Obama's TRUE Legacy
- Thread starter zappasguitar
- Start date
How sad.
The hate-filled racist CFM is once again trying to change the subject of the discussion because he's so petty he just can't bring himself to acknowledge the good things Obama did for this nation.
What I won't bring myself to do is acknowledge something that didn't happen because you want me to lie about it.
What's sad is that you lower yourself to kiss a President's ass because he's black and you think that factor alone made him qualified. After 8 years of Obama, what it boils down to is yet another example of an unqualified black in failing in a government job.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
There are MULTIPLE threads all over JPP right now that prove Obama had NUMEROUS accomplishments that bettered life for MILLIONS of Americans.
We have provided one example after another of the positive accomplishments by President Obama.
We've backed them up with facts and numbers to verify our claims.
I can't help it if you are so narrow minded you refuse to acknowledge simple facts.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
We know. We get it. You lefties think he is the bestest President ever.
Blah blah blah
And you will hate everything Trump does
Blah blah blah
How about being original for just once? Too hard?
So a record number on food stamps is an accomplishment? A record number not in the work force is an accomplishment?
Having more insured when such a multitude of them had to get a subsidy funded by someone else forcibly funding it isn't an accomplishment. It would be if all those having a handout given to them would have actually funded it either by actually using their money to do it or providing skills to a level that an employer included it as part of their compensation.
"So a record number on food stamps is an accomplishment? A record number not in the work force is an accomplishment?" CM #125
So in CM's fantasy world, for things s/he deems negative, "The Buck Stops Here".
BUT !!
For things deemed credit worthy like bumping off UBL, "The Buck Stops over there someplace".
Good point CM. Why settle for a single standard when you can have two.
Viva La Doublestandard !! President Trump FOREVER !!
So in CM's fantasy world, for things s/he deems negative, "The Buck Stops Here".BUT !!
For things deemed credit worthy like bumping off UBL, "The Buck Stops over there someplace".
Good point CM. Why settle for a single standard when you can have two.
Viva La Doublestandard !! President Trump FOREVER !!
"So a record number on food stamps is an accomplishment? A record number not in the work force is an accomplishment?" CM #125
BUT !!
For things deemed credit worthy like bumping off UBL, "The Buck Stops over there someplace".
Good point CM. Why settle for a single standard when you can have two.
Viva La Doublestandard !! President Trump FOREVER !!
The double standard for Obama ass lickers like you and Zappa is something good happens under Obama, he gets credit but if something bad happen, someone else gets the blame. Maybe that's why so many blacks are in such a bad economic situation today. That it's the white people's fault played out 150 years ago.
#127
GOTCHA !!
That's not a refutation of my valid point. It's name calling and racist ad hom. You lost that one beyond doubt CM.
CM #127 provides no persuasive quantifiable reason for appraising Obama's presidency one way or another. "A quarter million private sector jobs per month added" is a quantifiable appraisal parameter. " Obama ass lickers like you" is not.
Sorry CM.
What you vulgarly attribute to unspecified (partisan?) preference is merely scientific objectivity.
It's years too early to tell.
But with the perspective and context of history, I suspect Obama will be regarded as an above average president.
A few things are certain.
a) Ronald Reagan is the Republican demigod.
b) The standard Governor Reagan established when he debated President Carter was: "Are you better off ...?"
c) That remains the de facto Republican standard to this day, and is likely to remain so until superseded.
d) By Reagan's gold standard, President Bush (younger) was a substantially below average president.
On Bush's 2001 inauguration day:
- the U.S. economy was not in tatters
- the U.S. was not at Wars
- New Orleans was thriving
- etc
On the day Senator Obama was inaugurated:
- the U.S. economy was in tatters
- the private sector was losing ~800K jobs per month
- The Bush / Cheney / Paulson $700 $Billion $Dollar $TARP economic rescue package didn't solve the Bush recession problems. Instead, it merely kept the U.S. economy on life-support until they could get out of town; dropping their problem in Obama's lap.
- We were at Wars, the larger of which was entirely unnecessary, and in fact we were lied into.
- We lost needless thousands of our countrymen to those wars, and many hundreds of $Billions of $Dollars.
- New Orleans was NOT thriving
e) By the Reagan standard, Bush was a net detriment. We were not better off after Bush's 8 year term.
In vivid contrast, by that same Reagan (R-CA) standard, we are SUBSTANTIALLY better off after 8 years of the relatively scandal free Obama presidency.
Call me names all you like CM. But shifting focus from my valid points, to your potty mouth doesn't change reality. BY THE REPUBLICAN STANDARD Obama was an above average president. Not perfect! But above average.
GOTCHA !!
That's not a refutation of my valid point. It's name calling and racist ad hom. You lost that one beyond doubt CM.
CM #127 provides no persuasive quantifiable reason for appraising Obama's presidency one way or another. "A quarter million private sector jobs per month added" is a quantifiable appraisal parameter. " Obama ass lickers like you" is not.
Sorry CM.
What you vulgarly attribute to unspecified (partisan?) preference is merely scientific objectivity.
It's years too early to tell.
But with the perspective and context of history, I suspect Obama will be regarded as an above average president.
A few things are certain.
a) Ronald Reagan is the Republican demigod.
b) The standard Governor Reagan established when he debated President Carter was: "Are you better off ...?"
c) That remains the de facto Republican standard to this day, and is likely to remain so until superseded.
d) By Reagan's gold standard, President Bush (younger) was a substantially below average president.
On Bush's 2001 inauguration day:
- the U.S. economy was not in tatters
- the U.S. was not at Wars
- New Orleans was thriving
- etc
On the day Senator Obama was inaugurated:
- the U.S. economy was in tatters
- the private sector was losing ~800K jobs per month
- The Bush / Cheney / Paulson $700 $Billion $Dollar $TARP economic rescue package didn't solve the Bush recession problems. Instead, it merely kept the U.S. economy on life-support until they could get out of town; dropping their problem in Obama's lap.
- We were at Wars, the larger of which was entirely unnecessary, and in fact we were lied into.
- We lost needless thousands of our countrymen to those wars, and many hundreds of $Billions of $Dollars.
- New Orleans was NOT thriving
e) By the Reagan standard, Bush was a net detriment. We were not better off after Bush's 8 year term.
In vivid contrast, by that same Reagan (R-CA) standard, we are SUBSTANTIALLY better off after 8 years of the relatively scandal free Obama presidency.
Call me names all you like CM. But shifting focus from my valid points, to your potty mouth doesn't change reality. BY THE REPUBLICAN STANDARD Obama was an above average president. Not perfect! But above average.
I didn't call you a name. I indicated what you do. Pucker up.
The only valid point is you can't bring yourself to admit that Obama was a failed social experiment where black skin color was considered a qualification and we ended up with yet another incompetent black in a government job.
”Obama was a failed social experiemtn” CM #129
Excellent!
By what quantifiable criterion?
- % unemployment reduction?
- Ending the Bush recession?
- Keeping the nation vastly safer from foreign terrorist attacks than the previous president?
- Avoiding scandals like Abu Gheraib, & inadequate responses to disasters like hurricanes Rita & Katrina?
Please educate us CM.
Give us a numerical quantification, addressing a categorization: example
- 300K private sector jobs added in one month.
Your “Pucker up” shame doesn't even qualify as a substitute.
“... Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:
- during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States. Of the 2.1 million, 1.8 million of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 months, in 8 years rather, net ...
more jobs have been created in the United States in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...
70 years since WWII. 36 years of Republican presidents, 34 years of Democratic presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created under Republican presidents ... a little over half the time. In 34 years there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some point the Democrats ought to be comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than have been the opposition.
...
It's 15 years since we've had 10 consecutive months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 million more jobs created in those 8 years, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields
PS
It may interest some to note that your homo-erotic fantasies are as anal as the rest of your posted outlook.
No surprise there!
Excellent!
By what quantifiable criterion?
- % unemployment reduction?
- Ending the Bush recession?
- Keeping the nation vastly safer from foreign terrorist attacks than the previous president?
- Avoiding scandals like Abu Gheraib, & inadequate responses to disasters like hurricanes Rita & Katrina?
Please educate us CM.
Give us a numerical quantification, addressing a categorization: example
- 300K private sector jobs added in one month.
Your “Pucker up” shame doesn't even qualify as a substitute.
“... Reince Priebus, the Republican National Chairman today said that 300K jobs ... aught to be expected every month ... and just a historical perspective:
- during the 8 years of President Bush (younger) there were 2.1 million net jobs created in the United States. Of the 2.1 million, 1.8 million of them were in the public sector ... that means there were 300,000 jobs in the private sector in 8 months, in 8 years rather, net ...
more jobs have been created in the United States in the last 4 years than in Europe, Japan, all the industrialized modern world combined. ...
70 years since WWII. 36 years of Republican presidents, 34 years of Democratic presidents. In those 70 years, there were 36.7 million jobs created under Republican presidents ... a little over half the time. In 34 years there were 63.7 million created by Democrats. That's 29 million more. You know, perhaps it's an accident once, or twice or what. But I mean at some point the Democrats ought to be comfort in the fact that they have been better the economy and job creation than have been the opposition.
...
It's 15 years since we've had 10 consecutive months of over 200,000 [job growth]. Just 15 years ago there was a fella from Arkansas ... there were more jobs created in Bill Clinton's 8 years than there were in Ronald Reagan's 8 years, and the 12 years of both Bush's combined. I mean 6 million more jobs created in those 8 years, ... policy does kick in, & is reflected in the results.” Mark Shields
PS
It may interest some to note that your homo-erotic fantasies are as anal as the rest of your posted outlook.
No surprise there!
47.6 million on food stamps as a record despite claiming jobs were created. The two don't go together.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once you get these willfully ignorant racists to openly state their bigotry and fact denying beliefs, it's best to just IA them. Saves you time, saves the reader time.
cawacko
Well-known member
There are no alternate facts Zap. The facts are this was not one of the better recoveries. Having 75 months of consecutive positive job growth is great and all but ultimately Presidents are judged on economic growth under their watch and it was not all that good under Obama's.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Here's a thought: compare the congressional agreements with past presidents to fix the economy as compared to the orchestrated obstructionism of the GOP under Obama. Then and only then, can you fairly judge.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Yep, the watch words for the neocon/teabagger/fibbertarian ilk are, "lie", "deny" and "ignore".
cawacko
Well-known member
What about the Fed? They have almost as much control over the economy as the President. Do we need to compare their actions to be fair to each President? How many Presidents got the pumping money out in QE like Obama did?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Nice try, but what you said changes NOTHING! In order for key economic policies to be enacted, THERE HAS TO BE A CONGRESSIONAL VOTE THROUGH BOTH HOUSES.
The GOP made it their business to DENY any positive change to the economy under Obama's administration.
A matter of fact, a matter of history.
So when people try to diminish Obama's saving this country from another Depression, I would fill in the blanks before historic myopia takes over.
But that's just me.
cawacko
Well-known member
Nice try? To deny the power the Fed has over the economy is to deny economic reality.
When Presidents are judged they look at the GDP growth under their watch. It was not all that good under Obama's.
cawacko
Well-known member
Nice try? To deny the power the Fed has over the economy is to deny economic reality.
When Presidents are judged they look at the GDP growth under their watch. It was not all that good under Obama's.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Actually, it is YOU who are guilty of myopic examination. If what you say where true, then there would be no need for Congress to do any action regarding the economic situation of the country.
You and I know that is not true.
So as I said, I include all the facts...you don't. If the GOP weren't obstructing on many of Obama's economic proposals, things would have been better. A matter of fact, a matter of history whether you acknowledge it or not.