Please Support The New US President

Pocono Joe

And the best way for me to provide support for my new President, Barack H Obama, is to oppose his agenda and that of a Democrat controlled Congress (not everything... just the bad). We will need to fight Obama’s plans to spend lots of additional money on bailouts and other pet projects. Becasue you see that without opposition, the Democrats in Congress will want to spend even more, which will likely to go on for a long time and do great damage to the country’s economy.

I’m personally not in favor of runaway inflation and a stagnated jobs market, so I must do what I can to help my president and my country avoid it. Republicans need to hold bad Democratic legislation up to ridicule and develop alternative proposals. Republicans in the Senate need to mount filibusters and throw other procedural wrenches in the works, making the Democrats work harder and think twice about some of their more expensive and partisan proposals.

And if the GOP’s opposition succeeds in frustrating Obama’s more perilous ambitions, we might just help to secure his reelection in 2012. I guess that’s the sacrifice some of us need to make for the good of the country.

How about you?

Ludo

Truly pathetic attitude...how about well wishes etc etc. A bit of common decency wouldn't hurt you for a few minutes.

jank

Sometimes I hope for you PJ, but then you come out with this $hit. Today isnt about policy, its about history. YOU LOST! GET OVER IT

murfie

Ludo wrote: »

Truly pathetic attitude...how about well wishes etc etc. A bit of common decency wouldn't hurt you for a few minutes.

Why pathetic, its the most important thing the opposition in government could do to keep them in check. I was for an Obama presidency, but all this he is the worlds savour is getting a bit much. Its a historic day for sure but he is not the second coming and it is the responsibility of the republicans to do all they can to make sure the Democrats don't lose the run of themselves and make it a measured return to good economic days.

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Becasue you see that without opposition, the Democrats in Congress will want to spend even more, which will likely to go on for a long time and do great damage to the country’s economy.

Yup, spending recklessly is an exclusively Democratic failing. Unlike the 43rd president, who inherited a budget deficit and managed to turn it into a huge surplus...

...didn't he?

oscarBravo

murfie wrote: »

I was for an Obama presidency, but all this he is the worlds savour is getting a bit much.

It's funny, the only time I ever hear Obama referred to as "the world's saviour" or "messiah" or whatever is when his opponents are complaining about a perceived attitude.

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup, spending recklessly is an exclusively Democratic failing. Unlike the 43rd president, who inherited a budget deficit and managed to turn it into a huge surplus...

...didn't he?

Well there were such unforeseen things as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina that aided to the fuel the deficit. But putting those little things aside, you’re right about Bush and his spending. He did let down the Conservatives during his presidency for so much spending that WAS within his control. That's why GWB only get a grade of "B" in my books.

murfie

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's funny, the only time I ever hear Obama referred to as "the world's saviour" or "messiah" or whatever is when his opponents are complaining about a perceived attitude.

oh please, the world is holding their breath with what is going to happen after this day. Money is supposed to fall from the sky if you listen to certain media outlets. I wasn't literally saying they call him the messiah! of course people are not saying that but the attitude and hope in him is messiah like. And hope is not a bad thing but he is not going to change everything that much.

My hope would be at least of Obama he introduces measures that will at least stop the bleeding of jobs and hopefully by 2010,11,12 we might see a rebound again.

jmayo

Jeeze stop complaining you may have an inspirational leader, at least one with a plan to make the country great again.
You aren't stuck with an idiot like we are here in Ireland, an idiot who is so indecisive that he makes Bush look the most competent leader ever.

Overheal

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And the best way for me to provide support for my new President, Barack H Obama, is to oppose his agenda and that of a Democrat controlled Congress (not everything... just the bad). We will need to fight Obama’s plans to spend lots of additional money on bailouts and other pet projects. Becasue you see that without opposition, the Democrats in Congress will want to spend even more, which will likely to go on for a long time and do great damage to the country’s economy.

I’m personally not in favor of runaway inflation and a stagnated jobs market, so I must do what I can to help my president and my country avoid it. Republicans need to hold bad Democratic legislation up to ridicule and develop alternative proposals. Republicans in the Senate need to mount filibusters and throw other procedural wrenches in the works, making the Democrats work harder and think twice about some of their more expensive and partisan proposals.

And if the GOP’s opposition succeeds in frustrating Obama’s more perilous ambitions, we might just help to secure his reelection in 2012. I guess that’s the sacrifice some of us need to make for the good of the country.

How about you?

I don't understand why nobody else saw this post for its Satire.

I guess I watch too much Colbert.

Joking aside, lets hope the government actually gets moving again.

Ludo

Overheal wrote: »

I don't understand why nobody else saw this post for its Satire.

I guess I watch too much Colbert.

Joking aside, lets hope the government actually gets moving again.

LOL...I watch Colbert every night (well 4 nights a week). Reading it back as if it was Colbert saying it...then yeah, it is actually VERY funny. I guess I am just used to Joe making the same old negative posts about Obama at every opportunity and read it as an real sincere post. If this was indeed a satirical post then kudos Joe...brilliant stuff...and sincere apologies

Manic Moran

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's funny, the only time I ever hear Obama referred to as "the world's saviour" or "messiah" or whatever is when his opponents are complaining about a perceived attitude.

I think it could be one of those things where it's easier to see from the outside looking in than the inside looking in. However, one must really be drinking the Kool-Aid not to notice the effect. I know more than a few Obama supporters who agree it's over the top.

Even on the radio this morning.. "The most important day in our history." What, and the Declaration of Independence doesn't get a look-in? Fort Sumter, neither? The man's becoming President. There were 43 before him, and with luck there'll be at least another 43 after him. He's not the first president to succeed an unpopular one, he's not the first to enter in times of crisis or difficulty either.

I wish him the best of luck, but see him as no more and no less than the other 43 persons on the same day they swore the same oath. Except possibly some of the very first ones, who created the country to begin with, which is a bit of a notable pre-Presidential achievement.

NTM

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it could be one of those things where it's easier to see from the outside looking in than the inside looking in. However, one must really be drinking the Kool-Aid not to notice the effect. I know more than a few Obama supporters who agree it's over the top.

I agree that there has been an extraordinary amount of hype. I disagree with the idea that it has originated from the man himself; in fact I think he has tried hard to downplay it.

Yes, he's just another president. But he does inspire people. Sure, too many of them let themselves get carried away by the inspiration - but it seems unfair to blame that on him.

norbert64

not to worry, everyone isn't drinking the kool aid :rolleyes:

Rush Limbaugh
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/20/limbaugh-obama-fail/

Poll of O Reilly Factor Viewers, there last week. Only 60% want Obama to succeed.

Poll from right wing media watchdog site, the results are scary
http://newsbusters.org/polls/what-do-you-wish-president-obama-inauguration-day-27539

Pocono Joe

Ludo wrote: »

LOL...I watch Colbert every night (well 4 nights a week). Reading it back as if it was Colbert saying it...then yeah, it is actually VERY funny. I guess I am just used to Joe making the same old negative posts about Obama at every opportunity and read it as an real sincere post. If this was indeed a satirical post then kudos Joe...brilliant stuff...and sincere apologies

Ludo... You’ll never really know for sure.

As long as Obama doesn’t put me in the poorhouse or the country in the outhouse, I do wish him all the best in his newly purchased position. He is my President for better or for worse (now where have I heard that phrase before that's gotten me into so much trouble???). :rolleyes:

Overheal

norbert64 wrote: »

Poll of O Reilly Factor Viewers, there last week. Only 60% want Obama to succeed.

I know I joke around a bit about him getting shot, but thats just ridiculous. Why do you want a key branch of your government to fail? Thats a vote for hoping for the failure of the country.

Even Rush acknowledged after the election that Obama is His President, even if he disagrees with him. He wouldn't go as far as to wish the next 4 years in america to be an abysmal failure just because you disagree with the man in the oval.

Manic Moran

I disagree with the idea that it has originated from the man himself; in fact I think he has tried hard to downplay it.

No arguments there, and I don't think anyone on this thread has attempted to insinuate such.

NTM

bnt

Overheal wrote: »

Even Rush acknowledged ...

Rush? What does a veteran Canadian rock band have to say about Obama? (In other words: "Rush" is the band, so if you mean Limburger*, say so. )

I'm one of those people who doesn't have much faith in "the people", hypocritical as it might sound. Individuals might be capable of thinking for themselves when they need to, but "the people" are sheep who want to be led. I mean, come on: two million stand out in the cold, for a short ceremony they could see better on TV?

So, if Obama is what it takes to get things done, more power to him. I appreciated parts of his speech. including the inclusion of non-believers as Americans (unlike Bush Sr.), his talk about putting science in its rightful place, and the emphasis on infrastructure. (No more bridge failures, please, and bring on high speed rail!)

* a lump of cheese that stinks like old socks.

Manic Moran

I mean, come on: two million stand out in the cold, for a short ceremony they could see better on TV?

I think it's an atmosphere thing. I can watch The Ball drop on New Year's in a much warmer atmosphere on my TV, same with going to watch a football game, Formula 1 race, heck, I can watch Songs of Praise on the TV instead of going to church. I'm not going to slate people for it.

please, and bring on high speed rail!

I'd rather see commuter rail. My problem isn't traffic on I-5 getting from one city to another, my problem is on I-880 getting to work in the morning.

NTM

Jim_Are_Great

Pocono Joe wrote: »

... is to oppose his agenda and that of a Democrat controlled Congress (not everything... just the bad).

"The Bad"? So you'll be first up to oppose the Federal Bill For The Regulation of State Measures On Killing All the Firstborn Males? What's "bad" legislation, as opposed to legislation the content of which you disagree with?

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Republicans need to hold bad Democratic legislation up to ridicule ... Republicans in the Senate need to mount filibusters and throw other procedural wrenches in the works

Are you serious? Are you actually? Sometimes I just don't know. The most helpful thing you can do is to be wilfully obstructive? I'm beginning to think you really are an ultra-subtle satirist secretly laughing at people who take you seriously.

JohnMc1

Ludo wrote: »

Truly pathetic attitude...how about well wishes etc etc. A bit of common decency wouldn't hurt you for a few minutes.

Why? The left spent 8 years wishing ill on Pres Bush and the Country. It reeks of hypocrisy [something they are notorious for] to wish harm on Pres. Bush and the Country and then suddenly ask us all to support the new Pres because he happens to have their Party Affiliation.

Jim_Are_Great

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Why? The left spent 8 years wishing ill on Pres Bush and the Country. It reeks of hypocrisy [something they are notorious for] to wish harm on Pres. Bush and the Country and then suddenly ask us all to support the new Pres because he happens to have their Party Affiliation.

Ah yes, I remember well the several occasions on which the incorporeal and intangible being known as "The Left" spoke with a united voice in commenting on current affairs, and then asked Us All to do otherwise. Stupid hypocrite Left.

Pocono Joe

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well there were such unforeseen things as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina that aided to the fuel the deficit. But putting those little things aside, you’re right about Bush and his spending. He did let down the Conservatives during his presidency for so much spending that WAS within his control. That's why GWB only get a grade of "B" in my books.

But didn't bush one, and reagan do the same?..i suppose that way they can justify cutting spending on social services and development..

humanji

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Why? The left spent 8 years wishing ill on Pres Bush and the Country. It reeks of hypocrisy [something they are notorious for] to wish harm on Pres. Bush and the Country and then suddenly ask us all to support the new Pres because he happens to have their Party Affiliation.

The difference is Bush earned the contempt of the people. Obama hasn't done anything of note yet, so the OP does come as a bit of a "toys out of the pram" type post.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

We will need to fight Obama’s plans to spend lots of additional money on bailouts

What bailouts would those be?
Wasn't it failure to bail out a certain US bank that started the sudden slide of the banks and market?
Are you saying that no bailout should be undertaken, or are there some deemed worthy and some otherwise?

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Well there were such unforeseen things as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina that aided to the fuel the deficit.

Left one out - starts with "I" ends with "Q", four letters in total. And you know the way if you spend more than you earn......

norbert64 wrote:

Rush Limbaugh

Poll of O Reilly Factor Viewers, there last week. Only 60% want Obama to succeed.

Quelle Suprise.

JohnMc1 wrote:

The left spent 8 years wishing ill on Pres Bush and the Country.

Better to say that some spent 8 years wishing ill on Bush for the country.

Pocono Joe

"The Bad"? So you'll be first up to oppose the Federal Bill For The Regulation of State Measures On Killing All the Firstborn Males?

Well... maybe not the Firstborn Liberal Males.
(relax… before you get your panties all bunched up, I figured an asinine question deserved an asinine response)
But I am against abortion-on-demand right up until the moment the baby's head is through the birth canal. I know that thinking infringes on a women’s right to have unprotected sex with men they barely know or care about and all... but does that count?

What's "bad" legislation, as opposed to legislation the content of which you disagree with?

Here is one:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123146274483166511.html

The most helpful thing you can do is to be wilfully obstructive?

Sometimes when called for… YES! Isn’t that what the Democrats have been doing for the last 8 years? Now thinking about it, acting like the Democrats have might be poetic justice, but it would be pretty bad for the country. The sad part is they now control the country.
(and how does it feel to suddenly be thrown from the offensive to the defensive?)

Are you saying that no bailout should be undertaken, or are there some deemed worthy and some otherwise?

Pretty much yes... stop the bailouts. Whenever I hear some company is too big to fail, then they are too big PERIOD! And if a bailout is undertaken, it should only be to entities that can prove to have a valid plan of getting out of their current mess, and become a viable entity moving forward. Chrysler in the 80’s is often used as reasoning for the bailout. But I believe Chrysler eliminated almost 50% of their workforce, developed the fuel efficient K-car, and developed the Minivan as part of their plan with funds from their bailout. What are the current plans of the automobile manufacturers and banks that got bailouts? And I’ll make a prediction now. Bastions of liberal living… bankrupt states the likes of California, New York, Michigan, and Illinois, who rather than learning from states like Texas that have become stronger, will benefit from Obama with his portion of the bailout and just dig our country deeper and deeper into oblivion.

Manic Moran

On the matter of the OP's premise, however, it is to be noted that there was quite a movement of 'Debate is patriotic and not treacherous!' sort of thing, which is being satirised by the OP's post.

Note also from yesterday.

Colin Powell, fresh from the bipartisan dinner where Barack Obama honored him Monday, warned against too much Democrat-Republican kumbaya.

“Let’s not take this bipartisanship too far,” Powell said on MSNBC this morning, noting that the Founding Fathers championed spirited debate. “Let’s fight it out.”

NTM

JohnMc1

humanji wrote: »

The difference is Bush earned the contempt of the people.

The nerve of Pres Bush keeping us safe for 8 years so the looneys celebs and the sheep that harp on their every word can **** talk him for 8 years. :rolleyes:

Overheal

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The nerve of Pres Bush keeping us safe for 8 years so the looneys celebs and the sheep that harp on their every word can **** talk him for 8 years. :rolleyes:

Its not as though he glided over DC in a mask in cape. The military is still largely responsible for the security of the State. This business of keeping us safe is just a sad defense, since nobody seems to be able to find anything else to say about his presidency.

JohnMc1

Overheal wrote: »

Its not as though he glided over DC in a mask in cape. The military is still largely responsible for the security of the State. This business of keeping us safe is just a sad defense, since nobody seems to be able to find anything else to say about his presidency.

After the Clinton Admin when US embassys, the Cole and the original WTC attack not attack since 9-11-01 is a great feat and one Pres. Bush should be commended on. Plus he sent tons of doctors, medicine, etc to Africa. More than any other US President [Certain media stations were conveniently asleep when he did this because none of the left media will talk about it ]

Jim_Are_Great

Pocono Joe wrote: »

relax… before you get your panties all bunched up, I figured an asinine question deserved an asinine response)

Fair enough, but in my defence, my asininity was a response to your opening asininity. We'd better get out of this vicious circle of asininity.

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sometimes when called for… YES! Isn’t that what the Democrats have been doing for the last 8 years? Now thinking about it, acting like the Democrats have might be poetic justice, but it would be pretty bad for the country. The sad part is they now control the country.
(and how does it feel to suddenly be thrown from the offensive to the defensive?)

Wait... am I on the defensive? I'm certainly not going to defend (much) of what house democrats have been doing since Pelosi, if that's what you mean. I would hope that both parties will become as preoccupied in the future with progressiveness and results as they have been with petty one-upsmanship in the past.