thinking it would win them more approval. In reality, they stopped showing the public what makes them differrent. Since the MSM's are all in the pocket of the Democrats, it was too easy to destroy the reputation of the Republicans. As for alternate parties, I have no strong feeling either way. The bottom line is that Republicans need to stick to their principles, stop playing politics, and just do their job. Whenever they've done this in the past, the public trusted them. Whenever they start straying, they lose.

bk3k wrote:

Quote:

Now they're already putting through tax increases. Get ready for the unemployment rate to double and quite possibly worse within the next couple of years.

I thought you said - and right before this - that he had no way to pay for it? LOL. But on a serious note, that prophesy of yours has no chance to occur merely based off of his proposed tax code changes alone. You just refer to it as "Tax increases" but in this case, its actually tax increases for the few and tax breaks for the many.

Call it redistribution of wealth if you will(as if Bush didn't do the same but in the opposite direction), but giving the the consumers - who spend the greatest percentage of their income - more income(by slightly shifting the tax burden) does have the greatest positive impact on the economy. A better economy helps people of all tax brackets. Also, tax increases of some incarnation where really unavoidable at this point - no matter who the president ended up being - to pay for the out of control deficit that Bush passed along. So no matter what the president following him was gonna be forced to "be the bad guy" and do what needs to be done at this point. We'll see if the Democrats make this deficit any worse or not as time marches on as it always does.

It also just occurred to me - with your mention of record budgets - where you by chance referring to statistics that suddenly LOOK alot bigger due to the fact that this administration(unlike the last) isn't gonna *BS about what we are ALREADY spending. Even if they pass a budget IDENTICAL to last years, it looks much, much larger - a fact I think you're often gonna see ignored so that statistics can be easily misrepresented by Rush and the crowd to make Obama look much worse. Not exactly a new tactic, but still you may want to take that into account when listening in. It also goes to show that hands down the easiest way to mislead people is through manipulating statistics. "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."

Also regarding the budget, Obama is speaking an awful lot about cutting spending - especially programs that don't work. Indeed in his latest speech (which you may want to catch if you have not already) he got huge applause from everyone - especially the right - when he loudly said something to the effect of "we must not pass these debts onto our children." He is definitely saying the right things, but the big question remains - will this be anything more than just talk?

Obama talks a lot about things, and does the opposite. Just look at everything that he's done so far: exactly opposite of what he promised, and exactly opposite of what he's saying. No earmarks? The "stimulus" bill was almost entirely earmarks. And yes, I've read a lot of it. Cutting spending? He keeps kicking that one down the road. (a paraphrase): "we're going to start cutting the budget after we get done spending all of this money that we need to spend". WTF is that? It's like his batchelor party before his marriage with the American people: one last binge of dereliction before getting serious. I don't know how he can say this stuff with a straight face. I don't know how people continue to listen to him and take it seriously. I watched his speach the other night more out of a certain morbid curiosity than anything. I really didn't want to listen to it, but I was curious what he would say. It was extremely predictable. Still more like a campaign speech than anything, and still trying to bash the last administration. That's getting old. He's in power now, stop trying to blame everything on Bush. And inheriting the big deficit is not, in any way, an excuse for spending more. That's one of the lamest things he's been saying.

I voted for him in the Nov 4th thread, and I will here again...but I agree, 2 months in the 'house is a bit too soon to be judging his 1st term (yes, 1st term...)


Brian

At least he's removing tax cuts for companies moving jobs overseas. You CANNOT argue that this is a bad move.

Quiklilcav wrote:Statistics never lie.

This was the stupidest thing I have read today..........

Quiklilcav wrote:You're right that the Republicans are to blame for where they are right now, but it's because a large majority of them (Bush included) kept trying to act more like the Democrats

Until I read that.

I do not think I have, in all my days, seen a bigger Republican nut swinger than you. In your eyes Republicans can do no wrong and Democrats can do no right, and if a Republican does do wrong it was because they were acting like a Democrat. Your banter makes it hard for anyone to take you seriously.

KevinP (Stabby McShankyou) wrote:
and I'm NOT a pedo. everyone knows i've got a wheelchair fetish.

Quiklilcav wrote:So back on November 4th, we had a voting thread here, to see who voted for who. We had 19 people on here vote for Obama.

My question to you 19, and anyone else who voted for Obama that didn't participate in the thread, is this:

Knowing what you know now, would you vote for him again? This is purely curiosity. As with the voting thread, this isn't a debate, just a poll. Please keep the posts short.

Yes.
At first I was not to crazy for him and it took me awhile to consider him, but after his work he has surpassed expectations, so far- no regrets.
IMO you should pose this question 4 years from now.

Quiklilcav wrote:

James (ROLN19S) (JuicyJ) wrote:It is WAY too early to ask this now anyway...

Just out of curiosity, how many trillions more does he have to spend on wasteful programs, and increasing entitlement programs, before it's enough time to make a judgement call on him? Personally, the way the "stimulus" plan was rammed through was bad enough, but on top of that, already increasing this year's budget, and submitting by far the largest budget ever for next year, which there is absolutely ZERO hope to ever pay for, the only way I could possibly be convinced he's not destroying everything that makes this country great would be if he came out one day and announced that he had made a huge mistake, and he's going to push for the repealing of all the bullsh!t spending that's been going on. But that will never happen. He just wants more and more and more, with absolutely no care of ever paying for it.

Now they're already putting through tax increases. Get ready for the unemployment rate to double and quite possibly worse within the next couple of years. I can only hope that 2010 is the turnaround we had in 94, and that the Republicans actually get their sh!t together, and blow the tax increases out of the water before they take effect.

I guess when Bush spent $hit loads of money on unjust wars that only help a group of people or when Reagan spent on Military to show off the USSR "we are richer than you" is ok, no? Why aren't bitching about that? What is your objective by posting every day about Obama? Dude, you are obsessed with this man! Is your tin-foil hat that tight on you?

Here is the kicker, the stuff you and the republican party are posing never worked. Tax less on the rich? As if they were to hire more? HAHAHA!!! When you have tax loopholes to send manufacture jobs overseas, these "rich people" will take one of the most important rule in Capitalism: "maximize your profit" and will seek <$1 per hour wages somewhere else instead of $10-15 here. And another thing, as technology progresses, there will be more automation that the rich will adapt all in the name of "maximize your profit." If any one should be taxed less, it would be the low and middle class NOT the upper class. That's what Obama will do, hey it maybe $30 per check for me, but I'll take it, that little money I can take my lady to Outback or buy some BS I don't need.... In other words: Move the economy!
Lastly, since you don't like to get a tax increase, elaborate on this Reaganomics aspect that happened in 1986: The top tax rate was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%. I guess because Reagan did it, it's ok, no?





THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.