Bill Maher Takes on Obama

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

It's refreshing to see someone not afraid to attack someone the previously supported or presently support. I'm so used to see Faux News just scream about what an awesome president Bush is/was no matter how badly he fucked up.

What does this have to do with Faux News?

What is refreshing is that Bill Maher was a vocal critic of the Bush Administration, and fair to say also a vocal Obama supporter, yet is not so partisan as to give Obama a free pass. While I don't always agree with Maher's politics, I enjoy his commentary, similar to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, in that they are certainly left center, but are not afraid to call out politicians regardless of party affiliation.

I think CoW was pretty much agreeing with you and IMO you're both correct.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Paddington
Numbers are debatable, but you'd have to be a fool to think that Obama's stimulus package wasn't a huge piece of multi-hundred billion dollar spending legislation that was railroaded through Congress rather quickly and abruptly. He called in a lot of favors to push that through.

Numbers are not debatable - opinions are. Those numbers came from the CBO

Obama has accounted for 27% while Bush accounted for 33%?

Still scratching my head there. Obama takes full responsibility for extending Bush policies. He campaigned on ending the war and tax cuts for the wealthy. He has the Senate, the House, and the Executive. Perpetuating bad policies is a bad policy in itself. Last time I checked, the buck stopped at the Oval Office.

This new spin about trying to pin Obama's future deficit spending on Bush just reeks of desperation. Notice how when Obama's favorable numbers started turning this article comes out trying to parse what part of Obama's future spending is Bush's fault.

I find it rather silly myself because anytime Obama wants to he can cut anything in his proposed budget, including any programs enacted under Bush.

Also how much of the 2010 budget is on LBJ's hands? We need to know so Obama can take less and less credit for his own budgets. Seems to be the standard line of thinking by democrats and Obama himself. Take credit for popular ideas, pass the buck on less popular items like deficit spending.

 

[NeoV]

the only takeaway from this otherwise drivel-filled partisan hackfest is that it is refreshing to see a political commentator critical of the side he clearly supports - the reason Fox news was mentioned is because they never did that w/Bush - was that really so hard to understand?

Gen -are you really surprised that one side is blaming things early in a new administration - on the previous administration? This is a 'new spin' to you? This reeks of desperation? Have you been in this country for the last 30 years? It happens, and will continue to happen, every single time there is a new administration. I think we all know that there is some validity to most of it - but pining down an exact figure is nearly impossible - or determining how much of the blame one admin gets vs. the prior admin on things like - I don't know - 9/11?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: JKing106
I have to agree. I was in the afterglow of "Anybody but Bush!" for a while there, but it's starting to look like more of the same, just with a spokesman who's not a retarded chimp. He must be doing at least a little something right, because the Neocons are terrified. Cheney on every week trying to convince us torture was a "good thing," to save his own ass, Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly trying to incite violent protest against "OMGSOSHALISMS!!!!!!!!!111!!", etc. Maher's right, time to stop playing Mr. Niceguy, and ram the legislation through, just like Bush did.

This person is a Democrat first and an American second. Bolded is just false. Prove otherwise.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: NeoV
the only takeaway from this otherwise drivel-filled partisan hackfest is that it is refreshing to see a political commentator critical of the side he clearly supports - the reason Fox news was mentioned is because they never did that w/Bush - was that really so hard to understand?

I'm as much of an FNC hater as the next guy, but you're going to need to clean up your fuzzy argument a bit, it's leaking garbage everywhere.

When you say "Fox News", are you referring to Fox News political commentators, Fox News anchors, or every single person behind the camera on FNC?

Also, when you say "they never did that with bush" are you saying that no one on Fox News Channel ever criticized bush?

Before you remove your foot from your mouth to answer those questions, you might consider the fact that this thread has nothing to do with FNC and your attempt to derail the thread will end up fruitless

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This new spin about trying to pin Obama's future deficit spending on Bush just reeks of desperation. Notice how when Obama's favorable numbers started turning this article comes out trying to parse what part of Obama's future spending is Bush's fault.

I find it rather silly myself because anytime Obama wants to he can cut anything in his proposed budget, including any programs enacted under Bush.

Also how much of the 2010 budget is on LBJ's hands? We need to know so Obama can take less and less credit for his own budgets. Seems to be the standard line of thinking by democrats and Obama himself. Take credit for popular ideas, pass the buck on less popular items like deficit spending.

He can't cut the 'Iraq War' program. :laugh:

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: NeoV
the only takeaway from this otherwise drivel-filled partisan hackfest is that it is refreshing to see a political commentator critical of the side he clearly supports - the reason Fox news was mentioned is because they never did that w/Bush - was that really so hard to understand?

Gen -are you really surprised that one side is blaming things early in a new administration - on the previous administration? This is a 'new spin' to you? This reeks of desperation? Have you been in this country for the last 30 years? It happens, and will continue to happen, every single time there is a new administration. I think we all know that there is some validity to most of it - but pining down an exact figure is nearly impossible - or determining how much of the blame one admin gets vs. the prior admin on things like - I don't know - 9/11?

bullshit, Orieley slammed bush all the time for his war and for his stupid ideas.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Paddington
Numbers are debatable, but you'd have to be a fool to think that Obama's stimulus package wasn't a huge piece of multi-hundred billion dollar spending legislation that was railroaded through Congress rather quickly and abruptly. He called in a lot of favors to push that through.

Numbers are not debatable - opinions are. Those numbers came from the CBO

Obama has accounted for 27% while Bush accounted for 33%?

Still scratching my head there. Obama takes full responsibility for extending Bush policies. He campaigned on ending the war and tax cuts for the wealthy. He has the Senate, the House, and the Executive. Perpetuating bad policies is a bad policy in itself. Last time I checked, the buck stopped at the Oval Office.

This new spin about trying to pin Obama's future deficit spending on Bush just reeks of desperation. Notice how when Obama's favorable numbers started turning this article comes out trying to parse what part of Obama's future spending is Bush's fault.

I find it rather silly myself because anytime Obama wants to he can cut anything in his proposed budget, including any programs enacted under Bush.

Also how much of the 2010 budget is on LBJ's hands? We need to know so Obama can take less and less credit for his own budgets. Seems to be the standard line of thinking by democrats and Obama himself. Take credit for popular ideas, pass the buck on less popular items like deficit spending.

Negative. Common Sense and simple Mathematics proves it. The Spin that it's all Obama's is the desperation.

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Paddington
Numbers are debatable, but you'd have to be a fool to think that Obama's stimulus package wasn't a huge piece of multi-hundred billion dollar spending legislation that was railroaded through Congress rather quickly and abruptly. He called in a lot of favors to push that through.

Numbers are not debatable - opinions are. Those numbers came from the CBO

Obama has accounted for 27% while Bush accounted for 33%?

Still scratching my head there. Obama takes full responsibility for extending Bush policies. He campaigned on ending the war and tax cuts for the wealthy. He has the Senate, the House, and the Executive. Perpetuating bad policies is a bad policy in itself. Last time I checked, the buck stopped at the Oval Office.

This new spin about trying to pin Obama's future deficit spending on Bush just reeks of desperation. Notice how when Obama's favorable numbers started turning this article comes out trying to parse what part of Obama's future spending is Bush's fault.

I find it rather silly myself because anytime Obama wants to he can cut anything in his proposed budget, including any programs enacted under Bush.

Also how much of the 2010 budget is on LBJ's hands? We need to know so Obama can take less and less credit for his own budgets. Seems to be the standard line of thinking by democrats and Obama himself. Take credit for popular ideas, pass the buck on less popular items like deficit spending.

Negative. Common Sense and simple Mathematics proves it. The Spin that it's all Obama's is the desperation.

Can't speak for Genx, but I'm not trying to say it's all his fault - just 27%. At the end of the day, I don't care who started it, I care who's going to end it. Obama is in the position to do so. I'd like to see him do it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: inspire

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: Paddington
Numbers are debatable, but you'd have to be a fool to think that Obama's stimulus package wasn't a huge piece of multi-hundred billion dollar spending legislation that was railroaded through Congress rather quickly and abruptly. He called in a lot of favors to push that through.

Numbers are not debatable - opinions are. Those numbers came from the CBO

Obama has accounted for 27% while Bush accounted for 33%?

Still scratching my head there. Obama takes full responsibility for extending Bush policies. He campaigned on ending the war and tax cuts for the wealthy. He has the Senate, the House, and the Executive. Perpetuating bad policies is a bad policy in itself. Last time I checked, the buck stopped at the Oval Office.

This new spin about trying to pin Obama's future deficit spending on Bush just reeks of desperation. Notice how when Obama's favorable numbers started turning this article comes out trying to parse what part of Obama's future spending is Bush's fault.

I find it rather silly myself because anytime Obama wants to he can cut anything in his proposed budget, including any programs enacted under Bush.

Also how much of the 2010 budget is on LBJ's hands? We need to know so Obama can take less and less credit for his own budgets. Seems to be the standard line of thinking by democrats and Obama himself. Take credit for popular ideas, pass the buck on less popular items like deficit spending.

Negative. Common Sense and simple Mathematics proves it. The Spin that it's all Obama's is the desperation.

Nothing is stopping Obama from cutting all Bush spending. Obama writes the budgets.

Since we are going to play this game find me how much of the 2010 budget is attributed to LBJ's programs. I want to spread the wealth around.

 

[Dari]

Right now Obama seems to be outsourcing all his major bills to Congress. This alone guarantees that he'll lose in 2012. He's doing nothing in-house. Nothing.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Dari
Right now Obama seems to be outsourcing all his major bills to Congress. This alone guarantees that he'll lose in 2012. He's doing nothing in-house. Nothing.

As if you would know!
Have you ever been president? No
A senator? No
A member of the House of representatives? No

so what does qualify you to copmment on this....

ahhh...I get it...it`s just your opinioon based on NO, Zilch, Zero0 experience!!

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Dari
Right now Obama seems to be outsourcing all his major bills to Congress. This alone guarantees that he'll lose in 2012. He's doing nothing in-house. Nothing.

As if you would know!
Have you ever been president? No
A senator? No
A member of the House of representatives? No

so what does qualify you to copmment on this....

ahhh...I get it...it`s just your opinioon based on NO, Zilch, Zero0 experience!!

An Obama fanboy, should've known:roll: At the very least, the President should work with Congress, not let them control all that goes into major bills. IMHO, he should've formed his own taskforce and had them do most of the heavylifting. Congress will only make things worse.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Dari
Right now Obama seems to be outsourcing all his major bills to Congress. This alone guarantees that he'll lose in 2012. He's doing nothing in-house. Nothing.

As if you would know!
Have you ever been president? No
A senator? No
A member of the House of representatives? No

so what does qualify you to copmment on this....

ahhh...I get it...it`s just your opinioon based on NO, Zilch, Zero0 experience!!

it's been reported on and mentioned several times in reputable sources (I can def. remember reading about it in the NYT). but why think when you can just use some more exclamation points?

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Dari
Right now Obama seems to be outsourcing all his major bills to Congress. This alone guarantees that he'll lose in 2012. He's doing nothing in-house. Nothing.

As if you would know!
Have you ever been president? No
A senator? No
A member of the House of representatives? No

so what does qualify you to copmment on this....

ahhh...I get it...it`s just your opinioon based on NO, Zilch, Zero0 experience!!

Ahh, didn't know there were that many former POTUS', senators and house reps here on P&N when the topic of discussion was GWB because I seem to remember there was a lot of talk on how GWB ran things.


:roll:

 

[Wreckem]

Obama is an astute politician. Obama isn't really a left leaning moderate, he is left of that, but HE KNOWS he has to be a left leaning moderate. If he swerves to far to the left, he and the democrats run the risk of losing their majorities.

The far left is unhappy and will always be unhappy with Obama.