Obama finally steps up

Discussion in 'The Clubhouse Bar' started by shtove, Jan 24, 2010.

  1. shtove

    shtove Guest

  2. Forum Ad Advertisement

  3. gingergenius

    gingergenius Guest

    Not that I approve of violence, but Berlusconi's a c***. He deserves everything he gets.
     
  4. shtove

    shtove Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gingergenius @ Jan 24 2010, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    No, Berlusconi is not a c*** - he's a c*** sucker. But I do approve of violence.

    Not sure if I approve of Obama - he recently showed signs of possessing a pair of balls by declaring war on the banks. Awaiting confirmation.
     
  5. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Jan 23 2010, 07:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    No, Berlusconi is not a c*** - he's a c*** sucker. But I do approve of violence.

    Not sure if I approve of Obama - he recently showed signs of possessing a pair of balls by declaring war on the banks. Awaiting confirmation.
    [/b][/quote]

    So far Obama is all hype with no results. However he still has his supports bewitched into thinking that he alone is "change". He had a full year with a majority behind him and nothing happened. We've got 3 more years of nothing I predict. On the positive side, he's not running around shooting his mouth of and ******* peopel off like the last guy.
    That picture is brilliant by the way.
     
  6. shtove

    shtove Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Jan 25 2010, 02:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    So far Obama is all hype with no results. However he still has his supports bewitched into thinking that he alone is "change". He had a full year with a majority behind him and nothing happened. We've got 3 more years of nothing I predict. On the positive side, he's not running around shooting his mouth of and ******* peopel off like the last guy.
    [/b][/quote]Yes, dispiriting to see someone so popular just serving the usual bullshitters. Alot of people hoped that Volcker would prevail, but it looks as if these new reforms of his are just window dressing.

    And what about Barney Frank - disgusting!
     
  7. William18

    William18 Guest

    Obama can never be regarded as a great president because of the massive expectations that he created for himself. Telling people that he would change this and that when he has hardly made any bold moves at all. Obama will probably end up being a solid president but not a good one because he will never meet those expectations.
     
  8. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (William18 @ Jan 24 2010, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    So, you're saying he's a liar? :D
     
  9. Berlusconi rules harder than The Proclaimers, the corrupt womanising *******.
     
  10. Bullitt

    Bullitt Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (O'Rothlain @ Jan 25 2010, 02:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    So, you're saying he's a liar? :D
    [/b][/quote]


    Politician, isn't he?
     
  11. Treefrog

    Treefrog Guest

    Obama has done nothing but bring the country into greater debt. He won't be remembered.

    Also Berlusconi is not that bad. He is good for a laugh.
     
  12. shtove

    shtove Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Treefrog @ Feb 20 2010, 12:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Berlusconi is a creature of the banks - made his money in real estate speculation.

    Obama is a creature of the banks, but also of the unions. He will be remembered - as someone who had his chance and ****** it all away. Knobhead.
     
  13. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    Oh you negative ninnies...

    The town of Obama in Japan think he's doing a BRILLIANT job so far:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  14. O'Rothlain

    O'Rothlain Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Feb 20 2010, 07:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Had a good laugh with this post, presty.

    Yeah, he's being blasted now for ******* away a whole year. A whole year with a Super-Majority (whatever the flip that is anyway, never learned it in our American Gov't. classes...probably invented by CNN or FOX).
     
  15. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    It's a majority in the two houses of government is it not? Means it takes flip all negotiation with the Republicans to get a bill passedthrough. This however, is gone since they lost that seat up North in the worst run campaign of all time. It's no bad thing in my opinion tobehonest though. For a democracy to function properly you need a strong opposition party. That was the problem in Northen Ireland for about the first 40 years of the state's existance.
     
  16. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    A super majority means nothing if there is no party unity. Party politics is a shambles in America unless you're Republican which means you'll object to anything that everyone else in your party objects to.

    Democrats on Capitol Hill just don't seem to get this message. They screwed Clinton back in the 1990s and they're screwing Obama now and Obama's attempts to try and bring those Dems back on side has alienated the moderate Republicans which has killed any chance of a bipartisan deal.

    In short, its 1994 all over again. 2010/2011 will probably be the year of the 2nd Republican storming of Congress. Newt Gingrich's laptop per child lives again!
     
  17. shtove

    shtove Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Prestwick @ Feb 21 2010, 07:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Maybe so. I hope it's more basic than that. Can voters figure out that their authority is mocked by the national left-right pantomime, and that the only way they can take back that authority is by voting for people they actually know and trust? Please.

    Paul Anka:
    To stop those monsters 1-2-3,
    Here's a fresh new way that's trouble-free,
    It's got Paul Anka's guarantee...
    Lisa Simpson:
    Guarantee void in Tennessee.
    All:
    Just don't look! Just don't look!Just don't look! Just don't look!Just don't look! Just don't look!<div align='left'> </div>
     
  18. feicarsinn

    feicarsinn Guest

    American politics does seem to be incredibly polar. It seems to be either conservative on everyting or liberal on everything with no real middle ground. I suppose that's what you get when you have only two political parties of any size. It would be nice to see a viable thrid option emerge across the pond for voters,but then again the same could be said on this side of the Atlantic. In Ireland we can either vote for the centralist Fianna Fail or for a coalition made up of the left of centre Labour pary and the right of centre Fine Gael. Mad innit? As a Labour voter I dislike the idea of being in a coalition with Fine Gael yet we would have no chance of getting into government without them and vice versa. In effect we also have only two parties.

    The situation isn't much different in Britain. There Lib Dems are highly unlikely to win (they'd get my vote though) leaving a staight shootout between the Labour party and the Conservatives. All of this of course leads to Tribal politics which means a lack of proper questioning of party policy by the average member and apathy towards politics within the general public.
     
  19. fcukernaut

    fcukernaut Guest

    Super majority just means that it's filibuster proof, i.e if you get everyone in your party on the same page you can pass anything since to opposition party can't get up and talk endlessly to block legislation. The problem is there are no moderate Republicans in congress anymore, Democrats on the other hand have a mixed bag, some come from typically conservative districts and others stil are just closer to conservative in ideology. The US government is one of the least effective democracies out there now, but it sure is entertaining. It needs some reform, particularly due to the abuse of the filibuster which is now used on every single legislation just for the sake of making the other party lose face, instead of rarely used on important issues.
     
  20. Prestwick

    Prestwick Guest

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (fcukernaut @ Feb 22 2010, 05:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
    Thats the problem with American party politics. I mean, look at Parliamentary politics at Ottawa and how both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper have managed to govern reasonably effectively with minority governments. Yes, there are circumstances which make it a different situation to American (multiple parties, doing deals with nationalist blocs, etc) but the fact remains that the ruling party must exercise extraordinary discipline and its whips (the lads who make sure that the ruling MPs vote the correct way) have to work overtime.

    While it hasn't happened for about almost 30 years, Britain is about to enter an almost identical stage in politics as Canada is: a hung Parliament. Last time this happened, the ruling center-left government hung on for dear life, did deals with the smaller liberal party and nationalist groupings, scuppered opposition attempts to pass non-confidence votes only by wheeling in MPs on their deathbeds only then to collapse when everyone else pulled out.

    The name of the Prime Minister for that government are interchangeable: Callaghan or Martin. Canada is always a handy example of what could happen in the UK.

    Anyway back to the subject. A super-majority is only useful if everyone is singing on the same page. The fact that the Dems simply cannot agree amongst themselves shows that they've squandered this opportunity.

    Whoever the Democratic Party have pass for whips in Capitol Hill they're doing an utterly crap job.
     
  21. chuck norris for president.......
     
Enjoyed this thread? Register to post your reply - click here!

Share This Page