Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

4 More Years Chants At Obama Rally *

Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:10:43 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...

Didn't they already do the "scream at the sky" rally?
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:15:45 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:10:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...


Didn't they already do the "scream at the sky" rally?

Sure they did. How is that Make America Great thing going for ya aye.
30% approval rating with a good economy. Ill be darn.
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:20:13 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:10:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...


Didn't they already do the "scream at the sky" rally?

Sure they did. How is that Make America Great thing going for ya aye.
30% approval rating with a good economy. Ill be darn.

I approve.

Also the video is really funny. It basically says the world will explode if we don't show the rest of the world how to be decent. How ethnocentric.

The world is still showing it's approval by immigrating here. We don't need them, they need us.
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:23:53 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:20:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:10:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...


Didn't they already do the "scream at the sky" rally?

Sure they did. How is that Make America Great thing going for ya aye.
30% approval rating with a good economy. Ill be darn.

I approve.

Also the video is really funny. It basically says the world will explode if we don't show the rest of the world how to be decent. How ethnocentric.

The world is still showing it's approval by immigrating here. We don't need them, they need us.

Nobody needs us. Its only a choice, and we all have that if we want it bad enough.
Im sure Republicans wish Trump was more presidential, and more classy with himself. They may not always say this in public. But I think those FBI texts said a lot about what people really think about Trump.
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:27:30 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:23:53 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:20:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:10:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...


Didn't they already do the "scream at the sky" rally?

Sure they did. How is that Make America Great thing going for ya aye.
30% approval rating with a good economy. Ill be darn.

I approve.

Also the video is really funny. It basically says the world will explode if we don't show the rest of the world how to be decent. How ethnocentric.

The world is still showing it's approval by immigrating here. We don't need them, they need us.

Nobody needs us. Its only a choice, and we all have that if we want it bad enough.
Im sure Republicans wish Trump was more presidential, and more classy with himself. They may not always say this in public. But I think those FBI texts said a lot about what people really think about Trump.

One thing for sure, Obama is more at home in a church than the white house.

It's going to be really funny 7 years from now to see what legacies survive. Jimmy Carter will likely have more legacies that the crowd-whipper.
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:36:26 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:27:30 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:23:53 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:20:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:15:45 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:10:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...


Didn't they already do the "scream at the sky" rally?

Sure they did. How is that Make America Great thing going for ya aye.
30% approval rating with a good economy. Ill be darn.

I approve.

Also the video is really funny. It basically says the world will explode if we don't show the rest of the world how to be decent. How ethnocentric.

The world is still showing it's approval by immigrating here. We don't need them, they need us.

Nobody needs us. Its only a choice, and we all have that if we want it bad enough.
Im sure Republicans wish Trump was more presidential, and more classy with himself. They may not always say this in public. But I think those FBI texts said a lot about what people really think about Trump.

One thing for sure, Obama is more at home in a church than the white house.

It's going to be really funny 7 years from now to see what legacies survive. Jimmy Carter will likely have more legacies that the crowd-whipper.

Both men are well respected now. We dont have to wait 7 years for anything.
Bennett91
Posts: 6,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:36:29 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:20:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Also the video is really funny. It basically says the world will explode if we don't show the rest of the world how to be decent. How ethnocentric.

The US has always been a moral beacon - it was founded with the idea of being that shining city on the hill. And other countries have noticed. Our democracy and ethos has inspired many countries to treat their citizens with respect and fight for their right to participate in government - making the world a better place. Stop trolling and smell the Trump brand knock off roses.

The world is still showing it's approval by immigrating here. We don't need them, they need us.

It is a mutual relationship.

And who are you to define "We"? What does it mean to be an American? It's pretty obvious your Putin thumping alternative fact fueled beliefs are anti-American.
"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks
tenyearsoflight
Posts: 395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 6:46:20 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...

Uploader has not made this video available in my country.
#snowflake
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 7:15:53 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:46:20 PM, tenyearsoflight wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:02:02 PM, inferno wrote:
Here it is. This is for all of the Trumpettes.
Click on the video below. Can you believe this. What do you think.

https://youtu.be...

Uploader has not made this video available in my country.

Oh well. Use your imagination. Im sure you have seen Obama talk before.
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 7:25:44 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 6:36:29 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 6:20:13 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

Also the video is really funny. It basically says the world will explode if we don't show the rest of the world how to be decent. How ethnocentric.

The US has always been a moral beacon - it was founded with the idea of being that shining city on the hill. And other countries have noticed. Our democracy and ethos has inspired many countries to treat their citizens with respect and fight for their right to participate in government - making the world a better place. Stop trolling and smell the Trump brand knock off roses.

The world is still showing it's approval by immigrating here. We don't need them, they need us.

It is a mutual relationship.

And who are you to define "We"? What does it mean to be an American? It's pretty obvious your Putin thumping alternative fact fueled beliefs are anti-American.

I think Parrot believes that trash is class. What a slacker Neo Con he truly is.
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Let us assume that Barack Obama is an intelligent, decent, hardworking man. Assume, moreover, that he has appointed to his cabinet and sub-cabinet many men and women who are experienced and dedicated. How, then, can a president ..certainly no less mentally alert than most past presidents.. with many advisers of high caliber, produce such an undistinguished presidency?

It's a puzzlement. And it cannot be accounted for by most of the explanations currently in vogue, such as: Obama's an outsider who really doesn't understand the levers of national governance; or Obama surrounds himself with a (NAACP Mafia) whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Obama is a bad manager who hasn't been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation's problems are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together..although there is truth in all.

I would like to put forward another theory: The root of the problem is that Barack Obama is the first Process President in American history.

"Process President" (using a definition by Aaron Wildavsky and Jack Knott)means that Obama places "greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of policy itself."

Obama is an activist. He wants to do things. Yet his campaign statements should have warned us that save for the human rights thrust in foreign policy, his passion in government is for how things are done, rather than what should be done.

He believes that if the process is good the product will be good. In other words, if he sets up a procedure for making policy that is open, comprehensive (his favorite word), and involves good people, whatever comes out of this pipeline will be acceptable (within certain budgetary limits).

A concern for process is not a bad thing. Some past presidents made a fetish of chaos in policy development, often resulting in proposals that had not been fully explored.

But process is only a tool for getting from here to there. It is not a substitute for substance. And good processes can produce conflicting, competing and confusing programs.

BOGSAT

When a president lacks an overriding design for what he wants government to do, his department chiefs are forced to prepare presidential options in a vacuum. Usually this is done by BOGSAT (the acronym for a "bunch of guys sitting around a table.") In other cases, where political executives have not been given some framework in which to function, they will try to impose their own hidden agendas on the president.

Each departmental proposal (whether for welfare reform or tax reform) may or may not be "right," but there is no reason to expect that automatically it will fall in place with what other departments will be proposing. Ironically, Obama's procedures assure, by definition, that he cannot deal with the nation's ills comprehensively.

Political executives and high level civil servants prefer to be loyal to a president. If direction is forthcoming, they will try (successfully or not)to honor a president's wishes. When direction is not present, they will go into business for themselves.

The Obama presidency cannot be described (as was sometimes true of past administrations) in terms of White House loyalists versus cabinet department disloyalists. Today neither White House staff nor cabinet officials have been given the predictive capacity that they must have to do their jobs properly. A subordinate (even on the cabinet level) has to be able to plan on the basis of some past pattern.

Take government reorganization policy. Some of Obama's actions support the concept of centralization (healthcare); some support the concept of decentralization (green energy). On what basis is an administration planner to design the next reorganization?

Uncertainty radiating from the top, furthermore, lowers morale throughout the permanent government, hence it adversely affects the implementation of programs. While the bureaucracy may be the butt of jokes, it is also the motor force that provides services on a day-to-day basis - and it too looks for consistent signs from a president.

American presidents have not been ideologues. And it is certainly not my notion that Obama should become one. But all modern presidents, whether "liberal" or "conservative" (no matter what their other faults) have had some programmatic view of government in which the specific parts usually could be fitted. This is not the case with Obama's domestic program, although he does seem to have a firmer view of defense policy (perhaps because of his naval background).

So the basic problem of this administration will not be corrected by rearranging boxes on organization charts or by doing a better selling job to Congress and the public.

What has produced an undistinguished presidency? Barack Obama's failure to set consistent policy goals...or more grandly, a philosophy for government.
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 7:57:11 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Let us assume that Barack Obama is an intelligent, decent, hardworking man. Assume, moreover, that he has appointed to his cabinet and sub-cabinet many men and women who are experienced and dedicated. How, then, can a president ..certainly no less mentally alert than most past presidents.. with many advisers of high caliber, produce such an undistinguished presidency?

It's a puzzlement. And it cannot be accounted for by most of the explanations currently in vogue, such as: Obama's an outsider who really doesn't understand the levers of national governance; or Obama surrounds himself with a (NAACP Mafia) whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Obama is a bad manager who hasn't been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation's problems are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together..although there is truth in all.

I would like to put forward another theory: The root of the problem is that Barack Obama is the first Process President in American history.

"Process President" (using a definition by Aaron Wildavsky and Jack Knott)means that Obama places "greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of policy itself."

Obama is an activist. He wants to do things. Yet his campaign statements should have warned us that save for the human rights thrust in foreign policy, his passion in government is for how things are done, rather than what should be done.

He believes that if the process is good the product will be good. In other words, if he sets up a procedure for making policy that is open, comprehensive (his favorite word), and involves good people, whatever comes out of this pipeline will be acceptable (within certain budgetary limits).

A concern for process is not a bad thing. Some past presidents made a fetish of chaos in policy development, often resulting in proposals that had not been fully explored.

But process is only a tool for getting from here to there. It is not a substitute for substance. And good processes can produce conflicting, competing and confusing programs.

BOGSAT

When a president lacks an overriding design for what he wants government to do, his department chiefs are forced to prepare presidential options in a vacuum. Usually this is done by BOGSAT (the acronym for a "bunch of guys sitting around a table.") In other cases, where political executives have not been given some framework in which to function, they will try to impose their own hidden agendas on the president.

Each departmental proposal (whether for welfare reform or tax reform) may or may not be "right," but there is no reason to expect that automatically it will fall in place with what other departments will be proposing. Ironically, Obama's procedures assure, by definition, that he cannot deal with the nation's ills comprehensively.

Political executives and high level civil servants prefer to be loyal to a president. If direction is forthcoming, they will try (successfully or not)to honor a president's wishes. When direction is not present, they will go into business for themselves.

The Obama presidency cannot be described (as was sometimes true of past administrations) in terms of White House loyalists versus cabinet department disloyalists. Today neither White House staff nor cabinet officials have been given the predictive capacity that they must have to do their jobs properly. A subordinate (even on the cabinet level) has to be able to plan on the basis of some past pattern.

Take government reorganization policy. Some of Obama's actions support the concept of centralization (healthcare); some support the concept of decentralization (green energy). On what basis is an administration planner to design the next reorganization?

Uncertainty radiating from the top, furthermore, lowers morale throughout the permanent government, hence it adversely affects the implementation of programs. While the bureaucracy may be the butt of jokes, it is also the motor force that provides services on a day-to-day basis - and it too looks for consistent signs from a president.

American presidents have not been ideologues. And it is certainly not my notion that Obama should become one. But all modern presidents, whether "liberal" or "conservative" (no matter what their other faults) have had some programmatic view of government in which the specific parts usually could be fitted. This is not the case with Obama's domestic program, although he does seem to have a firmer view of defense policy (perhaps because of his naval background).

So the basic problem of this administration will not be corrected by rearranging boxes on organization charts or by doing a better selling job to Congress and the public.

What has produced an undistinguished presidency? Barack Obama's failure to set consistent policy goals...or more grandly, a philosophy for government.

So you are saying that in spite of the economy going from 8.5 unemployment to 4.5 didnt happen. Because we all know that it did.
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 8:12:09 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 7:57:11 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Let us assume that Barack Obama is an intelligent, decent, hardworking man. Assume, moreover, that he has appointed to his cabinet and sub-cabinet many men and women who are experienced and dedicated. How, then, can a president ..certainly no less mentally alert than most past presidents.. with many advisers of high caliber, produce such an undistinguished presidency?

It's a puzzlement. And it cannot be accounted for by most of the explanations currently in vogue, such as: Obama's an outsider who really doesn't understand the levers of national governance; or Obama surrounds himself with a (NAACP Mafia) whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Obama is a bad manager who hasn't been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation's problems are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together..although there is truth in all.

I would like to put forward another theory: The root of the problem is that Barack Obama is the first Process President in American history.

"Process President" (using a definition by Aaron Wildavsky and Jack Knott)means that Obama places "greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of policy itself."

Obama is an activist. He wants to do things. Yet his campaign statements should have warned us that save for the human rights thrust in foreign policy, his passion in government is for how things are done, rather than what should be done.

He believes that if the process is good the product will be good. In other words, if he sets up a procedure for making policy that is open, comprehensive (his favorite word), and involves good people, whatever comes out of this pipeline will be acceptable (within certain budgetary limits).

A concern for process is not a bad thing. Some past presidents made a fetish of chaos in policy development, often resulting in proposals that had not been fully explored.

But process is only a tool for getting from here to there. It is not a substitute for substance. And good processes can produce conflicting, competing and confusing programs.

BOGSAT

When a president lacks an overriding design for what he wants government to do, his department chiefs are forced to prepare presidential options in a vacuum. Usually this is done by BOGSAT (the acronym for a "bunch of guys sitting around a table.") In other cases, where political executives have not been given some framework in which to function, they will try to impose their own hidden agendas on the president.

Each departmental proposal (whether for welfare reform or tax reform) may or may not be "right," but there is no reason to expect that automatically it will fall in place with what other departments will be proposing. Ironically, Obama's procedures assure, by definition, that he cannot deal with the nation's ills comprehensively.

Political executives and high level civil servants prefer to be loyal to a president. If direction is forthcoming, they will try (successfully or not)to honor a president's wishes. When direction is not present, they will go into business for themselves.

The Obama presidency cannot be described (as was sometimes true of past administrations) in terms of White House loyalists versus cabinet department disloyalists. Today neither White House staff nor cabinet officials have been given the predictive capacity that they must have to do their jobs properly. A subordinate (even on the cabinet level) has to be able to plan on the basis of some past pattern.

Take government reorganization policy. Some of Obama's actions support the concept of centralization (healthcare); some support the concept of decentralization (green energy). On what basis is an administration planner to design the next reorganization?

Uncertainty radiating from the top, furthermore, lowers morale throughout the permanent government, hence it adversely affects the implementation of programs. While the bureaucracy may be the butt of jokes, it is also the motor force that provides services on a day-to-day basis - and it too looks for consistent signs from a president.

American presidents have not been ideologues. And it is certainly not my notion that Obama should become one. But all modern presidents, whether "liberal" or "conservative" (no matter what their other faults) have had some programmatic view of government in which the specific parts usually could be fitted. This is not the case with Obama's domestic program, although he does seem to have a firmer view of defense policy (perhaps because of his naval background).

So the basic problem of this administration will not be corrected by rearranging boxes on organization charts or by doing a better selling job to Congress and the public.

What has produced an undistinguished presidency? Barack Obama's failure to set consistent policy goals...or more grandly, a philosophy for government.

So you are saying that in spite of the economy going from 8.5 unemployment to 4.5 didnt happen. Because we all know that it did.

Unemployment is not an indicator of a good standard of living. Underemployment is why Trump is in the hotseat.
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 8:14:15 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 7:57:11 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

So you are saying that in spite of the economy going from 8.5 unemployment to 4.5 didnt happen. Because we all know that it did.

Apparently the voters disagreed with the "new normal."
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 8:14:33 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 8:12:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:57:11 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Let us assume that Barack Obama is an intelligent, decent, hardworking man. Assume, moreover, that he has appointed to his cabinet and sub-cabinet many men and women who are experienced and dedicated. How, then, can a president ..certainly no less mentally alert than most past presidents.. with many advisers of high caliber, produce such an undistinguished presidency?

It's a puzzlement. And it cannot be accounted for by most of the explanations currently in vogue, such as: Obama's an outsider who really doesn't understand the levers of national governance; or Obama surrounds himself with a (NAACP Mafia) whose weaknesses are the same as his own; or Obama is a bad manager who hasn't been able to sort out decisions that a president must make from those that should be settled at lower levels; or Congress is so uncontrollable that it will not allow any president to exercise the reins of leadership; or the bureaucracy has grown beyond the span of presidential control; or many of the nation's problems are highly intractable; or even all these reasons taken together..although there is truth in all.

I would like to put forward another theory: The root of the problem is that Barack Obama is the first Process President in American history.

"Process President" (using a definition by Aaron Wildavsky and Jack Knott)means that Obama places "greater emphasis on methods, procedures and instruments for making policy than on the content of policy itself."

Obama is an activist. He wants to do things. Yet his campaign statements should have warned us that save for the human rights thrust in foreign policy, his passion in government is for how things are done, rather than what should be done.

He believes that if the process is good the product will be good. In other words, if he sets up a procedure for making policy that is open, comprehensive (his favorite word), and involves good people, whatever comes out of this pipeline will be acceptable (within certain budgetary limits).

A concern for process is not a bad thing. Some past presidents made a fetish of chaos in policy development, often resulting in proposals that had not been fully explored.

But process is only a tool for getting from here to there. It is not a substitute for substance. And good processes can produce conflicting, competing and confusing programs.

BOGSAT

When a president lacks an overriding design for what he wants government to do, his department chiefs are forced to prepare presidential options in a vacuum. Usually this is done by BOGSAT (the acronym for a "bunch of guys sitting around a table.") In other cases, where political executives have not been given some framework in which to function, they will try to impose their own hidden agendas on the president.

Each departmental proposal (whether for welfare reform or tax reform) may or may not be "right," but there is no reason to expect that automatically it will fall in place with what other departments will be proposing. Ironically, Obama's procedures assure, by definition, that he cannot deal with the nation's ills comprehensively.

Political executives and high level civil servants prefer to be loyal to a president. If direction is forthcoming, they will try (successfully or not)to honor a president's wishes. When direction is not present, they will go into business for themselves.

The Obama presidency cannot be described (as was sometimes true of past administrations) in terms of White House loyalists versus cabinet department disloyalists. Today neither White House staff nor cabinet officials have been given the predictive capacity that they must have to do their jobs properly. A subordinate (even on the cabinet level) has to be able to plan on the basis of some past pattern.

Take government reorganization policy. Some of Obama's actions support the concept of centralization (healthcare); some support the concept of decentralization (green energy). On what basis is an administration planner to design the next reorganization?

Uncertainty radiating from the top, furthermore, lowers morale throughout the permanent government, hence it adversely affects the implementation of programs. While the bureaucracy may be the butt of jokes, it is also the motor force that provides services on a day-to-day basis - and it too looks for consistent signs from a president.

American presidents have not been ideologues. And it is certainly not my notion that Obama should become one. But all modern presidents, whether "liberal" or "conservative" (no matter what their other faults) have had some programmatic view of government in which the specific parts usually could be fitted. This is not the case with Obama's domestic program, although he does seem to have a firmer view of defense policy (perhaps because of his naval background).

So the basic problem of this administration will not be corrected by rearranging boxes on organization charts or by doing a better selling job to Congress and the public.

What has produced an undistinguished presidency? Barack Obama's failure to set consistent policy goals...or more grandly, a philosophy for government.

So you are saying that in spite of the economy going from 8.5 unemployment to 4.5 didnt happen. Because we all know that it did.

Unemployment is not an indicator of a good standard of living. Underemployment is why Trump is in the hotseat.

Its the econmy stupid.
Bennett91
Posts: 6,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.
"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.
Bennett91
Posts: 6,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 9:58:28 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Leave it to a Russian stooge to play whataboutism to cover up their own BS.
"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 10:02:16 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 9:58:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Leave it to a Russian stooge to play whataboutism to cover up their own BS.

Yah, what about that Jimmy Carter?
Bennett91
Posts: 6,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 10:19:14 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 10:02:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:58:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Leave it to a Russian stooge to play whataboutism to cover up their own BS.

Yah, what about that Jimmy Carter?

What about him? You're the one who clearly ripped an article from some where on post #12 just like the other Russian bots usually do.
"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 10:21:26 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 10:19:14 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 10:02:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:58:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Leave it to a Russian stooge to play whataboutism to cover up their own BS.

Yah, what about that Jimmy Carter?

What about him? You're the one who clearly ripped an article from some where on post #12 just like the other Russian bots usually do.

You obviously don't recognize critiques of Jimmy Carter. the only things swapped are the names. You proved that the ideas transcend from one failed liberal to the next.
Bennett91
Posts: 6,153
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2017 10:25:52 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 10:21:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:

You obviously don't recognize critiques of Jimmy Carter. the only things swapped are the names. You proved that the ideas transcend from one failed liberal to the next.

Moron. I never gave your post credibility, I never agreed or disagreed with what was said - all I did - as you now admit - was point out that what you wrote was not your own words.

Instead of answering my question about what it means to be an American you slink away like a b!tch plagiarizing random non sense even you don't understand.
"The annoying kid has a point. Let's revolt in this bitch!" - The Boondocks
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 4:50:06 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
"Obama is more at home in a church than the white house."
Obama is more at home in a Mosque than the white house too.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 8,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 5:02:59 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 10:21:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 10:19:14 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 10:02:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:58:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Leave it to a Russian stooge to play whataboutism to cover up their own BS.

Yah, what about that Jimmy Carter?

What about him? You're the one who clearly ripped an article from some where on post #12 just like the other Russian bots usually do.

You obviously don't recognize critiques of Jimmy Carter. the only things swapped are the names. You proved that the ideas transcend from one failed liberal to the next.

.... see, this is why people mock you.

You are mock-worthy. In attempting to be clever, you pretty much have show you have no aptitude for it.

As much as it rankles me to demonstrate your ineptitude by wasting time for a single point of critique: 2 terms. The second (blatant) issue would be the AHCA as clear answer to the "its about how, now what" policy critique.

Lastly, "its the economy, stupid", and Obama got in against Mitt. Simple facts are that while Obama was office, the train was put back on the tracks.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 3:27:20 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Obama and Carter are both respected more than Trump. I think that alone speaks volumes about this mans horrid character.
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 3:28:24 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/28/2017 10:21:26 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 10:19:14 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 10:02:16 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:58:28 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Leave it to a Russian stooge to play whataboutism to cover up their own BS.

Yah, what about that Jimmy Carter?

What about him? You're the one who clearly ripped an article from some where on post #12 just like the other Russian bots usually do.

You obviously don't recognize critiques of Jimmy Carter. the only things swapped are the names. You proved that the ideas transcend from one failed liberal to the next.

The 1970's and the 2010's are way different than each other.
inferno
Posts: 13,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 3:29:24 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/29/2017 4:50:06 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
"Obama is more at home in a church than the white house."
Obama is more at home in a Mosque than the white house too.

Obama was chosen as the number one person of the year on a list of politicians for 2017. Say what you will but this time the Democrats have already won this fight.
Greyparrot
Posts: 19,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2017 7:58:19 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 12/29/2017 3:27:20 PM, inferno wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:39:57 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 12/28/2017 9:35:21 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 12/28/2017 7:48:43 PM, Greyparrot wrote:


Plagiarism is an ugly trait.

I know. Obama copying Carter is a shame.

Obama and Carter are both respected more than Trump. I think that alone speaks volumes about this mans horrid character.

I respect lots of people. It doesn't magically make them competent, or have any meaningful legacy after they are gone. People just don't want a "feels good" president anymore. Carter and Obama are both really nice guys in the wrong job. Both of them belong in Churches.