PokerPacker Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 Reagan had the advantage of following a failed presidency and Obama didn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 and Obama didn't? Obviously not imo You would have to remember the Carter yrs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 People always mention Carter, but it isn't as if he inherited a great situation from Ford, especially when the oil crises started in the early 70s. And, frankly, the economic situation worsened under Reagan. BTW, Reagan's manipulation of the Iran/hostage situation wasn't the most honorable way to gain victory, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Obviously' date=' you know nothing about how Jimmy Carter actually governed.Jimmy Carter governed the way liberals imagine how Dick Cheney would have governed. He was vain, autocratic, and demanding. And it cost him his presidency, because Tip O'Neil and the Democratic leadership grew to hate him. [/quote'] yeah, okay...that's why the ***** had all sorts of people come visit him at Camp David during his soul searching episode and discuss why he sucked...nobody had confidence in him to do anything. He F-A-I-L-E-D at being a leader. The biggest dig of all was when the Iranians waited until the moment he was gone to release the hostages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Reagan and Carter. If President Obama had Reagan speeches he'd be top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 yeah, okay...that's why the ***** had all sorts of people come visit him at Camp David during his soul searching episode and discuss why he sucked...nobody had confidence in him to do anything. He F-A-I-L-E-D at being a leader. The biggest dig of all was when the Iranians waited until the moment he was gone to release the hostages. Yeah Carter should have done what Reagan did and gave arms to the hostage takers People forget in a sense the whole Afghan war now can be traced back to the days of Reagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 People forget in a sense the whole Afghan war now can be traced back to the days of Reagan In a sense? The Taliban rose to power because of US involvement, heck we taught them how to fight in those mountains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 In a sense? The Taliban rose to power because of US involvement, heck we taught them how to fight in those mountains. Yeah. But do you think we would have done so if we knew what was to come later on down the line? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Yeah. But do you think we would have done so if we knew what was to come later on down the line? I think we might have done it differently, which is the whole problem of the way we fought the Cold War, all of those little wars fought with puppet governments using them as pawns while the Russians did the same against us, who would have ever thought that people would have resented being used like that?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I think we might have done it differently, which is the whole problem of the way we fought the Cold War, all of those little wars fought with puppet governments using them as pawns while the Russians did the same against us, who would have ever thought that people would have resented being used like that?! Espicially when you put ruthless dictators over the people and they abuse the people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Yeah. But do you think we would have done so if we knew what was to come later on down the line? No. We created dozens of awful political situations based on Cold War needs - The Shah, Hussein, Marcos, Noriega, Mubarak..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 yeah, okay...that's why the ***** had all sorts of people come visit him at Camp David during his soul searching episode and discuss why he sucked...nobody had confidence in him to do anything. He F-A-I-L-E-D at being a leader. The biggest dig of all was when the Iranians waited until the moment he was gone to release the hostages. Even though I'll never defend the Carter presidency,, two of those people who visited him at Camp David were Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and there's been peace between Israel and Egypt ever since. And even though his was a failure of a presidency, that he brokered that peace should be remembered. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Do it my way or we won't cooperate.How can you hear anything but? ~Bang As LKB said in this thread, Gingrich was an excellent politician willing to cooperate with the opposition. Yes, if Obama wanted to cooperate, he would have presented each element for consideration rather cramming the whole thing down their throats. But Obama won big, had a super majority, and wasn't interested in cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 The Republican idea of working together is, "Cave to our wishes or we'll bash you and your legislation. And even if you do cave, we'll still do it anyways." Oh please Stop. Democrats are the ones who believe compromise means GOP has to agree to our liberal agenda. Democrats and the blind followers actually had the nerve to pretend that the actual several 100 million dollar spending cut, slickly promoted as a 30 billion dollar reduction, was the end of the world. And those compromising RINOs went along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 As LKB said in this thread, Gingrich was an excellent politician willing to cooperate with the opposition. Yes, if Obama wanted to cooperate, he would have presented each element for consideration rather cramming the whole thing down their throats. But Obama won big, had a super majority, and wasn't interested in cooperation. And the Republicans weren't interested at all in health care reform. I'm not exactly sure why you continue to say that Obama used political muscle and yet want to present the GOP as a party that was yearning to work with Obama instead of stonewalling at every single opportunity. The Republicans chose to be the party of opposition and wanted nothing to do with compromise except on their own terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I'm not exactly sure why you continue to say that Obama used political muscle and yet want to present the GOP as a party that was yearning to work with Obama instead of stonewalling at every single opportunity. Whoa, I never said that at all. The republicans did everything they could to stonewall Obama. They asked for more than Obama needed to give up because he had all the votes he needed in party. The republicans were irrelevant. They knew it and Obama knew it. But if Obama wanted to negotiate with the Republicans, for bipartisan political cover or whatever motivation, he would have had to employ Gingrich's strategy. Parts of the health care bill were very popular and the Republicans would have been forced to negotiate or even cave in to Obama on parts of the bill because it would have been political suicide not to. But Obama wasn't interested in negotiating with Republicans. He had all the votes he needed in party and the compromises he was forced to make in house were as far as he wanted to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 The problem with the pass it in parts is the unpopular parts make the popular parts work. I think the opposition says this knowing they can kill the unpopular which will make the popular fail. Insurance lobby "Force insurers to cover people with pre existing conditions? Wow, now we have to cover all the sick. With our current customer base, we'll have to raise rates, and we're already being blasted for doing that. Oh, you mean our base will increase because everybody has to have insurance? It might be doable, but there are still markets too small for us to make up for the really sick ones." Political Supporters, "You know there are some rather large upfront costs for the first few years while this is set up. How are we going to get funds for this part before the public sees any tangible benefit? Pass it in a package, I guess. Maybe 10 years from now when the customers/American citizens look back there is no way they will say we got it wrong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thanos Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Wasted thread because the other side of the aisle is in shambles with noone remotely resembling a candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I vacillate between complete cynicism and moderate optimism. All in all, Obama has done enough positives that I'd probably vote for him again and not feel dirty about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Even though I'll never defend the Carter presidency,, two of those people who visited him at Camp David were Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, and there's been peace between Israel and Egypt ever since.And even though his was a failure of a presidency, that he brokered that peace should be remembered. ~Bang I really think Carter gets a raw deal. If he had been able to do a lot of the things he wanted to, we would be in a much better place as a Country. If I'm not mistaken, it was the Blue Dogs who shut him down the most, undercutting his support. He was big on sustainable energy and Peace. Those two things go hand in hand IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Is it wierd that the presidents of my life time whom I most look back on and respect their positions would be Carter and Nixon? One was considered inept (but heck if his stands don't seem better now), and the other was paranoid crazy to the point of breaking the law to find out what others were saying about him. I used to wonder if he spent nights thinking "If only I could ignore my critics the way this Clinton guy does. I mean the things they say about him..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I am happy with the performance of the executive office thus far, particularly given the cards it was dealt. I just put my Obama 2012 bumpersticker on my car this weekend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I really think Carter gets a raw deal. If he had been able to do a lot of the things he wanted to, we would be in a much better place as a Country. If I'm not mistaken, it was the Blue Dogs who shut him down the most, undercutting his support. He was big on sustainable energy and Peace. Those two things go hand in hand IMO. Carter was not a great leader, but the Democrats in Congress absolutely destroyed his presidency. ---------- Post added April-29th-2011 at 02:04 PM ---------- Is it wierd that the presidents of my life time whom I most look back on and respect their positions would be Carter and Nixon? One was considered inept (but heck if his stands don't seem better now), and the other was paranoid crazy to the point of breaking the law to find out what others were saying about him. I used to wonder if he spent nights thinking "If only I could ignore my critics the way this Clinton guy does. I mean the things they say about him..." Nixon is probably on the short list of most "brilliant" presidents. Unforunately, he was tempermentally unsuited for the job. Carter was not suited for the job either but in a very different way. If Nixon was not a paranoid, angry, power-mad, profane egotist, he probably would have been one of the great presidents. But if he was not a paranoid, power-mad, profane egotist, he probably would have been little more than a decent small town attorney or county commissioner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooka Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 No, you didn't miss it, because nothing happened. He promised that fathers paying child support would get half of the tax credit. Since we provide half of their sustenance (along with everything for ourselves), it only makes sense. As of now, the custodial parent (which is the mother, unless she actually IS an axe murderer) gets the entire deduction. He went through the motion of having it sent to committee, but it's been stalled there for the better part of two years now.On this note, I probably should go to bed. I don't want to risk my posting privileges. But this infuriates me more than anything going on at the federal level right now. I bring home less than 1/3 of my gross income. And unfortunately, there's no way out of it. If I get a second job, they just take more money, and I have far less time to actually see my kids. If I knew how to start an NPO for fathers in this situation, I would make it my life's work. There is no voice out there. There is no help at the federal level. And I can't get anyone at the state level to even return a phone call. (Though they call my ex back the same day.) With the divorce rate over 50%, this is one of the most pressing silent issues we face right now, IMHO. Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country. The President isn't going to solve your personal problems hog. Obama is your voice at the Federal level and Obama is your help. The country is your enemy. The country vehemently opposes to help you with your child support. (which is why the fatherhood bill is still stuck in committee) Trust me, you're not going to see a president any time soon that will campaign on this issue, introduce a bill on this issue and is sympathetic because he grew up without a father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted April 29, 2011 Author Share Posted April 29, 2011 Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.The President isn't going to solve your personal problems hog. Obama is your voice at the Federal level and Obama is your help. The country is your enemy. The country vehemently opposes to help you with your child support. (which is why the fatherhood bill is still stuck in committee) Trust me, you're not going to see a president any time soon that will campaign on this issue, introduce a bill on this issue and is sympathetic because he grew up without a father. A few things. 1) I don't want "help" with my child support. I want half the tax credit, that I've earned by providing half of my children's sustenance. 2) Obama DID promise to do that during the campaign. 3) "The country" includes millions of men in the same situation. I doubt their opposition is as "vehement" as you describe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.