i hope he can but who knows. we'll soon find out. i think the fact that we have a president that can actually think for himself is better than our last pres.
So....why weren't McCain's and Palin's middle names used at all during the campaigns?
A1B2C3CAL
I always said Sarah Louise Palin. It reminds me of Mary-Louise Parker. John Sidney McCain doesn't sound good, though. Barack Hussein Obama just rolls off the tongue. It has a lovely musical quality to it.
I didn't write that quote, you put my name on someone else's statement/quote. Sorry, my GameSpot assistant was having trouble with the quote thingies.
I firmly believe Obama will be a far better Prez than GWB. :)
And don't use Hussein when talking about Obama. There is just no reason to.
XD4NTESINF3RNOX
why so were not allowed to say his name wtf??
Go ahead and use it. In fact, I encourage every Repub to continue using Obama's middle name from now 'til the 2012 Prez Elections. Please write your Repub congressmen & senator to do so as well.
So....why weren't McCain's and Palin's middle names used at all during the campaigns?
mysterylobster
I always said Sarah Louise Palin. It reminds me of Mary-Louise Parker. John Sidney McCain doesn't sound good, though. Barack Hussein Obama just rolls off the tongue. It has a lovely musical quality to it.
I remember your threads during the campaigns. I don't ever recall seeing you use Palin's middle name.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"]Whats the big deal about his middle name being Hussein? He couldn't choose it, yea sure he could change it but why? right?A1B2C3CAL
Would you be starting the topic with the full name if it was "Steve"? 99 times out of 100 over the last two years, referring to Barack Obama by his full name is a thinly veiled attempt to imply that he's a Manchurian Candidate type of guy. He's a dangerous foreigner because his middle name is HUSSEIN. The number of people who get the full three name treatment is minuscule, because typically first name and surname are enough to identify who you're talking about. They're particularly enough with the new Leader of the Free World. Out of the 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, 50 governors and who knows how many other people working in government, how many get the full three name treatment? So now people can't use his middle name? Sounds like you have a hangup more than anyone about his middle name. So what his middle name is Hussein, not a BIG deal..
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"]Whats the big deal about his middle name being Hussein? He couldn't choose it, yea sure he could change it but why? right?A1B2C3CAL
Would you be starting the topic with the full name if it was "Steve"? 99 times out of 100 over the last two years, referring to Barack Obama by his full name is a thinly veiled attempt to imply that he's a Manchurian Candidate type of guy. He's a dangerous foreigner because his middle name is HUSSEIN. The number of people who get the full three name treatment is minuscule, because typically first name and surname are enough to identify who you're talking about. They're particularly enough with the new Leader of the Free World. Out of the 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, 50 governors and who knows how many other people working in government, how many get the full three name treatment? So now people can't use his middle name? Sounds like you have a hangup more than anyone about his middle name. So what his middle name is Hussein, not a BIG deal.. You didn't actually address my point. My point was in the reasons why most people use his middle name. I agree there is nothing wrong with his middle name, but the motivations of people who have used it over the last couple of years have been pretty transparent.
First clue that someone is not as impartial as they think they are/are trying to pretend they are: they use the full name "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and think they are making a good argument. "LOOK! His middle name is Hussein! HUSSEIN people! How do you people not get this? His middle name is Hussein!" Obama has already been good for america by taking us away from torture, ordering the closure of Gitmo, restoring funds to family planning and the half-dozen or so other Bush era executive orders that he's reversed in his first couple of weeks. Whether or not he'll actually be good enough to accomplish the monumental tasks ahead of him that his predecessor has left him remains to be seen. It's way too early to tell.nocoolnamejim
I see you're already prepared to blame Obama's faults on the last administration.
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]First clue that someone is not as impartial as they think they are/are trying to pretend they are: they use the full name "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and think they are making a good argument. "LOOK! His middle name is Hussein! HUSSEIN people! How do you people not get this? His middle name is Hussein!" Obama has already been good for america by taking us away from torture, ordering the closure of Gitmo, restoring funds to family planning and the half-dozen or so other Bush era executive orders that he's reversed in his first couple of weeks. Whether or not he'll actually be good enough to accomplish the monumental tasks ahead of him that his predecessor has left him remains to be seen. It's way too early to tell.fidosim
I see you're already prepared to blame Obama's faults on the last administration.
Which would be fair since Clinton was blamed for all of GWB's failures. :)
A1B2C3CAL: Name some of these motivations. I already did...as you know already. :D "99 times out of 100 over the last two years, referring to Barack Obama by his full name is a thinly veiled attempt to imply that he's a Manchurian Candidate type of guy. He's a dangerous foreigner because his middle name is HUSSEIN. The number of people who get the full three name treatment is minuscule, because typically first name and surname are enough to identify who you're talking about. They're particularly enough with the new Leader of the Free World. Out of the 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, 50 governors and who knows how many other people working in government, how many get the full three name treatment?"
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]First clue that someone is not as impartial as they think they are/are trying to pretend they are: they use the full name "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and think they are making a good argument. "LOOK! His middle name is Hussein! HUSSEIN people! How do you people not get this? His middle name is Hussein!" Obama has already been good for america by taking us away from torture, ordering the closure of Gitmo, restoring funds to family planning and the half-dozen or so other Bush era executive orders that he's reversed in his first couple of weeks. Whether or not he'll actually be good enough to accomplish the monumental tasks ahead of him that his predecessor has left him remains to be seen. It's way too early to tell.fidosim
I see you're already prepared to blame Obama's faults on the last administration. What part of what I said was untrue? Here was the situation back in November when Obama was elected. 1. Two wars started early in Bush's first term that will be nowhere near successfully ended by the end of his second term. 2. A huge erosion of our civil liberties in the course of prosecuting those wars. 3. A complete trashing of our reputation with the rest of the world and an absolute abdication of our moral high ground. 4. Torture as official government policy for the first time in our history. 5. A weakening of environmental legislation. 6. An economic disaster that has led to completely flat wages for eight years, oil that is hovering around $4/gallon instead of the $1.38/gallon when Bush took office, record budget deficits, and a stock market that will end the Bush presidency at about the same level as it was when Bush took office eight years ago. 7. The biggest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor despite a memo a month earlier titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within The United States". 8. A horrifically botched response to Hurricane Katrina despite an army recommendation that the levies were vulnerable. "Heckuva job Brownie!" 9. Record number and percentage of Americans without health insurance. 10. The largest income disparity since right before the Great Depression. 11. Zero increase to the federal minimum wage since 1997. 12. Tremendous increase in government spending on discretionary programs. 13. An utter failure to capture Bin Laden. 14. Tax cuts overwhelmingly slanted towards the richest Americans. I'd call that a bit of a monumental task list to try and overcome...wouldn't you?
[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]A1B2C3CAL: Name some of these motivations. I already did...as you know already. :D "99 times out of 100 over the last two years, referring to Barack Obama by his full name is a thinly veiled attempt to imply that he's a Manchurian Candidate type of guy. He's a dangerous foreigner because his middle name is HUSSEIN. The number of people who get the full three name treatment is minuscule, because typically first name and surname are enough to identify who you're talking about. They're particularly enough with the new Leader of the Free World. Out of the 435 Congressmen, 100 Senators, 50 governors and who knows how many other people working in government, how many get the full three name treatment?"Oh I must have missed those, I really haven't been reading your posts all the way through anyways. :D Somehow, I guessed.
[QUOTE="A1B2C3CAL"][QUOTE="JohnnySN1P3R"]Lol, Barack Hussein Obama. I can tell you don't like Obama that much?It's his name...big deal. It is clear you are trying to compare his name to Saddam Hussein.
Heres a question for you. How do you think Obama would handle another attack on America? Would he have the gumption to fight back? Or would he cross his legs and run out of the White House like a little girl?
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="shoeman12"]i think he's going to move us on the fast track to socialism.Singularity22
Bush did more to ensure that than Obama.
How? Obama clearly said "GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY to fix our economic problems"
And Bush said that there will be dire consequences if the bailouts did not pass. By the way, if the bailouts aren't socialist, what is? Anyway, the massive, widening rift that we saw accelerate during Bush's terms is one of the very first tenets in the engendering of a socialist revolution. Look at past revolutions - the lower class became more and more alienated as the middle class disappeared. A heightened sense of class consciousness became ingrained in society. I'm not saying that we will have a socialist revolution, or that we ever will. The idea that the USA will ever be a communist state is absurd. I'm just pointing out the facts behind what would hypothetically cause this to be. And Obama is not it.
he has already worked harder than any president elect and is doing a lot already to get things done. Not waisting time. Even admitted he "screwed up" with one of his decisions. Something we havent heard for 8 years or from many presidents that admits they screwed up. I dont expect him to make miracles all in one year because it takes time...
True, because corporations certainly won't make things better on their own accord. What's the objection? Corporations can make things better for the people working for coporations. Obama's plan involves turning jobs over to the government sphere and repairing infrastructure instead of letting businesses put people back to work where they used to work.
True, because corporations certainly won't make things better on their own accord. What's the objection? Corporations can make things better for the people working for coporations. Obama's plan involves turning jobs over to the government sphere and repairing infrastructure instead of letting businesses put people back to work where they used to work. Do you mind replying to my reply to you above? The post with the list? I'm curious about your answer.
[QUOTE="fidosim"] Corporations can make things better for the people working for coporations. Obama's plan involves turning jobs over to the government sphere and repairing infrastructure instead of letting businesses put people back to work where they used to work. He is giving a tax credit for companies who hire people here. As for the government jobs, what's wrong with that? 16% of people are employed by the government. It's good work. As for infrastructure, those improvements actually increase peoples' job opportunities. There are many benefits to improving transportation. Again, I see nothing wrong with certain types of government interference when things are going badly, like they are now..
He's confident, cool ,fun , against war and he's smart .... everything that bush is not :D
---------------------------------
Gamer 4 lyf 8)
mindstorm
So being cool and fun makes for a good president? o.0
Would Bush not have been confident enough to go to war?
Sadly enough US Presidental Elections in this era is pretty much a popularity contest. I don't pretend to know everything about politics, but whats sad is most voters have no idea. This girl I know said she voted for Obama because he is "hot". :|
I know it's a radical concept, but I actually like reading entire quotes:
"It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe," Obama said.OBAMA
I find that statement to be true. Only the govt has the funds that can save the banks right now.
[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]First clue that someone is not as impartial as they think they are/are trying to pretend they are: they use the full name "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" and think they are making a good argument. "LOOK! His middle name is Hussein! HUSSEIN people! How do you people not get this? His middle name is Hussein!" Obama has already been good for america by taking us away from torture, ordering the closure of Gitmo, restoring funds to family planning and the half-dozen or so other Bush era executive orders that he's reversed in his first couple of weeks. Whether or not he'll actually be good enough to accomplish the monumental tasks ahead of him that his predecessor has left him remains to be seen. It's way too early to tell.nocoolnamejim
I see you're already prepared to blame Obama's faults on the last administration. What part of what I said was untrue? Here was the situation back in November when Obama was elected. 1. Two wars started early in Bush's first term that will be nowhere near successfully ended by the end of his second term. 2. A huge erosion of our civil liberties in the course of prosecuting those wars. 3. A complete trashing of our reputation with the rest of the world and an absolute abdication of our moral high ground. 4. Torture as official government policy for the first time in our history. 5. A weakening of environmental legislation. 6. An economic disaster that has led to completely flat wages for eight years, oil that is hovering around $4/gallon instead of the $1.38/gallon when Bush took office, record budget deficits, and a stock market that will end the Bush presidency at about the same level as it was when Bush took office eight years ago. 7. The biggest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor despite a memo a month earlier titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within The United States". 8. A horrifically botched response to Hurricane Katrina despite an army recommendation that the levies were vulnerable. "Heckuva job Brownie!" 9. Record number and percentage of Americans without health insurance. 10. The largest income disparity since right before the Great Depression. 11. Zero increase to the federal minimum wage since 1997. 12. Tremendous increase in government spending on discretionary programs. 13. An utter failure to capture Bin Laden. 14. Tax cuts overwhelmingly slanted towards the richest Americans. I'd call that a bit of a monumental task list to try and overcome...wouldn't you? A lot of those are simply Bush policies that Obama wants to overturn, not "problems" he has to "correct". Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually way down, and the fact that Iraq's recent elections got zero media coverage is a very good sign. There's really not a lot that Obama even has to do there, and with that strike in Pakistan, it looks like Obama isn't planning on straying form Bush policies aside from a few formalities. Also, the fact that the last president used his power to the fullest extent of the law (but not beyond it, according to congressional analysis) isn't really something that has to be "overcome". I, for instance, don't agree with Obama using his power as president to try to introduce legislation to force companies to "go green", when such measures could hurt those companies economically in the midst of a very bad recession, but he is not technically outside of the law for doing so. Bin Laden is more of a figurehead now than a real effective leader, and his death wouldn't change much about the war in Afghanistan because the organization has had more than enough time to prepare for the event of his death. The economic news is bad, we're all on the same page there, but Obama's solution simply involves doing a lot more of what has hurt us so much in the past. You want to talk about record budget deficits, look at the stimulus plans Obama has in store, all the new government programs he wants to introduce. I don't know if i'd call them tax breaks toward the richest Americans so much as tax "relief" considering the top 10% of wage earners pay %40 percent of income taxes already, we're just punishing them less for having money. Basically, there are issues to be addressed, but putting it all on the last administration is a little extreme, especially when you think Obama's policies will fix all of these issues instead of making them worse.
I know it's a radical concept, but I actually like reading entire quotes:
"It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe," Obama said.OBAMA
I find that statement to be true. Only the govt has the funds that can save the banks right now.
I actually like analyzing the actual meaning of what the president says instead of getting wrapped up in rhetoric. I saw in an interview Obama said that under his plan, "free enterprise will still take place" I don't want it to just "take place".
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="fidosim"] I see you're already prepared to blame Obama's faults on the last administration.fidosim
What part of what I said was untrue? Here was the situation back in November when Obama was elected. 1. Two wars started early in Bush's first term that will be nowhere near successfully ended by the end of his second term. 2. A huge erosion of our civil liberties in the course of prosecuting those wars. 3. A complete trashing of our reputation with the rest of the world and an absolute abdication of our moral high ground. 4. Torture as official government policy for the first time in our history. 5. A weakening of environmental legislation. 6. An economic disaster that has led to completely flat wages for eight years, oil that is hovering around $4/gallon instead of the $1.38/gallon when Bush took office, record budget deficits, and a stock market that will end the Bush presidency at about the same level as it was when Bush took office eight years ago. 7. The biggest attack on U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor despite a memo a month earlier titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within The United States". 8. A horrifically botched response to Hurricane Katrina despite an army recommendation that the levies were vulnerable. "Heckuva job Brownie!" 9. Record number and percentage of Americans without health insurance. 10. The largest income disparity since right before the Great Depression. 11. Zero increase to the federal minimum wage since 1997. 12. Tremendous increase in government spending on discretionary programs. 13. An utter failure to capture Bin Laden. 14. Tax cuts overwhelmingly slanted towards the richest Americans. I'd call that a bit of a monumental task list to try and overcome...wouldn't you? A lot of those are simply Bush policies that Obama wants to overturn, not "problems" he has to "correct". Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is actually way down, and the fact that Iraq's recent elections got zero media coverage is a very good sign. There's really not a lot that Obama even has to do there, and with that strike in Pakistan, it looks like Obama isn't planning on straying form Bush policies aside from a few formalities. Also, the fact that the last president used his power to the fullest extent of the law (but not beyond it, according to congressional analysis) isn't really something that has to be "overcome". I, for instance, don't agree with Obama using his power as president to try to introduce legislation to force companies to "go green", when such measures could hurt those companies economically in the midst of a very bad recession, but he is not technically outside of the law for doing so. Bin Laden is more of a figurehead now than a real effective leader, and his death wouldn't change much about the war in Afghanistan because the organization has had more than enough time to prepare for the event of his death. The economic news is bad, we're all on the same page there, but Obama's solution simply involves doing a lot more of what has hurt us so much in the past. You want to talk about record budget deficits, look at the stimulus plans Obama has in store, all the new government programs he wants to introduce. I don't know if i'd call them tax breaks toward the richest Americans so much as tax "relief" considering the top 10% of wage earners pay %40 percent of income taxes already, we're just punishing them less for having money. Basically, there are issues to be addressed, but putting it all on the last administration is a little extreme, especially when you think Obama's policies will fix all of these issues instead of making them worse. So if I can summarize: in your views, the things that I listed as problems are not problems because many of them are good things? This, I think, is a key point of contention relevant to world views. To me, I want Obama to counter everything on that list. I'll consider him a success if he undoes at least half of those items because I think they are so far down the WRONG path. So what you consider to be me "blaming Obama's shortcomings on Bush", I consider "Obama starting in a very deep hole that he has to dig out of".
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"] Bush did more to ensure that than Obama.Engrish_Major
How? Obama clearly said "GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY to fix our economic problems"
And Bush said that there will be dire consequences if the bailouts did not pass. By the way, if the bailouts aren't socialist, what is? Anyway, the massive, widening rift that we saw accelerate during Bush's terms is one of the very first tenets in the engendering of a socialist revolution. Look at past revolutions - the lower class became more and more alienated as the middle class disappeared. A heightened sense of class consciousness became ingrained in society. I'm not saying that we will have a socialist revolution, or that we ever will. The idea that the USA will ever be a communist state is absurd. I'm just pointing out the facts behind what would hypothetically cause this to be. And Obama is not it.
Obama is saying the exact same thing. He is Bush 2.0 and no Obamaniac wants to admit it.
I know it's a radical concept, but I actually like reading entire quotes:
[QUOTE="OBAMA"]"It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long-term growth, but at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe," Obama said.fidosim
I find that statement to be true. Only the govt has the funds that can save the banks right now.
I actually like analyzing the actual meaning of what the president says instead of getting wrapped up in rhetoric. I saw in an interview Obama said that under his plan, "free enterprise will still take place" I don't want it to just "take place".
And I believe Obama is actually being clear on what he means. No need to spin unless you have an agenda. :)
Obama is 100% correct; Only the govt has the means right now to boost the economy (the banks certainly do not), but the long-term growth will be from the free markets.
I find that statement to be true. Only the govt has the funds that can save the banks right now.
LosDaddie
I actually like analyzing the actual meaning of what the president says instead of getting wrapped up in rhetoric. I saw in an interview Obama said that under his plan, "free enterprise will still take place" I don't want it to just "take place".
And I believe Obama is actually being clear on what he means. No need to spin unless you have an agenda. :)
Obama is 100% correct; Only the govt has the means right now to boost the economy (the banks certainly do not), but the long-term growth will be from the free markets.
Because that worked with the bailouts in September. Right?
Log in to comment