Topic: Oh! Bama (Read 50571 times)

Mongrel · « **Reply #580 on:** October 09, 2009, 10:23:53 AM »

TEDDDY ROOOOOOOSEVELT!

That guy was like Saxton Hale in real life. HE GOVERNS COUNTRIES AND GETS IN FIGHTS. How appropriate.

P.S. I case you were confused, I <3 Teddy. Of course I also like Grant, so my judgement may not be sound.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #581 on:** October 09, 2009, 10:36:20 AM »

A compelling argument in favor of Grant

Norondor · « **Reply #582 on:** October 09, 2009, 10:37:15 AM »

Quote from: Comradestine on October 09, 2009, 10:05:10 AM

On the flip side, it was also awarded to Martin Luther King, Jr and Teddy Roosevelt (whom Constantine scholars will recognize as tied for being my favorite president).

With who?

Mongrel · « **Reply #583 on:** October 09, 2009, 10:59:29 AM »

Quote from: Comradestine on October 09, 2009, 10:36:20 AM

A compelling argument in favor of Grant

Grant's character had the personal gold seal of no less a man than Samuel Langhorne Clemens himself.

There are very, very few standards of moral judgement that I hold in higher regard.

Brentai · « **Reply #584 on:** October 09, 2009, 11:09:32 AM »

When in doubt, go with the man who recognizes the moral importance of masturbation.

Mongrel · « **Reply #585 on:** October 09, 2009, 11:12:28 AM »

Mongrel · « **Reply #586 on:** October 24, 2009, 08:34:55 AM »

Anybody else notice that O-dawg's hair is going white in a big hurry?

I'm not actually kidding.

King Klown · « **Reply #587 on:** October 24, 2009, 09:15:18 AM »

Think that has happened to the last 15-ish presidents when it comes to deal with the World.

EDIT: Or did you mean at an even faster rate than that?

Mongrel · « **Reply #588 on:** October 24, 2009, 09:49:50 AM »

Well, he hasn't even been in office for a year yet, soooooo...

Doom · « **Reply #589 on:** October 24, 2009, 10:32:42 AM »

Something about being handed the keys to the Union after 8 years of self-destruction. Didn't he work 24+ hours straight his first day?

Brentai · « **Reply #590 on:** October 24, 2009, 10:40:30 AM »

The alarming rate of discoloration of a President's hair is well-documented, though Obama's is probably more alarming than the norm. Besides having to firmly grasp the wheel of a listing ship he also has to deal with his crew constantly threatening physical harm on him and his family every time he tries to help them.

TA · « **Reply #591 on:** October 24, 2009, 12:57:16 PM »

Not to mention the year or so prior to taking office being pretty hellish in and of itself.

Thad · « **Reply #592 on:** October 26, 2009, 07:37:28 PM »

Dunno. I'd say Bush and Clinton went gray quicker than Obama did -- remember they both had brown hair before assuming office.

Reagan, of course, dyed his hair.

Re: peace prize: I like Obama and all, but I think it's bullshit. Unless it gooses him into actually earning it, in which case I'll happily eat my words. But for fuck's sake, we're still torturing people in secret prisons and detaining them indefinitely in Guantanamo. And stonewalling anybody who tries to hold the Bush Administration accountable for getting us there.

Diplomacy's great. I think the greatest thing Obama's done is turn our standing in the (non-Arab/Persian) world around overnight. That's a fucking wonderful thing.

But we've still got a long way to go.

Re: notorious Nobel recipients: Gorbachev's all right. And Arafat...the horrible truth is that he was the best hope the Palestinians had for peace with Israel.

Which brings me to another point: Clinton actually served as President for eight years. And made a hell of a lot of progress toward the middle-eastern peace process. Before, you know, all that stuff happened. Carter, Gore, Obama -- where's the love for Bubba?

SCD · « **Reply #593 on:** November 10, 2009, 05:40:18 PM »

As far as the middle east goes, Bubba actually did a pretty good job.

Clinton however is not. According to the Economist, her latest talks with the Israelis she congratulated them on promising to "restrict" the growing of settlements in the west bank and east J. This is not the full halt that is required by previous accords.

This may not seem like much, but when Abu Mazen decides to call it a day, you know that the Middle East is about to take a turn for the dark. The guy was the most pragmatic dove the place had in sometime, and the opportunity was squandered. The doves in Israel are not happy about this.

Right now, Russia and Venezuela are now looking at this weakness, and I strongly believe that the recent feint by Chavez at this point is an attempt to push us support troops out of Columbia.

With health care and climate change, it looks from a foreign position that Obama delegated all responsibility to the two houses. Now excuse me if I'm wrong here, but I would believe that delegating to stagnant institutions is not how you obtain change. Relates to one of my military principles: Never delegate actual work to idiots.

Better yet, Napoleon had better words: "First-rate men hire first-rate men; second-rate men hire third-rate men."

While I believed at the time of the election that Obama was the better pick of the two choices available, a friend quickly pointed out that he believed that while "Obama says nice things, I still believe he will go down as one of the least popular presidents in US history"

"Even more so than the last guy?"
"yea"

While I'm reluctant to agree to such as an extreme, cracks are beginning to show.

Mongrel · « **Reply #594 on:** November 10, 2009, 06:05:38 PM »

Well, it's a little early for doom and gloom just yet. Various threads are running badly right now, but the middle east has been a sodding cauldron for some time. Even the worst case scenario for the Palestinians has a rather small net effects on any nation not immediately neighbouring (which is part of the reason this has gone on for so long, really).

Don't forget that Bush still looked okay in 2000.

The Artist Formerly Known As Yoji · « **Reply #595 on:** November 11, 2009, 10:22:55 AM »

B-b-but we love doom and gloom! Like as a species or something! Why do you think we've been predicting the end of the world for at least 4,800 years?

Transportation · « **Reply #596 on:** November 11, 2009, 12:49:16 PM »

Quote from: SCD on November 10, 2009, 05:40:18 PM

As far as the middle east goes, Bubba actually did a pretty good job.

Clinton however is not. According to the Economist, her latest talks with the Israelis she congratulated them on promising to "restrict" the growing of settlements in the west bank and east J. This is not the full halt that is required by previous accords.

How much of this is Clinton's fault and not Israel's new supermilitant prime minister? I cannot remember Bush ever getting past standard Israeli stalling, but my memory is hazy.

Quote

Right now, Russia and Venezuela are now looking at this weakness, and I strongly believe that the recent feint by Chavez at this point is an attempt to push us support troops out of Columbia.

Desert Storm comparisons are blatantly obvious. Clearly, since a superpower can't handle an insurgency, a conventional invasion is foolproof! Chavez loves saber rattling anyway, so it's probably just a bluff.

Hilariously, any invasion would result in a spike in oil prices which would benefit Venezuela's petro-state economy.

Quote

With health care and climate change, it looks from a foreign position that Obama delegated all responsibility to the two houses. Now excuse me if I'm wrong here, but I would believe that delegating to stagnant institutions is not how you obtain change. Relates to one of my military principles: Never delegate actual work to idiots.

Better yet, Napoleon had better words: "First-rate men hire first-rate men; second-rate men hire third-rate men."

Obama is a literal centrist, in that compromise is always good, and most opposition is in the legislative branch soooo this isn't too surprising, even if it is stupid.

The mindless middle would consider any harsh words or "strife" a violation of Obama's whole "bring politeness/bipartisanship/blahblah" promise which was supposed to make him different than Bush. It's a standard false equivocation of both sides but whatever.

Obama ran on it and seems to mean it. He might change tactics as the GOP becomes increasingly crazy, but since he actually believes it, I doubt it.

Quote

While I believed at the time of the election that Obama was the better pick of the two choices available, a friend quickly pointed out that he believed that while "Obama says nice things, I still believe he will go down as one of the least popular presidents in US history"

"Even more so than the last guy?"
"yea"

While I'm reluctant to agree to such as an extreme, cracks are beginning to show.

Unless Pakistan nukes India or something, this is like saying Carter was a worse president than Reagan.

I mean, in between the years 2000-2050, there will probably be worse presidents than W. Iraq will probably end up like the Philippines, in that no one will care in 40 years and we will be BFFs. But that has more to do with my pessimistic outlook of the future than anything else.

Thad · « **Reply #597 on:** November 12, 2009, 05:01:03 PM »

Quote from: Mongrel on November 10, 2009, 06:05:38 PM

Well, it's a little early for doom and gloom just yet. Various threads are running badly right now, but the middle east has been a sodding cauldron for some time. Even the worst case scenario for the Palestinians has a rather small net effects on any nation not immediately neighbouring (which is part of the reason this has gone on for so long, really).

Don't forget that Bush still looked okay in 2000.

His approval rating after 9/11 was, what, in the 70's?

Hell, I thought he handled it pretty well at the time.

This being, you know, when I naturally assumed he had as little reason to expect it as everyone else in America.

Quote from: Transportation on November 11, 2009, 12:49:16 PM

Quote
While I believed at the time of the election that Obama was the better pick of the two choices available, a friend quickly pointed out that he believed that while "Obama says nice things, I still believe he will go down as one of the least popular presidents in US history"

"Even more so than the last guy?"
"yea"

While I'm reluctant to agree to such as an extreme, cracks are beginning to show.
Unless Pakistan nukes India or something, this is like saying Carter was a worse president than Reagan.

I mean, in between the years 2000-2050, there will probably be worse presidents than W. Iraq will probably end up like the Philippines, in that no one will care in 40 years and we will be BFFs. But that has more to do with my pessimistic outlook of the future than anything else.

Not the best analogy inasmuch as you're comparing "less popular" to "worse". Carter WAS less popular than Reagan; that's a simple statistical fact. (Or are we looking at it from a global perspective? In that case...well, I'll need the numbers on Reagan and Carter, but there's even LESS chance of Obama being less popular than Bush on that standard.)

SCD · « **Reply #598 on:** December 21, 2009, 10:51:23 AM »

Oh crikie Transportation, forgot to look here.

Bush did get around the stalling of Sharon, especially in 2005 and 2006 right up to PM Sharon's stroke, which IMO killed the peace process. Olmert tried to pick up the pieces, but Sharon was a hawkish war hero, where Olmert was a corrupt.. J-word. Big thing I'm pressing was that (Mrs) Clinton ended up pretending Israel's stalling was actually helping, which has not been the case. Really interested in seeing where Abu Mazen ends up going after he gives the PA the middle finger.

On your second point Tpt, I concede. You are right.

On your third point on bipartisanship, Barrack got elected to lead the nation, not to be bipartisan. He is currently doing the later and sacrificing leadership where it counts (not the environment). I believe it is too late to do damage control on this one. Also will point out that things have never been more partisan outside the whitehouse.

On that note, I am strongly believing THIS Carter will probably go down less popular than the last Ronald Regan (wrt your comparison). The rights' media and idiots seem to be polarized as heck, and the left really is starting to become also polarized and disenchanted. I really hope though my assessment turns out untrue. He has been doing the right things so far on the war side of the house in terms of wrapping down Iraq and bearing with Afghanistan despite the most severe series of fuckups (the election ) I have ever been witness to.

I wonder how his pick on transport's doing.. I hear he's a Republican

Mongrel · « **Reply #599 on:** December 21, 2009, 12:25:16 PM »

Hay guys howabout that Lyndon B. Johnson.

News:

Author Topic: Oh! Bama (Read 50571 times)