Time to give Obama a rest, at least until the end of Feb

[Stan]

Time to give Obama a rest, at least until the end of Feb.

Too many threads... please give it a rest...

That will save me from deleting them.

Today is Feb 5 2009 time 8:00 am PST

[Dr. Shane]

My last Obama thread about the school children was a big thumbs up. A positive thread.

My thread about Obama being left-handed was a light-hearted thread - obviously not meant to be taken seriously.

If either of my threads upset anyone they are taking life way too seriously.

However, that said, this is the consequence of winning elections. Whoever wins elections gets hammered on by the critics. Obama is going to be hammered on as long as he is in office. This has been true of all Presidents and we certainly saw this with the last one.

[phkrause]

Actually dgrimm that was the first election that I was able to vote. And I got to the voting booth to late. hahahahahaha Didn't Johnson win that one? Whoops no I just remembered it was tricking dick!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

pk

[Stan]

Sure Feb 16th can work..

[Jeannieb43]

Whoever wins elections gets hammered on by the critics. Obama is going to be hammered on as long as he is in office. This has been true of all Presidents and we certainly saw this with the last one.

Shane, you're betraying your immaturity. You just haven't lived long enough, evidently. Winning the election as President of the United States has not resulted in "being hammered by the critics" -- on the contrary, many if not most of our U.S. Presidents in the past century have swept into office on a "high" in popularity which lasted months and years into their terms of office. It's only in the past eight years that our country has become so polarized. The last president especially fostered a spirit of "us vs.them" which grew and grew because of his gross ineptitude.

The usual scenario is, after a new president is inaugurated, that the counry is invigorated, and it pulls together as one, in unity. That will soon happen here this time, too, if we can just put people like Rush Limbaugh out of business. [He's not a politician; he's merely an entertainer.] He has nothing positive to offer. Those who follow his doctrines are being hoodwinked.

We need to stop labeling each other as "conservative" or "liberal" or Republican or Democrat -- but instead think of ourselves as AMERICANS. We have so much for which to be thankful. Why complain?!

[Bravus]

Kurt Vonnegut got it right:

[Dr. Shane]

The first election I remember was 1976. I can recall President Carter getting hammered pretty hard and I was just a little boy. From the beginning of President Reagan's first term Speaker of the House Top O'Neil declared the Democrats the "opposition party" and went to work at hammering on Reagan. And who, with any memory at all, can claim that Dan Quayle wasn't hammered on when he became vice-president? Of course Bill Clinton was hammered right out of the gate too. His critics were so successful he lost control of both houses of Congress two years into his term. So from my recollection, it hasn't been just the last eight years but rather at least the last 30 years.

Quote:

if we can just put people like Rush Limbaugh out of business.

Silence the critics? God forbid! That is the spirit of communist China not the free red, white and blue. If the President (regardless who he is) cannot convince the American people of his or her agenda while under criticism for it, the agenda shouldn't be advanced. Our political system is all about open debate. Everybody gets a voice. Nobody is silenced.

Quote:

We need to stop labeling each other as "conservative" or "liberal" or Republican or Democrat

Labels can be helpful but are never going to adequately describe any body in every detail. I label myself as an independent who is moderate. Of course in somethings I am clearly liberal like supporting universal health-care and alternative fuels. In other things I am clearly conservative like supporting reduced taxes for corporations and education reform. So while labels have their shortcomings I think by not using them at all we end up tossing the baby out with the bath water.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

If my grandma was still alive she'd STILL be up on her soapbox about Harry S. Truman

(I never did quite figure out her antagonisms about him...but mention his name to her and you had a fight on your hands!)

[phkrause]

I have to agree with jeannieb43, Shane. I do agree that each president has had his detractors, as they have made there decisions. Nothing like what is happening right now to Obama. Bush didn't have this until we went into Iraq and allowing it to linger for so long. Clinton didn't have this kind of problem to start until he started doing immoral things that all us sinners who have done the same but we don't allow others to do, you know the stick in there eye and the log in our eye. The elder Bush I don't recall him getting to bad of a time until the end of his term. As far as Reagan I recall him not having hardly any problem. I do believe that starting with the first bush I think things have gotten worst as the years have gone bye. That's not saying that Presidents haven't had there share of problems. But nothing like this. Every day, every hour, every minute and every second. Absolutely retarded. Lets get the thing going and see if it works, if not, great complain all we want than.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

I think we have some selective memories. Tom Dashle just got a taste of his own medicine. Have we forgotten what he did to the nomination of Linda Chavez? Linda Chavez was accused of hiring an illegal alien to work for her. Mrs. Chavez claimed she didn't hire the illegal but was only allowing the single mother to stay with her as an act of help. Linda Chavez is Hispanic. Surprize, surprize! She was helping an illegal alien. Most people close to the Hispanic community have done this, including my wife and I. And why was Tom Daschle so against illegals? Tom Daschle threatened to filabuster her nomination if she didn't withdraw which she did. That was long before the Iraq War. That was in the beginning of Bush's first term.

And what about the appointment of Edwin Meese as Attorney General by President Reagan? Have we forgotten that? Come on folks. Let's be honest with ourselves and not try to repaint history. President Reagan fought with Congress from the very beginning and the media wasn't always nice to him either.

President Clinton also had trouble getting appointees approved. The critics called that "nanny-gate". The Monica-Lewinsky scandal didn't happen until his second term and he lost both houses of Congress half way through his first term. Waco was burned down during Clinton's first 100 days in office. Hillary's health-care reform was defeated by critics. He was attacked for firing all the White House travel office and US attorneys.

Division didn't come to Washington in the year 2000. The biggest difference in the last decade is this medium of media - the Internet. News is now lighting fast. Something happens and we know about it as soon as we glance at our computers. Ideologues have blogs that millions read everyday. Politics hasn't gotten any nastier. More people have become engaged in the process.

[there buster]

somebody help me out, here.

how long was the moratorium on Bush bashing?

I don't remember.

[Woody]

Good Point Ichabod.

The Bush bashing was MUCH worse than anything this president has received. I recall numerous posts from Neil and Carolaa in particular .... stating repeatedly ... that Bush was a liar.

Now ... has ANYone here called our current president names such as liar?

Where was the ban when the Bush name calling was going on? It was down right nasty.

[Taylor]

WEll maybe it should have been instituted for Bush and for Obama. Me thinks we need to pray for both. Just my 2 cents.

[John317]

I think Bush is doing very well about now. He misses the presidency but he's also glad to be back on his ranch and working on a book and on his library. I will be very interested to see how history views him in about 10 years. I think there will be some surprises, especially if Iraq and Afghanistan are stable, strong democracies at that time.

[phkrause]

I always thought Bush did what he thought he had to do, and didn't allow anyone to back him down. Not saying that everything he did was right. I think each president has to live with what they have done. What amazes me right now is all these hollywood people that backed obama, where are they now. Not one peep from them. Just a few months ago they were all over him. And it seems to me or looks like all they wanted was for the president to give them some money. The only reason to back him had nothing to do about the man. Since the republican party wasn't going to do anything for them they backed the democrats, and it probably wouldn't have matter which one it was. Just my few cents worth.

pk

[Bravus]

Or, you know, they actually had a vision of a kinder, fairer, better country, were willing to support it, and are now getting out of the way and letting the president get on with the job.

Whichever way you prefer.

[Stan]

Those who know me, know that I am prone to making mistakes..

This is the political forum, the place that issues like Obama should be discussed..

Saying there was a ban, was really out-of-line wasn't it?

Does grace abound enough here to forgive me?

"Let Freedom RING" but lets keep it in this forum...

[there buster]

Quote:

they actually had a vision of a kinder, fairer, better country,

Absolutely.

A country where no lobbyists would be allowed in the administration -- if you don't count the 17 exceptions so far.

A country which does not engage in rendition == except in the cases where the CIA wants to (Leon Panetta)

A country in which the wealthy pay their "fair share" of taxes-- unless they happen to be wealthy Democrats nominated for the cabinet-- or Charlie Rangel, head of "Ways and Means" committee.

A country that closes Guantanamo detention center on day one. . .er, sets up a commission on day one to close the detention center. . . .sometime. . . .maybe.

A country where workers don't have to go to the trouble of a secret ballot to vote for union representation, where they can be bullied into signing a card in public, or singled out if they don't.

A country where babies who survive abortions are denied medical care, so as not to be a burden on their mothers.

No doubt about it. Kinder, fairer, better.

[phkrause]

Your forgiven Stan. But that's only me, not sure that redwood is going to forgive you.

pk

[Woody]

Those who know me, know that I am prone to making mistakes..

This is the political forum, the place that issues like Obama should be discussed..

Saying there was a ban, was really out-of-line wasn't it?

Does grace abound enough here to forgive me?

"Let Freedom RING" but lets keep it in this forum...

Do I think it was really dumb? Yes.

Do I think that it takes a man to admit a mistake? Yes.

Do I understand the motive and desire behind it? Yes.

Do I take and learn from the motive? Yes

Do I forgive and apply Grace? Yes.

Do I still believe that Stan is the Man? Yes.

[CyberGuy]

Why????

Obama is a political topic and he is on the Numero Uno head of the list in political topics. You cannot talk about the economy without talking about Obama and is socialistic agenda to make all americans dependant on the goverment.

[Bravus]

(perhaps read the whole thread before responding?)

[missionlady]

Hey Stan,

It would be much easier to give Obama a rest if he would give us a rest.

He just keeps on giving and giving and giving...but it's not rest that he is giving.

[Woody]

Hey Stan,

It would be much easier to give Obama a rest if he would give us a rest.

He just keeps on giving and giving and giving...but it's not rest that he is giving.

Good Point. Obama has plumb tuckered me out.

[Neil D]

Good Point. Obama has plumb tuckered me out.

You mean you are going to finally start living the Adventist lifestyle now and give up cheese and crackers along with the whining? and start posting messages of trust?????

Ok, buster, who are you and what have you done with Redwood????