Obama supporters?

[jillio]

:thumbd: no doubt his convoy escorting him out of White House on the day of transition will be tomato'ed again.

I personally think they should just make him walk out the gates and face the American public without benefit of Secret Service.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

I maybe not vote Obama, still undecide and have hard time to trust him.

May I ask why?

 

[Jiro]

May I ask why?

he already explained it or his comment is pretty much self-explanatory. If you followed this thread carefully.... he said it because Obama is inexperienced, untested, and unproven.

 

[darkdog]

FYI: I'm not economy expert but I try my best to remember Clinton's economy history. I found some links to support my claim.

Before he was elected to be President of USA. He was a successful Governor of Arkansas and boost Economy and did his job great.

He had an experience what and how he did when he was a Governor and work to boost Economy and create million jobs and take care of people and their welfare, better education... decrease spendings.

see statistic in this link and judge yourself...

BBC News | BUSINESS | Bill Clinton's economic legacy

The Lowest Unemployment Rate in 30 Years

Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush - Issuepedia

During Clinton's presidency time, there was less terrorist attacks, less problems.

I assume that you would fresh my memory about Clinton's affair scandal with Monica... His scandal doesn't count me but mainly important is his lies don't kill thousands but Bush's lies does.

Bill Clinton has nothing do with 9/11 attack because he was not president at that time. He did not send soliders to Iraq but Bush. Clinton did nothing to hurt economy but Bush did. He did nothing when unemployment rates goes up but Bush did.

I only see that Clinton improve America's economy with decrease spendings but Bush hurt it through his senseless spendings.

I can see that Republicans use as an excuse to blame Clinton when they noticed that economy goes bad during Bush's presidency time. Clinton did economy good and then left... Bush choose to ignore Clinton's system but his own or follow his father's system ... He wants Iraq war at the start soon AFTER he won at his 1st election... Why? Because his father failed to arrest Saddam during Gulf War... He had Saddam at last because he hate Saddam and want to have him... He did it successful... but why continue Iraq war after Saddam's execution for? We found out the truth later that the oil is the reason, he go after... He lead us beleive that Saddam is the responsible for 9/11.... Nelson Mandela tried to stop Bush but we are too blind to ignore Mandela and beleive Bush because we were upset over 9/11 and innocent victims... Mandela was being accused as a terrorist because he against Iraq War soon after 9/11... During Saddam's arrest, we found out that he has nothing do with 9/11. Clinton is right for not want to go war... and Maneda is also right to know that Saddam has nothing do with it and stop Bush to go Iraq war in first place... Bush is the responsible to hurt economy... job loss... spend on war issues... high spendings...




Please correct if I'm mistake or not or fresh my memory...

You cover a lot of issues there. I don't have the time to get sucked into a debate on all that stuff, so I'll just focus on the economy part.

So a liberal president cuts spending and it works. Then a conservative president increases spending and problems arise. At least that backs up my conservative view on government spending.

When Clinton took office, the economy was pretty rosy at that time, as mentioned by the BBC article you linked: "Mr Clinton's most enduring legacy is likely to be the economic boom which began shortly before he took office in 1992." I gotta give him props for not spending us into oblivion, although some of the credit for that goes to the largely conservative congress. Then, there was the internet, (which he had no control over) and the economic downturn at the end was due to the burst of that bubble (which I don't think can be blamed on him either). In other words, much of it was dumb luck aligning with the business cycle and technological advancement.

The one factual error you made (related to the economy) is that the economy was good through the end of Clinton's term. It was not. It was a bad economy before the end of his term, although it wasn't in an official recession until March of 2001 (Keep in mind that we're not officially in a recession yet, and we may not be until after the next president takes office). Two months is hardly enough time to turn a bad economy around, and if it is, then Clinton should have been able to turn it around before he left office. So Bush came into office with a bad economy, then 9/11, then a string of corporate scandals. Then around 2003, things started picking up. But he and the Republican congress abandoned conservative spending principles and things started going south last year. The Republicans got spanked in the 2006 election, partly for that reason, and Democrats haven't done any better since.

It's simplistic to think all the credit or blame for a good or bad economy can go to the president. He's just one part of the puzzle. There's also the congress, technology, scandals in the private sector, international events, terrorist attacks, etc. which can all have an effect.

As for those links, it's too easy to pick and choose numbers that look good for one president and bad for the other. After all, economics is not an exact science, so it's more vulnerable to bias than harder sciences like physics (which is more vulnerable to bias than one would think). The second link was Clinton's website and the third link is horribly biased. One of these days, I'd like to download statistics from the IRS and various government agencies and do a thorough investigation myself. However, it would be pretty time consuming.

Let me apologize in advance if I don't respond after this. I'd like to, but my wife's been bugging me to "get off that silly forum". Yak yak yak.

 

[BradB08]

you need a reality check. Stop blaming Bush for everything. Like I said - he got shit-faced by previous President's mistake. He tried his best but too bad he made several poor decisions.

You're the only one that needs the reality check here.

You're part of a very small minority that still supports Bush. Enjoy it while he lasts because while you may not blame him for things, history will regard him as a total and utter failure. The worst President ever! So get over it and stop blaming others for Bush's failures!

 

[BradB08]

same here. It's difficult - Obama.... unexperienced, unproven, untested... or McCain... crazy but experienced and he did good back in 2000 but he went recently

oh well.... let's bring in Al Gore dammit!

I wanted Gore to run but Gore does not want to deal with the same smear machine that he had to deal with in the past. His role is perfect the way it is.

As for the Obama experience thing, who cares? People want something new and different, not the same old fucking thing. Perhaps we've been so damn conservative the past 8 years, that we couldn't possibly have much more to lose anyway?

 

[Jiro]

You're the only one that needs the reality check here.

You're part of a very small minority that still supports Bush. Enjoy it while he lasts because while you may not blame him for things, history will regard him as a total and utter failure. The worst President ever! So get over it and stop blaming others for Bush's failures!

are you sure you read the posts carefully or are you just blindly looking for certain keywords that raise red flags? btw - read above of what darkdog wrote ahd I advise you to read it carefully.

 

[Jiro]

Perhaps we've been so damn conservative the past 8 years, that we couldn't possibly have much more to lose anyway?

more broken system, uncertain leadership, bigger debt.... that's what happens if you let the inexperienced sailor steer the boat.

Like I said - you need a reality check on how it works. You make it sounds so simple. Being the President - you just pass some laws, sign some papers, shake some hands, smile some for cameras... sounds easy, si? Maybe you should go to blockbuster and rent a few dvds of West Wing series to get some idea of how it works at White House.

 

[BradB08]

more broken system, uncertain leadership, bigger debt.... that's what happens if you let John McCain steer the boat.

Corrected.

After all, McCain is senile enough to think that everything is going well in Iraq when it clearly isn't.

 

[Jiro]

Corrected.

After all, McCain is senile enough to think that everything is going well in Iraq when it clearly isn't.

well - do you know what happens if you show any single act of unpatriotic attitude? Look at John Kerry and see what it cost him

 

[Byrdie714]

Sure yes. Sucks that his people failed to report to him. Condoleeza Rice ignored the memo and chose not to report it to him. I mean - when you're President of United States, how can you monitor 1000000000000000000000000000 craps per day? That's why you appoint people to filter it out for you and have them bring important stuff to your attention. Rice did not. Let's not entirely blame Bush.

Same for all CEO's. They hire managers/secretary/etc.

And it reflects off of him. If the blame isn't on Bush but on Rice instead, why didn't he fire her instead?

He choose not to and thus it reflects off of his character.

 

[Jiro]

And it reflects off of him. If the blame isn't on Bush but on Rice instead, why didn't he fire her instead?

He choose not to and thus it reflects off of his character.

aka cronyism.. UGH. i don't care anyway. he's got few more months left and we'll go from there. What's sad is that Bush Administration especially at Executive Branch will not be on trial for 1000000 legal violations. Bush, Cheney, Rice, and bunch others will be enjoying their retirements with $$$$$$$$$$$ in their bank accounts - if not... a lucrative salary from private firms as consultants. McCain/Obama/whoever Administration will not go after them and hold them accountable. It's best just to bury the past and move on.

truly sad...

 

[Byrdie714]

aka cronyism.. UGH. i don't care anyway. he's got few more months left and we'll go from there. What's sad is that Bush Administration especially at Executive Branch will not be on trial for 1000000 legal violations. Bush, Cheney, Rice, and bunch others will be enjoying their retirements with $$$$$$$$$$$ in their bank accounts - if not... a lucrative salary from private firms as consultants. McCain/Obama/whoever Administration will not go after them and hold them accountable. It's best just to bury the past and move on.

truly sad...

IF he doesn't suspend the national elections.

 

[R2D2]

I'm not American either but it would be cool if Obama got in, not to mention historic, being a black person. There has been a lot of interest in the US elections here in Australia - we never normally show much popular interest at the primary level but the last time was different.

I think from an international perspective, if Obama got in it would signal a change of approach for the US, which is very much sought after from the international community in the wake of Bush. McCain seems to have a "more of the same" image, especially with his negative style of campaigning.

Watching with much interest!

 

[Hwy99]

I maybe not vote Obama, still undecide and have hard time to trust him.

Well I have hard time to trust him too, but I am going to vote for him anyway because I don't want McCain to overbeat him on the votes and win. McCain is under Obama to trust for me.

 

[jillio]

more broken system, uncertain leadership, bigger debt.... that's what happens if you let the inexperienced sailor steer the boat.

Like I said - you need a reality check on how it works. You make it sounds so simple. Being the President - you just pass some laws, sign some papers, shake some hands, smile some for cameras... sounds easy, si? Maybe you should go to blockbuster and rent a few dvds of West Wing series to get some idea of how it works at White House.

Maybe you shouldn't rely on something that was meant for entertainment purposes and takes creative license in it's portrayals to provide you with realistic information.

 

[Jiro]

Maybe you shouldn't rely on something that was meant for entertainment purposes and takes creative license in it's portrayals to provide you with realistic information.

that's the only way for him to understand how White House works... in a rough sense. or he can try and get internship there or Congress.

 

[jillio]

that's the only way for him to understand how White House works... in a rough sense. or he can try and get internship there or Congress.

No its not. You can study political science and get some accurrate information.

 

[Jiro]

No its not. You can study political science and get some accurrate information.

sure but what about for regular Joe? accuracy is not needed. Just a rough idea. I don't need to study medical stuff to understand what's happening in surgery. I don't need to go to West Point or study military history to understand what soldier has to go thru in war. a documentary film from embedded camera crew is sufficient enough.

I doubt he's going to be awake for more than 5 min watching C-Span or White House Daily Briefing.

 

[BradB08]

Hey, it's your hero, jiro123!