Wow, Michael Moore ... didn't know you posted here! Can I have your autograph?Really? Are you serious? If that is your perspective on history, you sure your ranting and raving lunacy of a list isn't really simply autobiographical?

Ever hear of someone named Roosevelt, you know, who took office in the midst of THE Great Depression?

Seriously, maybe Obama could actually get something done if you could let go of his crotch, please.Liberal elitism at its finest.

Don't agree with the leftists? You're just trailer-trash lacking any education or sense of logical reasoning. I mean, we all know that leftists are the smart ones - you know, people who construct their arguments out of how they WANT the world to work versus how it actually does are definitely superior...

Everytime I read crapola like the end of your post, I get this mental image of someone working at an ACORN office attempting to "help" a hooker and pimp import underage girls for sex.

Yeah, that's a pretty stupid image to get, right? Kind of like yours.

Who said I was a liberal? I don't have any party affiliation, I'm not left or right. I'm just an American, watching my country be torn apart from the inside. We don't need to be attacked, we're doing a fine job of destroying it ourselves.

My point is, things are what they are. Doesn't mean I'm going to run out with blind hatred and spit on every move Obama makes. Maybe if all us "Americans", left, right, middle, whatever, start working together for common goals we might accomplish something.

I don't agree with many things Obama is doing. But he is my President, and this is my country. I'm going to do my part to help it, not hurt it.


<couldn't refute any of the other points I made? Just picked the easy ones I see. You only heard what you wanted and skipped the truths.>

You omit that he was already involved before he became President, and that he stepped back from that involvement once elected and only renewed it when America became the only country bidding that didn't have its leader pushing for the bid.

Roosevelt didn't take office in the middle of a economic disaster and two seriously screwed up military campaigns while having to threaten one nut that they can't do anything about and pretending to threaten another nut though did he.

Is this a joke?

Liberalism and party affiliations are two different things, by the way. But your comment on our "system of greed" is CLEARLY liberal.Well, I agree there ... except I don't see the conservatives doing so. Rather, I see Obama sycophants such as yourself making excuses and otherwise accepting blunder after blunder, which is empowering our national rift, as it were.That's good for you. In fact, I feel the same way.

However, if what you said was true and Obama was dealt the toughest hand ever given to a president (although that's not even close), why the hell was he in Copenhagen rather than working on more important issues?That would be great, but the problem with your statement is that we all don't share "common goals". In fact, Obama's goals are turning out to be far left of what the common American wants.That's hilarious. So when the lefties were protesting the moves of Bush, that's "helping" but when conservatives protest Obama, that's hurting the country?

Right.LOL! Heard what I wanted? Actually, I simply read what YOU wrote. If it isn't what you meant, than going forward I suggest you restrict yourself to statements reflecting your actual meanings.

Yes, I skipped over other parts of your post - parts that either don't concern me or don't interest me - and commented on the "easy ones" (kind of wondering why you wrote them if they were so easy to refute).

If there's a particular point related to the points I was countering with, that you'd like me to comment on, let me know. I'll refute that as well, if it's something I disagree with.

I would suggest reading up a little bit about the economic and international climate Roosevelt inherited in 1932.

Obama's challenges aren't even on the same scale.

And, let's not forget that Obama comes into office with his party having had control of both houses of congress for the previous two years (including one that he was a member of).

I've seen your posts. You are a shill for Democrats in almost everything you post. The fact is, the Obama administration has taken a national deficit, and made it 4 times worse. And apparently, he isn't done yet with increasing the national deficit. The way he and the Democrats are currently going, it's never going to be mopped up. He's going in the wrong direction. And nothing you can post will correct it. The previous Presidential administration was a godsend compared to this mess currently in the making. And at least we had a modus of respect. And a President focused on National security. Yes, we were hated, but this administration is an utter joke. We are still hated, but now a laughing stock as well. The Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and North Koreans have done things recently to reinforce this notion. And this rejection by the IOC towards Obama shows that the thinking that Obama would bring some sort of respect to the USA was crap. Obama uses the office of the POTUS like a teenager in a popularity contest. It's totally embarrassing. And needs to be pointed out.


But you speak as though you have blind support for somebody attempting to nationalize vast amounts of our economy to the detriment of taxpayers. In addition, you seem to support a vast increase to our national debt by shilling for this devastating administration that can't get it's nose out of things it has no business getting itself into. Like where the Olympics will take place for example. I agree that Americans must work together to make things correct. But most Americans share none of the goals of statists and big government leftists. Therefore, you can forget accomplishing what they want. Americans are not going to get onboard socialist claptrap just to get along. Perhaps you guys should have got onboard with taxpayer freedom, and fighting a common enemy (Islamic terrorists) when we had a President who gave a damn about those issues. Now we got a President who's condemning us to failure and deficit growth in ways the previous administration wouldn't dare take us.

How sweet. Yet, blind support for an administration that has bastardized and forgotten the war and terrorism, is tepid on their response to Iranian and North Korean efforts to nuke up, is weakening missile shield efforts, is attempting to unilaterally disarm our nuclear arsenal while China and Russia build up and advance their nuclear arsenals, continue policies that are increasing unemployment, is exploding the deficit and debts, all the while he and his wife are living like royalty at taxpayer expense does not inspire anything from me. He is indeed the President unfortunately. And history will record....a great mistake for our country. I'm doing my part to help this country by not allowing this administration carte blanche in destroying Americans freedoms, free markets, capitalism, and standing against it's big government nationalization of industries. I'm helping this country by standing for the liberty of taxpayers and citizens against this administration and the looting class that elected him.

Make no mistake, blind support for this administration does not help our country.

Was America stuck in two campaigns one of which is very expensive and highly unlikely to produce any positive result, and the other which is very expensive and is already shown to not have produced a positive result?
There was not yet any major standoff with nutjobs and nukes and potential nukes in the hands of fruitcakes didn't exist.
Japans involvement in the far east wasn't impacting much yet and the Chinese faction America supported was still on the ascendancy.
Central America had turned out OK with deployments ending and friendly dictatorships settled in.
I would suggest that you yourself read up before suggesting it to others.

What was Roosevelts job before he was President and what was the political makeup of the 72nd session?

My apology to nikimcbee, sorry, didn't mean to derail your thread.


When did I say I offered blind support? I'm just not so full of blind hatred that I blame him for the original mess.

That's what I was trying to point out. You keep pointing the finger in the wrong direction. You actually think all your ills in the world were caused by Obama. Horsehockey. We wouldn't have to spend money to save our asses, if our asses weren't still bleeding from the people who caused this situation in the first place.

Go read this again, slowly this time. http://subsim.com/radioroom/showpost...9&postcount=40 Read what you wrote. Read my reply. Just pointing out a few facts you won't admit to. Tell me I was wrong on what I said there and stop making assumptions on the way I feel or think. Please do it in a different thread, you/we hijacked this one too far already.


Now back to the original topic. I guess Rio winning has made a few Americans mad about not winning the bid. Maybe we should bomb them, and pay Cheney's company to go in and rebuild it before the games begin.

I am read up on it - both examples.

Comparitively speaking regarding scales of economic impact, Roosevelt had FAR MORE to deal with then Obama does, or likely ever will. I don't disagree that the nuclear ambitions of rogue states are unique challenges, but they only can pose so much to Obama's agenda, as there is only so much that he can concievably do. Also, for all the debacle that is Iraq and Afghanistan, ultimately even combined they rank far below the impact of even Vietnam, not to mention the rise of a man named Hitler.

And, quite frankly, those "conflicts" are merely irritants when considered on a large, strategic scale. Indeed, I see Iraq as having a long term strategic merit but I find Afghanistan to be fairly pointless.

Obama's calling press conferences to discuss nearly 10% unemployment, up from around 7% when he took office. Roosevelt, the other hand, ENTERED office with a, what, roughly 25% unemployment rate?

These are two very different eras we're talking about, and while it faces challenges, Obama's presidency is not likely to come close to the obstructions FDR faced.Irrelevent to my point. Roosevelt's party took control of congress as he won the presidency. Obama's party HAD control of congress well before he won the presidency.

Oh, and wasn't Roosevelt New York's governor?

But you crack me up. Do you have Google open full time in another window?

GEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZ :nope::nope::nope::nope::nope:

So Chicago didn't win the election, and now all you Amis talk about is whether it's all Obamas fault, and lead the entire discussion into whether he is a good president or not...

Well, seen here from Europe, ANY John Doe after Bush would be better off. It couldn't have been worse. But still there was never a real disrespect for America or Americans in general, just the Bush administration. IMHO. That there still is disrespect in the Middle East or Asia is not removed overnight. I'm not even sure if any president can do that, except for trying, and that makes the difference: trying.

Obama tried to convince IOC members to vote for Chicago and failed, because he didn't spend enough time on the greasing. Well, maybe he was occupied with other matters in Washington. Working for the American people. Do ANY of you really KNOW, or do you base your opinion on assumptions or rumours?

It was just not meant to be. It was meant to be in a world part not previously having hosted the games, and no matter what: a nice looser congratulates the winner, accept the defeat and move on.

Now shall we?

Less actually, America had a far better trade balance at the time, much smaller debts plus had lots of major countries owing it money rather than having major countries holding its debts. In fact it has been pretty screwed since Reagans "miracle" started working.
Hitler didn't come to power until after Roosevelt took office so he didn't inherit that .
Don't you mean your point was irrelevent?

Do you lack an education, a memory and a working mind?

now now no need for personal attacks you were doing fine untill you resorted to that.

It's a question that was a response to a question.

Anyhow...

Heres a video clip of local WGN newscasters reaction to the vote..

"Did I just hear that right"?

http://www.breitbart.tv/pandemonium-...-olympics-bid/

They really thought they had it in the bag!

That's why he got standing ovations at the G20, right? Or were they sarcastic standing ovations?

Oh stop it. He spent one day there. I think things are still under control after one day in Copenhagen. Or do you honestly believe every decision regarding the war in Afghanistan and the economy must be made personally by Obama and only from the Oval Office?

Good. The twisted GOP vision of America can't go away fast enough.

Gotta agree not realistic and shouldn't be done like that. No President should micromanage a war, just ask LBJ.

It is so easy to be a complainer. :)

All you have to do is sit on your butt and wait to see what happens and bitch about the opposite.

If President Obama did not go to Denmark the complainers would bitch about Obama not going when the other heads of state went. They would have bitched about Obama not loving his country enough to even bother representing it at the Olympic meeting. They can bitch about Obama not being able to multi-task.....

If President did go to Denmark, the complainers would bitch about Obama going. They would bitch about the President wasting time and money when he should be doing "other things". They would bitch about Obama representing his own city (Uh Chicago was the only US city to make the finals.. not like Obama had any choice).

The sad point is that there would be a group of people who would complain about either choice.

There are times when I envy the complainers. It must make life so much easier. No real deep thought. Just what ever the President does; complain about the opposite. We had to live through 8 years of knee-jerk complaining about anything Bush, now we are going to have to live through 4 (8) years of knee-jerk complaining about anything Obama.

It just gets tiresome at times. :nope: We get it Some of you did not like Bush, some of you don't like Obama. And that's OK. We have never had a President who everyone liked and I seriously doubt we can ever have a President everyone likes.

But the Constitution of the United States gives everyone the right to be a complainer, so I guess it is here to stay.:damn:

Good luck to Rio and a continent that has yet to be the host :up:

Actually, yours. What did Roosevelt's previous post have to do with anything?I don't. Do you?

Somehow I'm going to go with Google, as you are always pretending to be an expert on things you're not. Like the constitutions of far away South American nations... :doh:

Back to the ignore list you go. I can Google too, and get far more reliable information than that which you spin and present with your usual meaningless posturing and insults. That combined with the way you like to ask questions rather than assert facts seems to demonstrate that you're hardly even sure of the veracity of the information you're looking up.

I suspect that you skimmed Roosevelt's wiki and noticed the word Senator, and was trying to present it is though he was a US Senator, rather than a State Senator.

Fraud.:salute:

Thats simple, what was Rossevelts job prior to the election and what was the time frame of him holding that job.

Actually you demonstrate your lack of education pretty quickly.....
...very quickly indeed.


You really do make silly assumptions.

Thats a failure of logic on your part, well done.

another silly assumption, see above.

:har::har::har::har::har::har:
I am heartbroken , being back on your ignore list is really going to be devestating when it comes to criticising some of the nonsense you write:rotfl2: