It's time for Obama to GO

[WinePusher]

I believe Obama is probably the most radical president in our nation's history, aside from Woodrow Wilson. Not only is his policy questionable, but his character and personal actions are troubling

-Why did this president bow to ver 5 world leaders
-Why did this president spend over 20 years at a church where the pastor spwed hate speech about America
-Why did this president place a communist and a mao se tung lover in his white house

many republicans have called this president a "Marxist" "Neocommunist" "Facist" "Socialist" "Extremist" I personally agree with every single one of these, but many call this hate speech

So the question is

1) Are the statements aganist Obama (ie: Marxist, Socialist) justifiable"

2) Can anyone justify the government take over of the banks, auto industry, student loan industry and the healthcare industry.

3) Is the media giving obama a free pass? Any rational person would agree the media was very hard on Palin but not so hard on Obama

[Goat]

No I am not confusing the issue the house voted to impeach him and the senate did not thus he was not impeached. If he was not removed from office that means he was not impeached, simple as that.

Actually, he was impeached. From Wiki


Impeachment is a formal process in which an elected official is accused of unlawful activity, and which may or may not lead to the removal of that official from office. It is the first of two stages. Impeachment does not necessarily result in removal from office; it is only a legal statement of charges, parallel to an indictment in criminal law. An official who is impeached faces a second legislative vote (whether by the same body or another), which determines conviction, or failure to convict, on the charges embodied by the impeachment. Most constitutions require a supermajority to convict. Although the subject of the charge is criminal action, it does not constitute a criminal trial; the only question under consideration is the removal of the individual from office, and the possibility of a subsequent vote preventing the removed official from ever again holding political office in the jurisdiction where he was removed.


In the case of Clinton, although the 'legal statement of Charges' came up, the charges were voted down, which is that the charges were not considered to be valid.

There were two charges against Clinton, and to have those charges 'stick' you would need a 2/3's majority. It just so happens that neither charge even got a majority.

[micatala]

And yet you refuse to blame Obama over a year into his presidency. Obama acts like he's the first president to inherit problems. I don't recall Reagan whining about Carter as Obama classlessly does about Bush.

I have pointed this out before, but Reagan absolutely did blame Carter for the problems he faced in his very first state of the union address. And Reagan didn't have nearly the problems to face that Obama has.

[East of Eden]

No I am not confusing the issue the house voted to impeach him and the senate did not thus he was not impeached. If he was not removed from office that means he was not impeached, simple as that.

See post 120.

And again what was he when he supposedly raped women during his years at Yale and Oxford. Ignoring the issue does not make it go away, your claim simply does not follow. You provided a list of women Clinton supposedly raped over the years and then claimed due to his political power was able to avoid charges but a number of them happened before he had attained any elected office so if he had in fact raped these women how could he have avoided charges then?

I never said he used his power in this way at Yale and Oxford.

Most of what Obama has done has been in response to actions taken by Bush. Did Obama start two wars

Obama supported the Afghan campaign, as did almost all Democrats, a lesser number of that party supported Iraq.

or cause the economy to collapse?

And Bush didn't do that either. By your reasoning the Democratic congress caused the collapse.

Did Reagan inherit a couple of wars and a collapsed economy?

Reagan didn't have to deal with the aftermath of 9/11, he did inherit an economy arguably worse than ours. The misery index (inflation + unemployment) was almost 20% when he took office, about 6% when he left.

The answer to both questions is no.

Not really.

Are you ready yet to lay blame for the state the economy is in on Bush where it belongs

There is blame for both parties, I put about 80% on the Democrats.

or are you going to continue to blame those that come after just as you have blamed FDR for the great depression.

Another straw man, I never said FDR started the depression, his bad policies prolonged it, and Obama is following in his footsteps.

[East of Eden]

And yet you refuse to blame Obama over a year into his presidency. Obama acts like he's the first president to inherit problems. I don't recall Reagan whining about Carter as Obama classlessly does about Bush.

I have pointed this out before, but Reagan absolutely did blame Carter for the problems he faced in his very first state of the union address. And Reagan didn't have nearly the problems to face that Obama has.

I'm pretty sure if a Nexus search were done Obama has mentioned Bush far more than Reagan did Carter. The economic problems Reagan inherited were arguably worse.

[rsvp]

What exactly is he trying to take over? You realize the same exact system is in place before and after the bill right? So I ask again, what exactly is being taken over by the government?

Hospitals are controlled by how they are reembursed. Control reembursement and you control health care.

[rsvp]

For this, among other reasons, healthcare should be a government function. There is a reason virtually every other country in the developed world treats it that way.

Where can I find that provision in the constitution? I would love to read it.

[rsvp]

Roads, education and postal delivery are also government supplied services that are not constitutionally guaranteed.

Funny you should mention these. The education is horrible and biased. The post office is a mess. And the roads are not that great either. Maybe the govt should allow its citizens to handle these privately as well?

[micatala]

And yet you refuse to blame Obama over a year into his presidency. Obama acts like he's the first president to inherit problems. I don't recall Reagan whining about Carter as Obama classlessly does about Bush.

I have pointed this out before, but Reagan absolutely did blame Carter for the problems he faced in his very first state of the union address. And Reagan didn't have nearly the problems to face that Obama has.

I'm pretty sure if a Nexus search were done Obama has mentioned Bush far more than Reagan did Carter. The economic problems Reagan inherited were arguably worse.

You are again shifting the goal post. You didn't say Obama complained more than Reagan, you said you didn't remember Reagan complaining. My point is simply that your memory is faulty, and I pointed this out earlier as well.


As far as Reagan's problems being worse, I say baloney. By what measure, other than inflation, were Reagan's problems worse? Neawrly all economists put the problems in the fall of 2008 as the worst since the great depression. We were facing a melt-down that could have been as bad as what happened subsequent to 1929.

Bush enacted the TARP to help avoid a total melt down. Obama supported the decision, as did McCain, and has continued that policy and it worked.

Obama helped avoid a melt down of the auto industry. That also appears to be working. GM is again profitable and has already paid back the loan portion of the bailout.

Unemployment is still high, but again, it likely would be much worse without the stimulus. Republicans keep quoting the "higher than 8%" quote. Sorry, everyone under-predicted the gravity of the problem when this quote was made. Comparing what actually happened to this early prognostication is not exactly playing with a fair deck.

Reagan's main problem was high inflation which was predominantly the result of an energy crisis. The problems he faced were not nearly as endemic or widespread throughout the economy. He certainly did not face the prospect of a total melt down of the economy.

[WinePusher]

Bush enacted the TARP to help avoid a total melt down. Obama supported the decision, as did McCain, and has continued that policy and it worked.

This is why it is always bad when the republican party runs moderates in general elections. Just because Bush and McCain supported the TARP does not mean it was the right thing to do, nor does it mean that the republicans in general supported this.

Obama helped avoid a melt down of the auto industry. That also appears to be working. GM is again profitable and has already paid back the loan portion of the bailout.

We should have let those industries fail. Why should I, or any other tax paying citizen bailout an industry that fails due to thei own mis management.

And failure promotes growth. America does not gurantee you the right to suceed, the government is not a safety net for failed industries.

Unemployment is still high, but again, it likely would be much worse without the stimulus. Republicans keep quoting the "higher than 8%" quote. Sorry, everyone under-predicted the gravity of the problem when this quote was made. Comparing what actually happened to this early prognostication is not exactly playing with a fair deck.

Yes, so according to you and Obama that was "unexpected." Do you really think the American people will buy that in a reccession. We have 545 people in Congress, a congressional budget office, a white house and 17 federal agencies that are to ensure that "unexpected" things don't happen.

We simply have this

1) Obama said unemployment would not rise above 8% if this bill passed
2) Unemployment rose above 8%
3) Thus Obama is wrong and the package has ultimatly failed.

He certainly did not face the prospect of a total melt down of the economy.

Can you really say that the policies being implemented now will allow America to prosper over the next 10 years.

We have a MASSIVE DEBT that is being ignored and increased by this Congress and President.

This president has only increased the debt since he got into office and his Budget Czar has said we may neveer get out of this debt.

[perfessor]

Roads, education and postal delivery are also government supplied services that are not constitutionally guaranteed.

Funny you should mention these. The education is horrible and biased. The post office is a mess. And the roads are not that great either. Maybe the govt should allow its citizens to handle these privately as well?

So you think that pure capitalism, unregulated by pesky government interference, is the answer?

In recent history, we had an under-regulated mine operator who didn't want to spend the pennies needed to fix the ventilation system. Twenty-nine miners died.

We had an under-regulated BP / Haliburton, trying to get by without a crucial safety valve (required in European operations, but not here). Eleven workers died, plus we'll be cleaning up the mess for years.

We had an under-regulated banking system, looting the economy and making off with billions in personal profit while the banking system collapsed.

The owner / operators of these companies should be glad that we don't consider corporations to be people. Oh wait - we do! Maybe Blankfine can get a cell next to Madoff.