Economically, Could Obama Be America's Best President?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#21
It didn't take 6 years for the economy to bounce back with Reagan. Yeah the debt went up for most of Reagan's terms but it was dropping toward the end when the military was finally restored after the cuts Carter made.

90,000,000. That's ninety million for the liberals who seem to have a problem with accounting and numbers.

There is no good economy with 90 million people unemployed no matter how you fudge the numbers.

No dot com false economies.

No foolishness of cutting taxes but raising spending....W.

By the way, it was mentioned in the article about the stimulus package? Not sure kickbacks to your political allies counts as helping the economy.

Funny how Al Gore got rich from green tech...that did not work and cost the government more money.

Funny how a lot of these liberal politicians come to washington with nothing and leave millionaires....congressmen do not make that kind of money.

Its absolutely ridiculous for liberals to support this great society that makes a few rich on the backs of the rest of us. Just a fyi that systemic ideology is...liberalism.

Amazing. I think everyone who voted for this president should be appointed new ambassadors to Lybia.
like....Obama appears out of a vacuum?
and suddenly wrecks everything?
come on.

these guys are sharing bevvies together laughing at ya.
it's one bird, Son.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
#22
like....Obama appears out of a vacuum?
and suddenly wrecks everything?
come on.

these guys are sharing bevvies together laughing at ya.
it's one bird, Son.
He's pretty critical of Bush too, Zone.
 

Drett

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2013
1,663
38
48
#23
Amazing. I think everyone who voted for this president should be appointed new ambassadors to Lybia.
I think people who are silent on US foreign policy should be made to live in Palestine myself.
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
#24
I think people who are silent on US foreign policy should be made to live in Palestine myself.
You heard it here first: Drett supports neo-colonialism!

Grab you pith helmets ladies and gents, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#25
You heard it here first: Drett supports neo-colonialism!

Grab you pith helmets ladies and gents, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
Can we fit that many millions in Palestine?
 
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
#26
Where there is a will, there is a way. Behold! Drett's vision for Palestine!

drettleutzeWash_small.jpg drettapple-pie.jpg drettchevrolet-cobalt-2013-2.jpg drettDuck-Dynasty-1-622x414.jpg drettgazamc.jpg Drettgazasub.jpg
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#27

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#28




yup, good call.

meanwhile back at the Compassionate Republican crazy people ranch::rolleyes:

......

Congressman: US should nuke Iran nuclear facilities if needed

Wed Dec 4, 2013 7:7PM GMT


A hawkish US congressman calls on Washington to use “tactical nuclear weapons” to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities if military action becomes necessary.


In an interview with C-SPAN on Wednesday morning, House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter warned Tehran with a military attack despite a nuclear agreement.

When asked whether attacking Iran is inevitable, the Republican lawmaker said, “I sure as ___ hope not.”

However, he suggested that in case of military action, any American strike would be a “massive aerial bombing campaign,” the Army Times reported.

Hunter said the potential military strike should not feature any “boots on ground” and the US should use its “tactical nuclear weapons” on Iranian targets.

He also lashed out at the nuclear agreement sealed between Iran and six major powers in Geneva on November 24.

“Iran has to do nothing,” Hunter said, adding that the US and other UN Security Council countries made a mistake when they inked the preliminary deal that allows Tehran to enrich uranium.

Citing the Iran deal, the Republican lawmaker said the Obama administration is “making friends with our former enemies” while purposely distancing America from allies in the Middle East especially Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Last week, another Republican member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Michele Bachmann said Iran’s nuclear facilities “must be bombed.”

Republican lawmakers have started an anti-Iran campaign to formally challenge President Barack Obama over the nuclear agreement with Iran.

House Republicans are considering several possible responses to the agreement. One option would be pressuring the Senate to consider new sanctions on Iran and the other would be including language in a bill to formally express disapproval of the deal.

Meanwhile, Kingston Reif of the Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation said that “the preventative, first-use of nuclear weapons against Iran would have a devastating impact on US national security and dismember US power and standing in the world.”

“That a senior Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee is even suggesting such a possible course of action is the height of reckless irresponsibility and so far out of bounds it is astonishing,” Reif said.

PressTV - Congressman: US should nuke Iran nuclear facilities if needed < click
 
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
#29
Can I ask you a question zone? Did you make a mistake when typing your nick the first time?

I think you forgot the word, Twilight.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#30
Can I ask you a question zone? Did you make a mistake when typing your nick the first time?

I think you forgot the word, Twilight.
Some of the twilight zone stuff has a really good point to it.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#32
Can I ask you a question zone? Did you make a mistake when typing your nick the first time?

I think you forgot the word, Twilight.
ya...i'm the kook.
but THIS is awesome GOP brilliance in action:

Last week, another Republican member of the House of Representatives, Rep. Michele Bachmann said Iran’s nuclear facilities “must be bombed.”

she's prolly a liberal though
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#33
she's prolly a liberal though
Compared to me, she is.

Titus 2
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. [SUP]4 [/SUP]Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, [SUP]5 [/SUP]to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#34
the title of this thread is like asking if the pope could be a protestant...
 

Drett

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2013
1,663
38
48
#35
You heard it here first: Drett supports neo-colonialism!

Grab you pith helmets ladies and gents, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!
:)

Does removing the VETO from the UN count as neo-colonialism ?
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#37
:)

Does removing the VETO from the UN count as neo-colonialism ?
removing the veto would create its own set of serious problems...such as all of the smaller less populated nations being able to easily outvote everyone and have their way at the expense of the majority of the world's population...
 

Drett

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2013
1,663
38
48
#38
removing the veto would create its own set of serious problems...such as all of the smaller less populated nations being able to easily outvote everyone and have their way at the expense of the majority of the world's population...
Point taken. Perhaps countries can vote according to their population. One vote per million. Some formula. Where there is a will there is a way. :)
 
Last edited:
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#39
Point taken. Perhaps countries can vote according to their population. One vote per million. Some formula. Where there is a will there is a way. :)
but then the most populous countries would be able to easily outvote the smaller countries...the smaller nations would not like the loss of sovereignty...

it really looks like the closest thing to a solution would be for the united nations to have a bicameral assembly...but even then i think veto power of some kind might be needed...
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#40
Obama is one of the worst presidents with respect to economics. The economy is barely growing but the national debt continues to spiral upwards. Most of the new job growth is in the lowest wage sector and half of that goes to foreign born workers completely bypassing U.S. citizens. In fact, the immigrant networks are so strong now that they won't allow U.S. citizens outside of their ethnicity to work in job sites and areas they hold control over and since their control is over entire industries in large areas of the SouthWest, that's as discriminatory as Jim Crow once was in the post-war South. It's illegal, of course, but it's simply ignored by the Democrat politicians who control those areas. I could go on and on... want me to?