Finally, his last State of the Union Address

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 16:03:11 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Jan 15, 2016 17:14:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think it will be remembered quite well.  i am young enough to be around to be shown correct.

If the criteria for judging his presidency is dividing and destroying the nation, then yes, he will be remembered quite fondly.

when i was protesting the Iraq War, you would not believe what i was called, greg.  nothing in my lifetime compares to it.  and i hold Bush to account for it.

"if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists".  FUCK that guy.

[Deleted]

Jan 15, 2016 23:04:27 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The answer to #1 is not Obama.  And regardless, he will not be remembered as anywhere near the worst President in US history.  In the middle somewhere, yes.  He will not even approach being considered the worst president of the first two this century.   

As for who IS the answer to #1, I think I can grant him some extenuating circumstances.... 

The answer for #1 actually is Obama. He's got the highest total national debt for one president (projected to be 6.6 TRILLION dollars for his terms in office)... DOUBLE that of Bush II (3.294T).

[tallguy]

As dj reiterated though, that wasn't the question.  Try reading it again.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 10:36:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 15, 2016 22:00:55 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Answer #1: That would be Mr Obama. (President Obama has the largest deficits, totaling $6.6 trillion projected for his eight years in office. SOURCE)
Answer #2: He's not "remembered" as anything yet... he will be "remembered" as the worst President in US history.

yeah.  you have some homework to do.

edit: the second half is part of the question, Richard. 

The second half is irrelevant to the question as it doesn't apply to the question. "Worst" isn't calculated based on ONLY the percentage of GDP. I don't even think GDP applies because it's mathematically possible to have a near ZERO deficit and still raise the percentage of GDP (if the GDP falls to complete crap, which CAN happen).

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 18:54:19 GMT -5 tallguy said:

As dj reiterated though, that wasn't the question.  Try reading it again.

I just replied to that reiteration.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 16:50:05 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The only thing that this President has done to "divide" the country was to be elected.  The right-wing elements in this government pledged before he even took office to destroy him and make as Priority #1 that he be only a one-term president.  Thus the absolute refusal to work with him on anything, all while offering nothing of substance of their own.

I am not an apologist for either the President or the Democrats, but they are miles ahead of what the Republican Party has become lately.  And it is laughable that the extreme-right have the audacity to suggest even for a minute that THEY are the party's base.  They suggest that the Republican Party is not Republican enough.  That is not only stupid, but mind-bogglingly so.  It is THEY who moved.  The "establishment" about which they complain so bitterly IS the establishment precisely because that is where the base has historically been. 

The extreme-right should do the only sensible thing left to them.  Break away and form their own party.  Leave the name behind though, guys.  It does not fit you.  

Really?

So you are saying he didn't do the following:
> Craft and sign Obamacare
> Go on an "apology" tour
> Create the biggest overall deficit in US history
> Double the existing debt
> Trade 5 known terrorists for one deserter


That's just the first 5 off the top of my head...

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 18:51:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 15, 2016 23:04:27 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The answer to #1 is not Obama.  And regardless, he will not be remembered as anywhere near the worst President in US history.  In the middle somewhere, yes.  He will not even approach being considered the worst president of the first two this century.   

As for who IS the answer to #1, I think I can grant him some extenuating circumstances.... 

The answer for #1 actually is Obama. He's got the highest total national debt for one president (projected to be 6.6 TRILLION dollars for his terms in office)... DOUBLE that of Bush II (3.294T).

i very carefully stated that it was on a GDP basis.

your answer was NOT correct.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 18:56:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 16, 2016 10:36:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah.  you have some homework to do.

edit: the second half is part of the question, Richard. 

The second half is irrelevant to the question

um...no.  it is the way national debt is generally measured.  moreover, it is how i asked the question.  you don't get to determine that.  sorry, you just don't.

measuring debt in absolute terms is meaningless.  what constitutes a crisis in Greece would be relatively easy to manage in Spain.  what constitutes a crisis in sub-Saharan Africa could easily be handled by Portugal.  it is meaningful to consider the ability of a nation to pay it's debt when considering how "bad" it is.

[gregintenn]

Jan 16, 2016 17:20:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 16, 2016 16:03:11 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

If the criteria for judging his presidency is dividing and destroying the nation, then yes, he will be remembered quite fondly.

when i was protesting the Iraq War, you would not believe what i was called, greg.  nothing in my lifetime compares to it.  and i hold Bush to account for it.

"if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists".  FUCK that guy.

Are you currently protesting the Afghanistan war as well? Fuck the current guy too!
The entire middle east isn't worth one drop of American blood. Americans are STILL being killed regularly in Afghanistan. It just doesn't lead the nightly news anymore since we have a commie in the whitehouse.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 19:05:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 16, 2016 18:51:52 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The answer for #1 actually is Obama. He's got the highest total national debt for one president (projected to be 6.6 TRILLION dollars for his terms in office)... DOUBLE that of Bush II (3.294T).

i very carefully stated that it was on a GDP basis.

your answer was NOT correct.

And I very carefully stated that GDP is irrelevant to the question, since the question applies to deficit.

My answer WAS correct to your question since GDP is irrelevant to deficit.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 19:07:22 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Jan 16, 2016 17:20:05 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

when i was protesting the Iraq War, you would not believe what i was called, greg.  nothing in my lifetime compares to it.  and i hold Bush to account for it.

"if you are not with us, you are with the terrorists".  FUCK that guy.

Are you currently protesting the Afghanistan war as well? Fuck the current guy too!
The entire middle east isn't worth one drop of American blood. Americans are STILL being killed regularly in Afghanistan. It just doesn't lead the nightly news anymore since we have a commie in the whitehouse.

i literally have to leave this minute, but i am generally opposed to ALL war, but particularly war that is unprovoked.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 19:07:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 16, 2016 18:56:48 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The second half is irrelevant to the question

um...no.  it is the way national debt is generally measured.  moreover, it is how i asked the question.  you don't get to determine that.  sorry, you just don't.

measuring debt in absolute terms is meaningless.  what constitutes a crisis in Greece would be relatively easy to manage in Spain.  what constitutes a crisis in sub-Saharan Africa could easily be handled by Portugal.  it is meaningful to consider the ability of a nation to pay it's debt when considering how "bad" it is.

You and I disagree on that. And that's o.k..

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 19:09:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 16, 2016 19:05:20 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i very carefully stated that it was on a GDP basis.

your answer was NOT correct.

And I very carefully stated that GDP is irrelevant to the question,

then you answered it incorrectly.  sorry.  you just did.

bye.

[djAdvocate]

Jan 16, 2016 19:10:46 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 16, 2016 19:07:04 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

um...no.  it is the way national debt is generally measured.  moreover, it is how i asked the question.  you don't get to determine that.  sorry, you just don't.

measuring debt in absolute terms is meaningless.  what constitutes a crisis in Greece would be relatively easy to manage in Spain.  what constitutes a crisis in sub-Saharan Africa could easily be handled by Portugal.  it is meaningful to consider the ability of a nation to pay it's debt when considering how "bad" it is.

You and I disagree on that. And that's o.k..

i couldn't be happier to disagree with you about this.  bye.

[billisonboard]

Jan 16, 2016 19:07:22 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

...
Are you currently protesting the Afghanistan war as well? ...

No real point in "protesting". The continued presence of troops in Afghanistan did cost Obama my vote in 2012.

[gregintenn]

It wasn't aimed at you, Bills. DJ stated he'd been protesting Bush and the Iraq war. I was looking for consistency and found little.

[dondub]

we have a commie in the whitehouse.

Is this your site Greg?

www.commieblaster.com/obama/

[billisonboard]

Jan 16, 2016 19:21:48 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

It wasn't aimed at you, Bills. DJ stated he'd been protesting Bush and the Iraq war. I was looking for consistency and found little.

but I post sometimes out of boredom.

[Deleted]

Jan 16, 2016 19:11:44 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jan 16, 2016 19:09:34 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

And I very carefully stated that GDP is irrelevant to the question,

then you answered it incorrectly.  sorry.  you just did.

bye.

I answered it the only way it was possible to BE answered. I ignored the irrelevant part.

It's like your question was: "What meat makes for a better omelette - sausage gravy is better on biscuits?"

Sausage gravy being better on biscuits is completely irrelevant to what meat makes for a better omelette.

[gregintenn]

...and if he'd ever eaten a good sausage gravy, maybe his panties wouldn't always be in such a bunch.

[zibazinski]

[tallguy]

Jan 16, 2016 19:04:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jan 16, 2016 16:50:05 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The only thing that this President has done to "divide" the country was to be elected.  The right-wing elements in this government pledged before he even took office to destroy him and make as Priority #1 that he be only a one-term president.  Thus the absolute refusal to work with him on anything, all while offering nothing of substance of their own.

I am not an apologist for either the President or the Democrats, but they are miles ahead of what the Republican Party has become lately.  And it is laughable that the extreme-right have the audacity to suggest even for a minute that THEY are the party's base.  They suggest that the Republican Party is not Republican enough.  That is not only stupid, but mind-bogglingly so.  It is THEY who moved.  The "establishment" about which they complain so bitterly IS the establishment precisely because that is where the base has historically been. 

The extreme-right should do the only sensible thing left to them.  Break away and form their own party.  Leave the name behind though, guys.  It does not fit you.  

Really?

So you are saying he didn't do the following:
> Craft and sign Obamacare
> Go on an "apology" tour
> Create the biggest overall deficit in US history
> Double the existing debt
> Trade 5 known terrorists for one deserter


That's just the first 5 off the top of my head...

1.  Obamacare could be better, and likely would be if the President and Congress could have worked together rather than not, but it is still for many, many people better than what we had.  I don't pretend that it is perfect, or even what we most need.  Still, though, I could at least have a minimal respect for the other side if they had even once in seven years come up with an actual plan themselves. 

2.  No.  That is a ridiculous "talking point."  Rebuilding diplomatic ties that were basically destroyed during the previous administration was the goal, and it did not involve "apologizing" to anybody. 

3.  Not necessarily so.  Most of that deficit is more attributable to automatic increases in entitlement spending that would have happened under any president, along with two illegitimate wars begun by the Bush Administration, the effects of the recession begun while Bush was president, and the monstrously ill-advised Bush tax cuts which Obama was denied the ability to revoke.

4.  No.  (At least not yet.)  Bush II doubled the debt.  Reagan tripled it.  It has not to this point doubled under Obama.   

5.  Didn't particularly care for that one, and won't defend it, but there is still the idea that we don't leave our own behind.  Arguable whether he is in fact "one of our own."  I intentionally have not kept informed on that particular subject so will leave it alone.     

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Jan 16, 2016 19:04:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Really?

So you are saying he didn't do the following:
> Craft and sign Obamacare
> Go on an "apology" tour
> Create the biggest overall deficit in US history
> Double the existing debt
> Trade 5 known terrorists for one deserter


That's just the first 5 off the top of my head...

I have a few more to add:

-Slowest economic recovery in post war history - this includes the dot com bubble that his predecessor delt with(mixed with 9/11). It was the slowest because the recovery wasn't even started by his policy, TARP and other programs that stabilized the economy were already in place when he took office.(Empty Chair.)
-Supporters continue the believe that housing crisis was his predecessors fault, when in fact it was Greenspan and Clinton in the 90's that started it off with "everyone deserves a home." History will shows this.(Too bad Hillary wouldn't have beat him back in '08. It would have been funny to see her deal with her hubbies mess.)
-Ignored all advice that pulling out of Iraq would create the problems that we are now seeing.
-Made a deal with, Putin and Assad that allowed Assad to continue to decimate his own people, thus making the problems in Iraq much larger. This has led to over a million refugees flooding Europe (and we have all seen how that is turning out.)

I could go on, but as has been stated already, NO history will not be kind to Obama because of what comes next in the east.

[dondub]

Economic recovery, from the deepest hole since 1929, would have been helped if major corps. hadn't created 2 million jobs overseas instead of at home. Blame them.

Of course BushCo. has culpability for the housing bust with Greenspan leading the way. Try Money For Nothing for a great expose' of Greenspan's screwup. And Bush pushing the ZroDown Payment Act in 2004, that was probably Clinton's fault too. The Sub Prime lending came well after Clinton was long gone.

BushCo. put us into an untenable position in Iraq by stupidly invading. No matter what Obama did with this mess he would have come under fire from the right, that's how they have rolled during his presidency.

Please provide a link to the Putin~Assad~Obama deal so I can explore the validity of your statement. TYIA

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

I could argue with you and prove what I am saying... But then again I could just let history unfold over the next 10 years and enjoy my evening... Yeah, I'm just going to enjoy my evening.

[Deleted]

Our recovery from the greatest depression since the great one in the amount of time passed is pretty damn incredible actually.

[Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger]

Agreed! I have argued correctly against a poster with extensive knowledge in economics(pretty sure it's a Masters degree) for years that the housing bust was not solely Ben Bernanke fault, and that we are seeing a privately led recovery similar to that of the late 1800's.(and boy has this poster tried to insult me personally over the years. Which I laugh off and ignore.)

If anything, Obama will be credited for proving the Government is essentially useless.

[gregintenn]

Jan 16, 2016 20:02:53 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Jan 16, 2016 19:04:07 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Really?

So you are saying he didn't do the following:
> Craft and sign Obamacare
> Go on an "apology" tour
> Create the biggest overall deficit in US history
> Double the existing debt
> Trade 5 known terrorists for one deserter


That's just the first 5 off the top of my head...

1.  Obamacare could be better, and likely would be if the President and Congress could have worked together rather than not, but it is still for many, many people better than what we had.  I don't pretend that it is perfect, or even what we most need.  Still, though, I could at least have a minimal respect for the other side if they had even once in seven years come up with an actual plan themselves. 

2.  No.  That is a ridiculous "talking point."  Rebuilding diplomatic ties that were basically destroyed during the previous administration was the goal, and it did not involve "apologizing" to anybody. 

3.  Not necessarily so.  Most of that deficit is more attributable to automatic increases in entitlement spending that would have happened under any president, along with two illegitimate wars begun by the Bush Administration, the effects of the recession begun while Bush was president, and the monstrously ill-advised Bush tax cuts which Obama was denied the ability to revoke.

4.  No.  (At least not yet.)  Bush II doubled the debt.  Reagan tripled it.  It has not to this point doubled under Obama.   

5.  Didn't particularly care for that one, and won't defend it, but there is still the idea that we don't leave our own behind.  Arguable whether he is in fact "one of our own."  I intentionally have not kept informed on that particular subject so will leave it alone.     

You remember a place called Benghazi?

[tallguy]

Yes.  Are you aware that multiple investigations have debunked all of the Fox News/right-wing conspiracy-theory/talking points?

[gregintenn]

Jan 16, 2016 21:47:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Yes.  Are you aware that multiple investigations have debunked all of the Fox News/right-wing conspiracy-theory/talking points?

No. I am not aware of that.