Obama - Worst President Ever

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Sounds to me like theyre actually REGULATING who gets money and MAKING SURE they arent just taking it and running, unlike W's plan to just throw $700bil at the banks and let them do whatever they want with it. You mean Obama wants to make sure the banks will act RESPONSIBLY with tax payer money??? HEAVENS NO!!!!

Let's see....and Obama will put Barney Frank or Chris Dodd in charge of them right????????????? You're embarrassing yourself DB2-3.

[teatech]

Nah. In a classic Turing test there are two different black boxes (one containing a human, the other a machine) that answer questions in natural language. In teatech's case, I have seen chat bots exhibit significantly more convincing responses. It's more like saying that teatech does not pass a simple test for human intelligence when compared to modern AIs.

But maybe you are right... He tends to pick out a word or two and then write semi-related responses that never address the original post... I think I'll start to refer to him as TrollBot69.

Umm, don't quit your dayjob. Your attempt at being a comedian will be fruitless if that is the best you can do. The Republican party is regional party because over half of their representatives in BOTH houses come from the old Confederacy. Now, why isn't that regional?? Of course, they have representatives elsewhere but their core is in the south. That core itself is being threatened as people in the south are even starting to realize that extremism of the republican party is getting them nowhere fast.

[MoonPieBlue]

Umm, don't quit your dayjob. Your attempt at being a comedian will be fruitless if that is the best you can do. The Republican party is regional party because over half of their representatives in BOTH houses come from the old Confederacy. Now, why isn't that regional?? Of course, they have representatives elsewhere but their core is in the south. That core itself is being threatened as people in the south are even starting to realize that extremism of the republican party is getting them nowhere fast.

Same can be said for the Democratic party then since HALF of their representatives in BOTH houses come from the YANKEE states. That leaves about 50 or so senators and how every many representatives to come from those states not involved in our initial Civil War.

Here's the best breakdown I can find. Don't know if its totally accurate.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G09/composition.phtml

[dawg80]

I'd like to see a list of the "extremism" you attribute to the Republican party. List some specific examples...thanks.

As for the repubs, I couldn't care less about them anymore then I give a rat's a$$ about the demos. Getting screwed is getting screwed...

I am Conservative, especially in fiscal policy, and mostly in social policy. When the repubs abandoned this Conservatism, which the party did under GWB (domestically, esp.) and nominated a left-leaning McCain, it lost its way. It is nothing more than demo-light. They can't be better socialists than true socialists, so why they have tried is beyond me. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your list.

[teatech]

I'd like to see a list of the "extremism" you attribute to the Republican party. List some specific examples...thanks.

As for the repubs, I couldn't care less about them anymore then I give a rat's a$$ about the demos. Getting screwed is getting screwed...

I am Conservative, especially in fiscal policy, and mostly in social policy. When the repubs abandoned this Conservatism, which the party did under GWB (domestically, esp.) and nominated a left-leaning McCain, it lost its way. It is nothing more than demo-light. They can't be better socialists than true socialists, so why they have tried is beyond me. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your list.

Traditional conservatism in its heyday excluded minorities, gays and lesbians, atheists, and pro choicers. If the republicans continue down that path, then the Time magazine page for this month (Which has a republican elephant and reads "Extinct") will definitely pan out. I personally don't think that it would be all that horrible to have a new party enter the equation.

[dawg80]

Traditional conservatism in its heyday excluded minorities, gays and lesbians, atheists, and pro choicers. If the republicans continue down that path, then the Time magazine page for this month (Which has a republican elephant and reads "Extinct") will definitely pan out. I personally don't think that it would be all that horrible to have a new party enter the equation.

Wrong!

True Conservatism allows people to be the best they can be, er, provided they don't wear some hyphenated title on their sleeve and then try to lean on it. If you are an American, not a "gay-American," you can be successful in this country, and in fact, you can be as successful as your talents provide. The only REAL obstacle that can be placed in your way is intrusive government. Do your job, or run your business, as an American not a gay, or black, or an atheist, or any other label you can think of, and TRUE Conservatism provides the framework to do that.

Before I continue, let me reemphasize that I separate Conservatism from some of the policies of the Republican Party platform. As a person of free will and intelligence I have every right to like or dislike certain lifestyles and choose to avoid them. To be tolerant does not require an endorsement.

I will continue, but first I'd like to see a list of specific examples of "extremism," not some vague references to "heyday." Perhaps you don't know this, but true Conservatism works for EVERYONE that adopts it. Isn't it funny that gays, and blacks, and other hyphenated Americans who have decided to stand on their own (i.e. adopt Conservatism) are successful, and those that reject the principles, have become dependent on government handouts. Not surprisingly....

The list?

Edit: wanted to add I reject pro-choicers too. I believe in the sanctity of life. This position has its roots in the teachings of my church, the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't "live" some of the church's teachings so I could have moved away from the anti-abortion position as well. But I didn't. It's something I believe strongly in. And it was the main reason why I moved toward the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, as the latter has endorsement of abortion in its national party platform.

[teatech]

Wrong!

True Conservatism allows people to be the best they can be, er, provided they don't wear some hyphenated title on their sleeve and then try to lean on it. If you are an American, not a "gay-American," you can be successful in this country, and in fact, you can be as successful as your talents provide.

The only REAL obstacle that can be placed in your way is intrusive government. Do your job, or run your business, as an American not a gay, or black, or an atheist, or any other label you can think of, and TRUE Conservatism provides the framework to do that.

Before I continue, let me reemphasize that I separate Conservatism from some of the policies of the Republican Party platform. As a person of free will and intelligence I have every right to like or dislike certain lifestyles and choose to avoid them. To be tolerant does not require an endorsement.

I will continue, but first I'd like to see a list of specific examples of "extremism," not some vague references to "heyday." Perhaps you don't know this, but true Conservatism works for EVERYONE that adopts it. Isn't it funny that gays, and blacks, and other hyphenated Americans who have decided to stand on their own (i.e. adopt Conservatism) are successful, and those that reject the principles, have become dependent on government handouts. Not surprisingly....

The list?

Edit: wanted to add I reject pro-choicers too. I believe in the sanctity of life. This position has its roots in the teachings of my church, the Roman Catholic Church, but I don't "live" some of the church's teachings so I could have moved away from the anti-abortion position as well. But I didn't. It's something I believe strongly in. And it was the main reason why I moved toward the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party, as the latter has endorsement of abortion in its national party platform.

If you believe that then you are truly naive. Ever heard of sexism? Ever heard of anti-semitism? Ever heard of racism? Not everyone starts out on equal footing so not everyone has the same chance at being successful. Were it not for integration and affirmative action(government intrusion) would we have an African-American President? Were it not for "don't ask don't tell" (government intrusion) would we have gays serving this country? I could list many more examples. That is the problem with the republicans, you long for the good ole days where everything that came to you was basically inherited yet it was called "work" and "achievement". The naiveness of the Republican party is what has the rest of America shaking their heads in bewilderment. Get with the times or get left behind.

[teatech]

I'd like to see a list of the "extremism" you attribute to the Republican party. List some specific examples...thanks.

As for the repubs, I couldn't care less about them anymore then I give a rat's a$$ about the demos. Getting screwed is getting screwed...

I am Conservative, especially in fiscal policy, and mostly in social policy. When the repubs abandoned this Conservatism, which the party did under GWB (domestically, esp.) and nominated a left-leaning McCain, it lost its way. It is nothing more than demo-light. They can't be better socialists than true socialists, so why they have tried is beyond me. Anyway, I look forward to seeing your list.

1.) Attacking a country pre emptively when the country is not even a threat is "extreme".

2.) Giving a tax break to the wealthiest of Americans while thumbing your nose at the rest of America is extreme.

3) Blaming everything on the media as if they had control of all branches of government during the Bush years. Since when did the media pass laws? That is extreme.

4) Having a talk show host whose not accountable to anyone be the voice of your party is way extreme. his stupid comments prove it time and time again

[Guisslapp]

If you believe that then you are truly naive. Ever heard of sexism? Ever heard of anti-semitism? Ever heard of racism? Not everyone starts out on equal footing so not everyone has the same chance at being successful. Were it not for integration and affirmative action(government intrusion) would we have an African-American President? Were it not for "don't ask don't tell" (government intrusion) would we have gays serving this country? I could list many more examples. That is the problem with the republicans, you long for the good ole days where everything that came to you was basically inherited yet it was called "work" and "achievement". The naiveness of the Republican party is what has the rest of America shaking their heads in bewilderment. Get with the times or get left behind.

No one will ever be born on equal footing; however, if the government stays out of our business, everybody except the truly incompetent have the ability to live the American Dream.

[teatech]

No one will ever be born on equal footing; however, if the government stays out of our business, everybody except the truly incompetent have the ability to live the American Dream.

That's a bunch of bull. Martin Luther King wasn't incompetent, yet he also wasn't able to live the American Dream. Tell me how the government staying out of the civil rights movement would have helped minorities.

[LookingForResults]

That's a bunch of bull. Martin Luther King wasn't incompetent, yet he also wasn't able to live the American Dream. Tell me how the government staying out of the civil rights movement would have helped minorities.

King had the liberty to pursue happiness. He lived the American dream. You also have the liberty to pursue happiness, but you choose to live a small, angry life. Suit yourself.

[Abominable Gorilla]

1.) Attacking a country pre emptively when the country is not even a threat is "extreme".

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. ... I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. ... In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. ... This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. ... Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret."
--spoken by Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

[Abominable Gorilla]

Blaming the war on Iraq on "Republicans" requires dishonesty.

[teatech]

King had the liberty to pursue happiness.

He lived the American dream.

You also have the liberty to pursue happiness, but you choose to live a small, angry life. Suit yourself.

Would you be saying that if YOU couldn't drink out of the same water fountain as a caucasian?

Would you be saying that if you couldn't live in a certain neighborhood?

Would you be saying that if you had to tell your kid that they couldn't dine in the certain part of a restaraunt because of their skin color?

Would you be saying that if you were getting death threats constantly because you were trying to advance the rights of people in your situation?

Wow, if King was living the American Dream, what was he marching for? Because he didn't have anything else better to do??

I presume that any African American would be appalled at that the statement you just made.

BTW, you don't know anything about my life so don't make judgements about me.

[teatech]

"Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. ... I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. ... In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. ... This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. ... Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret."
--spoken by Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

UNITED STATES SENATE
In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq were:
* Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) (you were wrong on this one)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) UNITED STATES HOUSE OF


Hmm, I wonder what happened to that one republican??