Things I like about Obama.....Follow

Where did Paul say Obama is (or will be) a better president than Bush, prior to you derailing this? All he said was what he liked about Obama.

I've restricted my criticisms to specific actions he and his administration have taken since taking office.

False.

Beyond that, you're haven't actually criticized any actions at all. You've criticized imaginary things that haven't occurred. Feel free to comment on an actual action taken and why you disagree with it. Please include what you think the likely outcome will be so we can ridicule when the opposite occurs. There's an interesting philosophical debate to be made weather you actually have the power to cause the opposite to occur, given the amazing correlation between you predicting something and the opposite occurring, but that's an argument for another time.

I like that Obama is a good dad that will put his kids Easter plans and his daughter's soccer game ahead of stuff like the Gridiron dinner.

That depends on what your definition of success is.

If we had "succeeded" we would have pulled out in six months like Bush promised us we would.

It's been six years and we're still there.

Edited, Mar 24th 2009 7:22pm by catwho

Funny how you've never used this method when assessing Bush's presidency.

False.


You've criticized imaginary things that might have happened, or could have happened, but not what *actually* happened.

I'm sure I've also criticized the implications of things, and some of these may not have come to pass.


He prevented terrorist attacks on the US after 9/11, something all the folks on the left insisted was possible.

Firstly, this is demonstrably false. "On the US" would include the thousands dead in Iraq from terrorist attacks. Did you mean "In the US?" Did you mean "the left insisted was impossible"?

Assuming those two are the case, it's a completely meaningless platitude. It's impossible to demonstrate any action taken by the US in the last eight years lowered the likelyhood of a terrorist attack in the US. It is solely in the US that there even exists a viable point of view that "terrorists" are "at ware with the US". The idea that the forces behind 9-11 give a **** if they kill people in Cleveland or Madrid or London or Baghdad is an arrogant one with zero evidence to support it.



He succeeded in Iraq. Something those same folks insisted couldn't be done. He turned the economy around. Again, amidst a sea of liberals insisting that "trickle down doesn't work".


He turned the economy around? He succeeded in Iraq? By what measures?


Funny how your arguments are based on your own assumptions of how things will or wont turn out. And it's amazing how consistently those things were wrong.

Yeah? Cite some.


You claim I've been wrong? On one or two minor things, sure? But on the biggies? I was right. Bush's plan in Iraq worked. His economic plan worked. His foreign policy worked. All the things the folks on the left insisted would fail, actually worked incredibly well, once we were able to fight through all the idiots trying to stand in the way.


Hahahahahahahahahaha. Holly ****, the denial is really that bad? Cite some of your own predictions that turned out to be accurate. Alternately, if you prefer, I can cite 100 that weren't. Probably more.



Meanwhile, you're all cheering Obama's decisions, again based on this incredibly flawed assumption about what works and what doesn't. It doesn't take a genius to see that increasing spending massively during a recession is a bad idea. Borrowing trillions of dollars to do so is a bad idea. Raising taxes is a bad idea. Obama will have to do one or more of those things.


I'll wager any amount you'd like that the percentage gain in the Dow Jones Industrial Average at the end of Obama's presidency is greater than the same metric during Bush's term.


It's like upside down world here...

It looks like you're clinically mentally ill, really. Pretending you were right isn't the same thing as being right, not matter how badly you'd like it to be.

Sorry :(

If by succeeded he means "bombed more brown people," then sure, I can see it.

He turned the economy around?... By what measures?

Easy! Look where we were in 2000, and just look where we are today!

Let us know what your definition of success in Iraq is.

Want to guess which happened in this case?

No one's ever defined victory conditions in Iraq. That's what's happening. I've asked you, personally, what you'd consider them to be, you've refused to answer for going on five years now. That's what's happening. I stated in 2004 that Iraq would be a theocracy in ten years. Only 5 years to go!

Um... You have an incredibly selective memory. Every single time you've asked, I've give the same answer each time. And it's the same answer that the Bush administration gave before the invasion. It has always been the same objective.

It's just been useful for you on the left to pretend that no one ever set victory conditions. I suppose that way you can make them up yourself as you go along or something.

How about you go looking yourself. It's not hard to find numerous speeches in which the same information is repeated over and over. Just because you and everyone else on the left closed your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears and sang "nananana I can't hear you" every time it happened, doesn't mean it didn't.


Gez. Talk about denial.

You're right, he never said we would be victorious six months after invading. He said we WERE victorious eight months after invading. My bad.

Found this treasure trove of wonderful quotes from the Bush administration you love so much:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/stupidquotes/a/iraqquotes.htm

I can't turn off the default filter for some reason. It means I can't read gbaji's posts.

That's mildly annoying. They're usually pretty entertaining.