People are morons. The same people who were outraged that we didn't get him back earlier. No big deal really, simple prisoner exchange.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
WSJ/NBC Poll: Obama admin less competent than post-Katrina Bush admin
- Thread starter Subitai
- Start date
- Status
People are morons. The same people who were outraged that we didn't get him back earlier. No big deal really, simple prisoner exchange.
benjipwns
Banned
I was told that no matter how I define it this was the least productive Congress.
Besides, this alone disproves any such claim about the 113th Congress:
Code:
113-22 Passed Congress as bill H.R. 2289 Signed into law by the President 7/25/2013.
To rename section 219(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as the Kay Bailey Hutchison Spousal IRA.
Congressional Research Service Summary
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to rename the section heading of Internal Revenue Code provisions relating to the individual retirement accounts (IRAs) of married individuals as the Kay Bailey Hutchison Spousal IRA.Unless this is a play on words, that's exactly how they define it in the article (bills and laws). They offer alternative options as well.
Ignoring all other factors and simply looking at the administration's ability to execute their agenda, I don't disagree. They've been mostly reactive.
benjipwns
Banned
lol, cmon son
Many people in this country don't know how government works. They assume the President controls everything from gas prices to rainy days. Most people don't know that we have a bunch of obstructionist, extremist fucks in congress in the pockets of billionaires. It's easier for the average American to grasp politics if they blame a single man.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
It does? how?
benjipwns
Banned
It's not just Congress.
Have you seen Congress' approval ratings for say, the last two decades?
Conciliator
Banned
basically America just doesn't like any politicians these days. We need someone who can bring the country together; to mend the relationship between the American people. Someone who can - let's say - conciliate the great 21st century cynicism. But who would be appropriate for such a job, I wonder? Who indeed...
Fair enough
There is a strong case to be made. Nixon at least had a few notable achievements.
benjipwns
Banned
For one thing, the 20th Century has both the Wilson and Hoover Presidencies.
Not anyone named Clinton or Rand, that's for damned sure. But thats probably who we will end up with.
Edit: I'm drunk, may be getting politicians wrong here.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Did Hoover cause the Great Depression? Did Wilson cowboy straight into a war like Bush Jr (who did it on false info btw)?
I
hopefully
Wilson? Maybe you mean Harding??
I said a case can be made and some scholars have. Either way he is in the discussion given the Iraq war, the economy, the overreach, the corruption, the failed policies, the deceptiveness of his administration and foreign relations.
Being productive means doing things. Not doing things is being unproductive.
Now, maybe you prefer a more unproductive Congress to a productive one. But that doesn't make your definition any less false.
I'd also rank Bush under Wilson and Hoover, just given the sheer quantity of his failures compared to theirs. Nixon probably outweighs Bush in the achievement-to-failure ratio too, but Watergate is such a historic failing that it really justifiably casts a shadow over everything else. And Vietnam, of course, which was several orders of magnitude worse than Iraq.
PhoenixDark
Banned
The Iraq reactions are hilarious. Ten years of a disaster war during which the Iraqi government went from blunder to blunder...and people are shocked it collapsed after we left? What did you expect? Worse yet the idea that it's Obama's fault. Straight up, do these people think we should have never withdrawn, that we should still be there right fucking now?
You would think that keeping us out of wars would be popular with the American people, but again it goes back to perception being shaped by the media. The narrative is that Iraq is a mess and the US has to do something about it, but isn't so who is to blame. Really s
You would think that keeping us out of wars would be popular with the American people, but again it goes back to perception being shaped by the media. The narrative is that Iraq is a mess and the US has to do something about it, but isn't so who is to blame. Really s
benjipwns
Banned
Wilson was a nasty tyrant of a man. Re-segregated the White House, got us into World War I, backed Prohibition, effectively set up a near totalitarian state on the back of WWI throwing dissenters and slavery protesters in jail, left the economy in shambles (with Hoover's help!), nearly started a war with Mexico multiple times while violating its borders at will, etc.
Took Harding to pardon Debs, roll back some of Wilson's insanity and bring back some humble pie to foreign relations.
Took Harding to pardon Debs, roll back some of Wilson's insanity and bring back some humble pie to foreign relations.
Is shooting yourself in the foot (say, you're a Square executive) being productive or unproductive?
Except again, I was told that no matter what definition I used it would be found to be the least productive Congress.
They aren't even pinpricks on the failures of Hoover and Wilson.
Which Nixon ended. LBJ escalated that into 50,000+ American deaths through slavery. Which is still less than the casualties and conditions of Wilson's War.
I can agree that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. At the time, removing Sadam sounded like a good idea. The guy was a basket case, nobody can argue that. Our biggest mistake was demolishing the entire government and military, and trying to rebuild from the ground up. Building a government in a volatile part of the world from scratch is never easy, and best done if you base it on parts that used to be there that actually worked well. If not, you have to be willing to stick with it for years upon years, to fix the kinks that are bound to show up. So while going in was a bad idea, pulling out before the Iraq government and military was actually ready to stand on its own was also bad. One is obviously worse than the other, but both are bad ideas in their own way.
Harding is, without a fail, one of our worst presidents ever. Wilson wasn't a saint but lol @ the notion that Harding was some kind of improvement.
Oh good, another wannabe-Rumsfeld.
Oh good, another wannabe-Rumsfeld.
mightynine
Member
Yes. Usually using something like Korea as an example of leaving some troops behind.
benjipwns
Banned
Harding was a great President, easily top ten, maybe top five. Rolled back the Wilson State, oversaw the Washington Conference, brought forth the Budget Bureau, supported civil rights, appointed Taft to the Court and had the whole Mellon program.
Dumb scandals that happen in every administration and some bad tariffs hardly compare to the crimes of the other Presidents. Especially the ones that came before and after him/Coolidge.
Dumb scandals that happen in every administration and some bad tariffs hardly compare to the crimes of the other Presidents. Especially the ones that came before and after him/Coolidge.
The level of occupation and involvement in leaving troops in Iraq would be considerably different from how we station troops in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Removing Sadam never sounded like a good idea considering he had nothing to do with 911 and wasn't sponsoring terrorism, not to mention the Olympian problems that replacing his government posed.
We were essentially kicked out of Iraq, their government didn't want us there anymore. Even if they did want us to stay, I see no evidence that spending a few more years there would stop their soldiers from literally running from militias. If it took another decade to "stabilize" them we have stayed that long? It was a waste of money, lives, and should have never been started.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Yep. But I think Bush is worst than Nixon and those other guys, simply due to how stupid he seemed every time he opened his mouth in public. Whether or not if that's actually how he was off-camera (which would just make it worst), not even to mention 9/11 (again), or Katrina (again) or helping to sow the seeds for the recession (again).
He's lucky he's a decent artist or my opinion of him would be completely below zero.
mightynine
Member
I never said they think deeper than that.
benjipwns
Banned
Wilson had people imprisoned for opposing slavery, war and being Socialists.
Even Bush's most impeachable act, signing McCain-Feingold, doesn't stand up to that level of abhorrent.
ViperVisor
Member
The public is ignorant in the best case scenario. A portion are actively being misinformed.
http://articles.philly.com/1987-01-16/news/26186775_1_iran-contra-story-andrew-kohut-poll
That was 1987 when 50% of TVs had cable and people wouldn't concentrate on anything far beyond 2+2. Now how well do people focus on issues today? I'd bet less so.
The conservative movement's lies and bullshit of the past 30 years are baked into the cake.
After every election there are studies that show how ignorant the public is on what they claim they are voting on
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf
http://articles.philly.com/1987-01-16/news/26186775_1_iran-contra-story-andrew-kohut-poll
That was 1987 when 50% of TVs had cable and people wouldn't concentrate on anything far beyond 2+2. Now how well do people focus on issues today? I'd bet less so.
The conservative movement's lies and bullshit of the past 30 years are baked into the cake.
After every election there are studies that show how ignorant the public is on what they claim they are voting on
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf
I find your schtick insufferable at times, this time included, but not even conservatives agree that Harding was a good president. While Wilson ranks within the top 10 from people polls from what I've seen.
Well no one bothers to point out the fact that the reason the troops were withdrawn is thanks to a treaty signed by GWB. Instead it is all Obama's fault
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Yeah that Wilson stuff is terrible, tasteless and all, but...Bush did nothing to stop 9/11. He helped allow a recession that's still affecting most of us. Got called out by Kanye on a quasi-truth. Got innocent Americans and Middle Easterners killed over weapons that didn't exist.
Tho by "him" I mean "he and his administration".
Plus most of the people affected by Wilson's actions are either dead or very old these days; still relevant today but not as relevant as Bush's missteps.
benjipwns
Banned
Who gives a shit what conservatives think? Let alone all the shitty "historian" polls that wank off over war starting Presidents because they were "consequential" or whatever bullshit excuse they want to use to handwave away the deaths of thousands. Wilson was an abhorrent tyrant and Harding easily bests the low bar of the Presidency by rolling back Wilson's crimes, reducing arms, supporting civil rights and appointing overall good finance management.
He got shit for not withdrawing troops in time, also. Had he kept troops there, people would have bitched and said he was abusing power and not agreeing to the terms of a treaty.
The man can't win in the eyes of the modern GOP. It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. They love to spout off that Obama has no respect for the office of the presidency, when in reality the GOP has lost the respect for it. Mainly because they're not in it.
How could he respect the office when he is never there? He is always at the golf course or using taxpayer's dollars to go on a luxury vacation!
You won't be able to, anyway. This is his 2nd 4-year term.
He's gone by January 20th, 2017.
benjipwns
Banned
Except he is going to issue an executive order amending the Constitution to allow him to run for another term. Ben Shapiro sent me an e-mail about it.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
Id love it if republicans lose congress seats in the elections, but I'm not really hopeful.
Say what you will about Obama, but at least he's trying to do stuff whereas republicans don't do anything and sit around and complain all day. Fucking assholes.
Say what you will about Obama, but at least he's trying to do stuff whereas republicans don't do anything and sit around and complain all day. Fucking assholes.
speculawyer
Member
It is kinda foolish to go back beyond WW2. Only historians have big opinions on people before FDR.
I don't understand the enmity behind the Bergdahl release. Reagan after all sold weapons to a hostile state in return for hostages, in violation of both the law and his own pledge not to negotiate with terrorists. But I guess because Bergdahl's ideology does not align with the far right's his release is somehow anathema to the country.
speculawyer
Member
People can try to suggest that but they are not good parallels. We we left troops in Germany, Japan, and Korea, they were not constantly being a shot at and hit by suicide bombers.
For whatever reason, the people of Iraq wanted us out. And we didn't really pull out, we got kicked out as they were unwilling to sign the same type of SOFA agreement we have in places like Germany, Japan, and Korea.
Even if we left 10K soldiers there, this may have still happened since those 10K soldiers would mostly be in Baghdad an the south where the oil infrastructure we care about exists.
I'm glad we don't have soldiers spilling blood there and we are not pouring so much money into that place. They are having some problems? Boo-hoo. I'm fine with us helping on some airstrikes. But they need to figure this mess out on their own. Perhaps they should split into 3 countries.
I doubt the Supreme Court, etc. will allow that to happen.
...You know, I'd actually like to see a President try that.
Polls and ratings and all that are just silly to me. Ask a random person what James Polk did in office, and I doubt they'd be able to tell you. And yet, he is one of the few presidents to actually do what he set out for, and all in one term, to boot.
....That's actually more of an education issue, but still.
benjipwns
Banned
Like hell he did! Fifty-four forty or fight!
Vicetrailia
Banned
Obama, the tea party, almost no politician can be trusted.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Even NBC is using the phrase "begs the question" wrong now. Egads.
reelbigtink
Member
I'm not thrilled with his record but, as far as I'm concerned, Mitch McConnell is responsible for hamstringing this administration for 6 years. I'll be glad to see that old fart get out of politics.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Until he has been found guilty in a court of law, that is just hearsay, as is your other assertions, which the media has been gobbling up without any actual proof. The public, unfortunately, has been completely played by the Republicans.... and Bergdahl, has had his reputation absolutely destroyed without ever stepping foot in a court, all because anything Obama does is apparently bad, and unamerican.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked