Sunday, January 08, 2012

Accomplishments?

I've recently engaged in two separate discussions upon which the notion of Obama's "accomplishments" was touched. I've come across two articles that also deal with his "accomplishments". They are both from one of my liberal visitors' favorite sites, American Thinker. Let us see if they will address the points being made by either, or, in their usual dismissive and cowardly manner, pretend that AT is simply too biased to even give a cursory look. Odds favor the latter.

In the first piece, we can easily note that each statistic is a link to its source for the article. The sources (provided since the lefties likely won't take the time) are greatly varied; from CNN, LA Times, NY Times, The Heritage Foundation, and several others. No in depth analysis if given by the author, but only a comparison of before Barry took over to now, with a suggestion that further support of Obama makes no sense, which is easy to see. Of special interest is the title of the author Neil Snyder's book, which is priceless: "If You Voted for Obama in 2008 to Prove You're Not a Racist, You Need to Vote for Someone Else in 2012 to Prove You're Not an Idiot" With a title like that, I'd buy it just to display it on my bookshelf.

An important consideration that always bears repeating, since the left insists on pretending it isn't relevant, is that one must also take into consideration the years from 2006 forward as that is when the Dems won control of Congress and had all sorts of opportunities to begin improving things. Guess who was a part of that wasted time. Barry O'Bummer!

This second article isn't just about Obama, but the Democratic party in general. Right now, Obama IS the Democratic party and is supported fairly unanimously by the Democratic boobs in Congress, even though they voted down his budget.

Anyway, though the author doesn't cite any sources or provide any links, as a CDL holder, I've heard about some of what is discussed in the article from employers and customers in the shipping industry. Plus, all mentioned is easy enough to track on line if anyone wants to dress up the moves in which Obama has played a roll.

Barely's defenders like to bring up this talk of "accomplishments". OK. He's accomplished a few things. But shouldn't "accomplishments" improve things and benefit the nation? And if any of his "accomplishments" have indeed improved things and/or benefited the nation, should there not be some evidence of these improvements and benefits?

Some will say that he needs another four years before we can see them. None of these people would have dreamed of giving a Republican another term for that purpose. In fact, they would have screamed for a replacement, and they do whenever a Republican is in office. The question is, upon what basis do we gamble? The thinnest of arguments, that things would have been worse had he not acted? I'm sorry. That doesn't work for me because there is no way to measure what might have been, especially since I don't believe it would have been worse. I counter that argument by saying that his greatest accomplishment is that things aren't worse than they are. It's not for lack of trying.

22 comments:

John B said...

Yeah, I'd love to see a list of things he has put forth that actually had a positive outcome. many of his sycophants will give him credit for effort...he is trying his best, but struggle to cite a policy that has been an actual success.

Feodor said...

From your first “piece” (good word choice):

"While it's true that President Bush contributed to the problems we face today, these are undeniable facts: President Bush has been out of office for 3 years…”

Everybody - across the political spectrum - agrees that this financial crisis is as dangerous and complex as the Great Depression. And Roosevelt’s policies began to turn around the country around deep into his third term… THIRD term.

Obama’s three great accomplishments:

1) Avoided total financial collapse of our economy.

2) Stabilized things so well that we are already seeing promise - 200,000 new jobs.

3) Crippled al Queda and killed bin Laden.

4) Brought troops home from Iraq - where we should not have been in the first place.


In one term. No, less than one term.

Man! Historic achievements.

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

FDR's policies did NOT turn the country around, and his own people began to realize their failure. FDR wanted a second New Deal after the war, but Congress rejected it. Truman tried to implement FDR's second New Deal ideas, and Congress rejected it still.

To your points:

1) Saying the economy was about to collapse does not mean it actually was. I didn't believe it then and don't now. This is an example of what I referred to in the post as the idea that things would have been worse if he didn't act. Very doubtful. At the same time, Bush was saying the same thing and Obama ripped him.

2) These jobs include seasonal jobs that are temporary and far too many jobs that are low paying. Having had to accept a couple of low paying jobs, I can assure you that they only provide a slower slide into financial hardship at best. Not an economy booster. What's more, there is no confidence that these reports signal a definite change in our fortunes.

3) This was accomplished by utilizing strategies already put in place under the Bush administration. It's how we found bin Laden. Killing him was the easy part. In other words, Bush found him and held him for Obama to pull the trigger. Even then he had to think about it. He probably should have captured him and not ever revealed that he had so that they could waterboard bin Laden's sorry ass. But he was far more concerned with blowing his own horn.

4) He brought the troops home after failing to secure an agreement that our people would not be tried by Iraqi courts for war crimes. This war was NOT necessary but for the failure of Bush 41 to allow Hussein to be totally crushed after expelling him from Kuwait, and the failure of the Clinton administration to do anything substantial to remove him from power.

But bringing home the troops is not an accomplishment. Bringing them home victorious and leaving behind a stable and democratic Iraq would have been.

Nothing historic in any of this, unless by historic you mean historic blunders. The full consequences of any of the above actions is yet to be known. We can judge then. Now, you're just hoping.

Jim said...

Bush found him and held him for Obama to pull the trigger.

Still catching my breath from laughing so hard at this. I fell off my chair and nearly hit my head.

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing written on the internet since Al Gore "invented" it.

Otherwise, this blog is satire.

Jim said...

The full consequences of any of the above actions is yet to be known. We can judge then.

And this goes equally as well for every one of your criticisms.

Feodor said...

Marshall,

Regarding 1) The banking industry of Japan and Iceland serve just fine as evidence that things were going to get much worse. Two of the five major investment banks of the US did not make into the Obama administration - along with billions in funds and hundreds of thousands of jobs. One enormous multinational insurance corporation was also going down and its failure would have turned out the lights of a generation. Now we are already seeing turn around… in only three years.

Japan is now about to lose two decades of growth and Iceland will surely lose one.

Shows what little you really know about bulge bracket investment and commodity business.

Regarding 2), yes, I see you have had the attendant lack of health coverage that too many Americans suffer - a result of unregulated profiteering off other’s health issues.

But I’ll settle for repeating what you keep missing: stabilization after three years rather than ten is unbelievable progress.

3) Bush et al, took their eye off the ball of al Queda because they were obsessed with Iraq - which had nothing to do with al Queda. So, Obama got him in 3 years after Bush could not in 7.

4) Bringing home the troops is a victory for refusing to further lose American lives for absolute no gain in national security.

"Bringing them home victorious and leaving behind a stable and democratic Iraq would have been”… impossible. The first day we went in it had to end like this. This is why Bush and his advisors were stupid, destructive, and traitorously whispering lies about the threat level. They wasted American and Iraqi lives. That the carnage continues is purely due to the state of Iraq’s artificial makeup. It’s Yugoslavia… but grossly poor and riven by anger.

Shows how little you regard actual reality.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"Still catching my breath from laughing so hard at this. I fell off my chair and nearly hit my head."

Your mental instability is irrelevant here. Perhaps you're just too up the butt of Obama to understand: Finding Obama was a direct result of policies and tactics put in place under the Bush administration; policies and tactics to which Obama clearly objected during his campaign, but apparently didn't object to using himself.

Marshall Art said...

Feodor,

1) This means nothing. You speculate about what might have been, but you can't prove Obama's policies made any difference except to pay off supporters. You also insist on speaking only of what occurred at the time he took office, as if the previous two years of Dem control of Congress played no part in the situation. No one suggests that the Bush did everything right. Only fools like yourself pretend Obama has and is the messiah he promoted himself to be. Sucker.

"Regarding 2), yes, I see you have had the attendant lack of health coverage that too many Americans suffer - a result of unregulated profiteering off other’s health issues."

I've had health coverage throughout the entire period (over two years) of my unemployment and part-time employment. Try finding something about which you know to bloviate. And exactly what is THIS supposed to mean:

"a result of unregulated profiteering off other’s health issues."

The health insurance industry has never had a large profit margin, especially compared with other industries.

Stabilization after three years? In what fantasy world? Nothing is stable when confidence is so low, and it is low regardless of whether or not we're talking individuals (except for lefty sheep) and business. There's certainly no stabilization around the world.

3) Bush kept his eye on the real issue, Islamic terrorism, which manifests through more groups than merely al-Queda. Iraq presented one front in that struggle as Hussein supported terrorist efforts and was active in breaking the treaties onto which he himself signed in the form of UN resolutions, the penalties for which included the actions only Bush had the balls to take.

And as we can clearly see now that the troops have begun withdrawal from Iraq, bin Laden's death had little effect on AQ's desire to commit acts of terrorism. Only a tool of the left would think that bin Laden's death ended much of anything or was a major accomplishment.

4) It is far too early to predict the effect of this withdrawal on our own national security. Allowing the worst of evil to exist cannot be a good thing for free nations anywhere. But you're too stupid and hateful of Bush and the right-wing to see that.

"The first day we went in it had to end like this."

More idiocy. Many on the right are unhappy with the manner in which the war was conducted, especially in the early years. But to say any war had to end like this indicates a complete ignorance of what is possible, especially for a country like ours with a military like ours. And now, with your vaunted genius in the White House, we are setting ourselves up for more of the same, as almost every war into and aggression that involved us has been preceded by a reduction in military spending and a cutback in the size of our forces.

The only lies are what you lefties tell each other about people far better than you. This is because the left NEVER deals in reality.

Jim said...

The only lies are what you lefties tell each other about people far better than you.

Now THAT'S arrogance! You uppity cracker!

Finding Obama was a direct result of policies and tactics put in place under the Bush administration

policies and tactics to which Obama clearly objected during his campaign

You must be forgetting that Obama said during the campaign that he would not only go after bin Laden, he would go into Pakistan to get him.

My mental instability is far outweighed by your mental deficiency, Marshall. You are an idiot, and now the official laughing stock of the internet.

Marshall Art said...

"Now THAT'S arrogance! You uppity cracker!"

Typical lefty Jim brings race into the discussion, as if it has any bearing on Obama's stupidity. How, then do we explain yours? Are you a black supporter of Obama and that's why you resort to playing that care, or just one of the many lefties suffering from white guilt?

"You must be forgetting that Obama said during the campaign that he would not only go after bin Laden, he would go into Pakistan to get him."

No. I am not. What I am saying is that such a promise is meaningless except to excite lefty sheep who need to believe that something, anything, is good enough to pretend Obama is smarter than Bush. But as we've seen in the video to which I linked at American Descent, Bush was smart enough to realize that the war on terror is bigger than one guy like bin Laden. This is proven true by the fact that we've captured and/or killed many of the terrorist leaders and still terrorism goes on.

So Barry finally gets bin Laden, thanks to policies put in place by Bush and you think it's a big deal that bin Laden is popped, as if Barry went there and did it himself. And what does he do? He brags about it so as to attract the praises of idiots like yourself, because that is far more important to him than any strategic or intelligence benefits capturing him or killing him might provide. Again, he brags of captured intel rather than keeping his big mouth shut so that the bad guys can be compromised by our having that intel and exploiting it. Still waiting for an example of the brilliance this guy is supposed to possess, and you help prove he is sorely lacking. I'll never be the laughing stock as long as people like you keep showing up.

Jim said...

Typical lefty Jim brings race into the discussion

No, I'm simply pointing out the dog-whistle meaning of arrogance and turning the tables on you. And no, I'm not a black Obama supporter. Nor do I bear any "white guilt".

What I am saying is that such a promise is meaningless except to excite lefty sheep who need to believe that something,

No. It's meaningless if he doesn't carry it out. But he did.

Bush was smart enough to realize that the war on terror is bigger than one guy like bin Laden.

Only an idiot would imply that Obama and his administration doesn't understand the threat of terrorism.

So [Obama] finally gets bin Laden, thanks to policies put in place by Bush

Which policies would those be?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"Dog-whistle meaning"? That kinda makes you the dog, doesn't it? Because honest people wouldn't hear that since there is no racism whatsoever in the truth about Obama's failure as president. So that you don't miss my meaning, who the FUCK cares what color he is EXCEPT for lefties? We on the right have no time to bother with such insignificant things while important mistakes are being made.

"No. It's meaningless if he doesn't carry it out. But he did."

How could he NOT carry it out? The work was done for him, through the results of info gained by way of techniques allowed under the Bush administration. In other words, bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter in much the same way he was to Clinton. To "pull the trigger" was the easy part.

But at the same time, he pulled it so that he could be seen pulling it, in much the way Pharisees acted holy that so they could be seen acting holy. A person with true intelligence would not have made a show of it, would not have told the world (and terrorists) that intel was recovered, might not have even elected to kill him at first without interrogation. Obama's a self-promoter and an obvious one at that. Sheep.

"Only an idiot would imply that Obama and his administration doesn't understand the threat of terrorism."

This is laughable and you demonstrate who the real idiot is. Obama has shown repeatedly his lack of understanding, but you're too far up his butt to see the truth.

"Which policies would those be?"

See above. The interrogation techniques that Obama joined in in demonizing led to the information that was used to find bin Laden.

Parklife said...

"The interrogation techniques that Obama joined in in demonizing led to the information that was used to find bin Laden."

Marshall.. do you want to start here?

.."Asked if harsh interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay played a role in obtaining intelligence on bin Laden’s whereabouts, Rumsfeld declares: "First of all, no one was waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay. That’s a myth that’s been perpetrated around the country by critics.

"The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding."

Jim said...

"Dog-whistle meaning"?

Meaning "arrogance", a word tossed about constantly by you and most wingers, is code for uppity. Not to mention that you and others have often mentioned that Obama is "beneath" the office of the Presidency. Therefore his quest for the office and his occupation of it is clearly the act of an "uppity" person. Black or white doesn't matter.

How could he NOT carry it out?

Gee, I don't know. Ask George W. Bush.

In other words, bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter.

This is horse manure of the worst quality.

But even if Bush called Obama up and said, "Hey O! I'm truly not concerned about where OBL is but in case nobody told you, he's in Abbadabad", the mission was risky and could have been disasterous militarily, diplomatically and politically. Obama made the call. (Bush didn't.)

Are you operating under the delusion that the bin Laden mission would have been kept secret by the Pakistanis?

Obama has shown repeatedly his lack of understanding

Hateful hyperbolic bulls**t unsupported and unsupportable.

The interrogation techniques that Obama joined in in demonizing led to the information that was used to find bin Laden.

This is also an unsupported statement.

Marshall Art said...

"Meaning "arrogance", a word tossed about constantly by you and most wingers, is code for uppity."

No. "Arrogance" is code for..."arrogance". YOU apply "uppity" over it in order to perpetuate the lie you lefties like to tell about why we oppose Obama. In other words, lefties are liars.

"Not to mention that you and others have often mentioned that Obama is "beneath" the office of the Presidency. Therefore his quest for the office and his occupation of it is clearly the act of an "uppity" person."

Nice try (not really). I don't know who is saying he is "beneath" the office, though I wouldn't disagree. The deal is that he is and has proven himself to be, incredibly unqualified for the position. He is "beneath" it in the sense that he hasn't the proper grasp of the job itself. ANYBODY can be president, but not everybody is suited to one. He is among those unsuited and it shows. But still, "uppity" is a word you use dishonestly to taint the opinions of right-wingers as racist, your "Black or white doesn't matter" two-step notwithstanding. Unsuitable candidates aren't "uppity" because they believe they are suitable. They're just wrong.

"Gee, I don't know. Ask George W. Bush."

That's too stupid to be a wise-ass remark. Bin Laden's location was unknown during the Bush administration. But you, being a Bush-hating Obama-butt-kisser likely believes that Bush didn't have an ongoing hunt for the guy because he said his whereabouts weren't his primary concern.

"This is horse manure of the worst quality."

You wish, but that wish can't come true because I've stated the truth. Do you think Barry was out looking for Obama by himself? Do you think he was directing the hunt personally? Just what was the extent of his involvement in the hunt and capture in your mind? The fact is that other people searched for him, other people found him, and other people called and said, "We got 'im. Whaddya want us to do wit 'im?" Silver platter, baby!

"Are you operating under the delusion that the bin Laden mission would have been kept secret by the Pakistanis?"

Who cares what the Pakistanis think? No one's operating under the delusion that they didn't know he was in their country.

"
Obama has shown repeatedly his lack of understanding

Hateful hyperbolic bulls**t unsupported and unsupportable."


Constantly supported ad nauseum. He came into office believing they could be reasonable. I don't recall him ever taking another position.

Marshall Art said...

Parkie,

Try something more relevant. You cite statements saying what wasn't done. This does not preclude the possibility, a likely one at that, that the methods they did use were among the type Obama claimed to oppose in his campaign, and Dems in general assumed.

The fact is that the actual methods used to procure the info regarding bin Laden's courier and other info leading to his death were not made available. The reasons for this can only be assumed.

What is most relevant is that Obama postured himself in opposition to anything Bush did during the his time as CIC fighting against terrorism, then made bin Laden's capture some kind of game breaker in that war, as well as a measure of his superiority over Bush rather than what it really is, a welcome event though not as significant in the overall battle as he'd like us all to view it.

Ben said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Parklife said...

"Parkie"

I stopped reading right there. I will only be reading as much as you can type without being insulting.

Marshall Art said...

Nice dodge, Ben. It makes it easier to avoid facing the truth.

Parklife said...

"Nice dodge, Ben. It makes it easier to avoid facing the truth."

Marshall, you realize in the past I used my full name when posting. I cant remember if I did that here. I dont find "exposing" my name to be a big deal. That said. When I post as "Parklife" I would appreciate being referred to in responding posts as that name. Its really not that difficult. Really, you are the one "dodging" if you cant figure out how to type "Parklife". In other words, if you want a real rational discussion I am ready. Are you?

Marshall Art said...

You don't seem to understand that I'm not terribly concerned with what you'd appreciate. You spent at least a couple of years not appreciating my plea for you to stop posting bullshit comments that didn't do anything more than show you were in opposition, but never provided any reason why, any evidence to contradict the other side...just bad attempts at cleverness and rank stupidity. Now you're playing the changed man and you expect me to regard you as sincere. Where do you get off?

Post comments if you want, preferably something with substance. Don't waste your time trying to convince me you're a changed man. The quality of your comments alone will determine that soon enough, if indeed you are changed. In the meantime, enjoy the derision you spent so long trying to receive.

Parklife said...

"You don't seem to understand that I'm not terribly concerned with what you'd appreciate."

That clears things up. This whole time I was under the impression you wanted to have a conversation. But really it seems you just want to insult people and treat them like garbage. Such is life Marshall. I can only hope that you find some peace in your life at some point.