Frankly I am Tired of the Criticism of Barack Obama


Off-Topic Discussions

351 to 380 of 380 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Moorluck wrote:
I think he has at this point taken more vacations than any one in office before him. But hey, that couldn't be a reason to think less of him would it?

Think again.

Not that it matters anyway. Every president gets criticized for taking too many vacations.


Moorluck wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Moorluck wrote:
Kortz wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

For the most part, I approve of President Obama.

My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.

Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.

Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.

Yeah, that's what it is. We're all a bunch of racists and him being black is the only thing anybody could ever see wrong with him.

WTF ever. I am so sick of that bull. I don't have a damn problem with a black president, hell I think we need to get away from the old school white money up in DC, so no it's not the fact it was black man, it's the fact that IMO he's a charming smooth talking hack with no qualifications for the job whatsoever. Pretty much no better than the guy we had in there before.

Charming and smooth talking has to count for something, although both qualities have rapidly eroded since he found out running a county is an actual job job (not that you'd know it with all the golfing, vacationing, gala-ing, and everything else that isn't governing...).

I think he has at this point taken more vacations than any one in office before him. But hey, that couldn't be a reason to think less of him would it?

It never has been for any other previous president. So to start now would only be because he is a black (biracial actually) man.


Moorluck wrote:

Yeah, that's what it is. We're all a bunch of racists and him being black is the only thing anybody could ever see wrong with him.

WTF ever. I am so sick of that bull. I don't have a damn problem with a black president, hell I think we need to get away from the old school white money up in DC, so no it's not the fact it was black man, it's the fact that IMO he's a charming smooth talking hack with no qualifications for the job whatsoever. Pretty much no better than the guy we had in there before.

Not everyone who disapproves of his performance as president is a racist. However, some people pretty clearly are, whether they realize it or not (and I think many of them do not). Unfortunate, but unreasonable to deny. That said, "you're a racist" isn't a cogent critique of someone's position.

For my part, I don't think he is delivering on his promises to bring transparency to Washington, or to reverse the erosion of the Bill of Rights. So far he's a disappointingly business-as-usual president when we can least afford one.

Liberty's Edge

At the end of the day you are either on the same side as Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers or you aren't.


Bruno Kristensen wrote:

I'm not gonna get involved in a discussion on whether Obama is the good, the bad or the ugly president, but something really annoys me.

Everytime I see a debate on something like this, and a foreigner speaks up on the subject, he's told to shut up. When I lived in Ireland (I'm Danish), everytime I gave my perspective (which obviously is influenced by my Danish upbringing), I was told one of two things (often both):

1) This isn't Denmark
2) You are not Irish, so a) what do you care? b) shut up!

First of all, this (and by that, I mean the Internet) is a global forum, so if I'm a member of a website, no matter where I live, I should have a right to be in the discussion. It is not like the idea of Free Speech is only limited to people of one's own tribe/village/country - we had that in Old Testament days, but not anymore.

Second of all, POTUS IS the most important leader in the world. Whether I like it or not, whoever is in charge in the US has a big influence on what happens in the rest of the world. That brings us back to the global thing.

Third, having another point of view on things is not only interesting, it is also healthy. Most people don't have the luxury of actually having lived in another culture, so they don't have a clear idea of how things might be done next door. So when a foreigner tells his/her views on something, instead of asking them to shut up, it might be good to listen. Not that they are necessarily "right", but you might learn something from their experiences and points of view.

Now, I fully expect to be told to shut up now, but at least I had my say...

DO NOT shut up - I think Ding being told to shut up was more in response to the way he posed his questions (statement), they were very antagonistic.

The US is such a large place, with so much going on that they have less time to focus on the rest of the world and their effects on it.

I did not like Bush, I don't like Palin, I am happy Obama is neither of them but don't have any feeling beyond that. I don't mind telling people from the US my opinion of their leaders. I expect them to tell me if they don't like my Prime-Minster or Opposition leader (I don't like either of them very much) because both countries have a tradition of freedom to express your thoughts and freedom to criticise government.


Kortz wrote:
At the end of the day you are either on the same side as Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers or you aren't.

Ummm....no. No more "with us or against us," please. Unless that was sarcasm, in which case: Carry on. :)

Liberty's Edge

bugleyman wrote:
Kortz wrote:
At the end of the day you are either on the same side as Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers or you aren't.
Ummm....no. No more "with us or against us," please. Unless that was sarcasm, in which case: Carry on. :)

Using sarcasm or hyperbole on an internet message board would hinder the progress being made and threaten to undo all the good work that internet message boards accomplish.


Kortz wrote:
Using sarcasm or hyperbole on an internet message board would hinder the progress being made and threaten to undo all the good work that internet message boards accomplish.

Ok, even my sarcasm-o-meter isn't that broken. Sorry, but you never know in political threads!


US DISCORDANCE!


Kortz wrote:
At the end of the day you are either on the same side as Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers or you aren't.

I would think that should read, "Glenn Beck OR the Tea Baggers". Given the description of what "tea-bagging" is, I would imagine that the people that participate in it would most likely be on the other side from Beck (at least those that are more open about that lifestyle).

Off-Topic: Which hit me with a thought, not tea-bagging specificly, just groups falling into which political movements. Why are Dems so anti-witchcraft/paganism? I would have thougth that most people that are pagans, would be drawn to the Dems, so they would be one of the parts of the Dems' "big tent". And yet given the attacks by some Dem supporters about the woman from Delaware, you'd think that being a pagan was something that Dems were against. Anybody else find the whole villify someone who talked about once being interested in the "occult", as a strange tactic for the Dems?

Going after her for not actually knowing anything about pagan practices would seem more natural, than merely implying "exploring witchcraft" disqualifies one to hold office.


houstonderek?

The Exchange

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

I'm not gonna get involved in a discussion on whether Obama is the good, the bad or the ugly president, but something really annoys me.

Everytime I see a debate on something like this, and a foreigner speaks up on the subject, he's told to shut up. When I lived in Ireland (I'm Danish), everytime I gave my perspective (which obviously is influenced by my Danish upbringing), I was told one of two things (often both):

1) This isn't Denmark
2) You are not Irish, so a) what do you care? b) shut up!

First of all, this (and by that, I mean the Internet) is a global forum, so if I'm a member of a website, no matter where I live, I should have a right to be in the discussion. It is not like the idea of Free Speech is only limited to people of one's own tribe/village/country - we had that in Old Testament days, but not anymore.

Second of all, POTUS IS the most important leader in the world. Whether I like it or not, whoever is in charge in the US has a big influence on what happens in the rest of the world. That brings us back to the global thing.

Third, having another point of view on things is not only interesting, it is also healthy. Most people don't have the luxury of actually having lived in another culture, so they don't have a clear idea of how things might be done next door. So when a foreigner tells his/her views on something, instead of asking them to shut up, it might be good to listen. Not that they are necessarily "right", but you might learn something from their experiences and points of view.

Now, I fully expect to be told to shut up now, but at least I had my say...

Indeed, a pity however that 'POTUS' as you like to refer to the US President, has very little legitimacy beyond the border of Mainland USA. Just Because a State is untouchable (or thinks it is) in its less that stellar respect for the right of a single non citizen beyond the borders of its own, does not make him as important.

Frankly the UN must stand up to the USA and other Tyrant Superpowers or it is nothing more than a henhouse for the fox to plunder.

The Exchange

Molloch wrote:

US DISCORDANCE!

CHORUS OF THE DAMNED: And we shall all come together in a better place, a better place than this...

Liberty's Edge

Molloch wrote:

houstonderek?

Molloch?


I WILL ALWAYS STAND UP TO DEFEND YOUR PRESIDENT!

Its a shame you cant do it any more.

Liberty's Edge

Hasn't been much to defend going on ten years now, I'm afraid.

The Exchange

houstonderek wrote:
Hasn't been much to defend going on ten years now, I'm afraid.

It is one thing to not want to defend vile Cretins who are the President but you can still defend the Presidency as an office of consensus.

Liberty's Edge

yellowdingo wrote:
houstonderek wrote:
Hasn't been much to defend going on ten years now, I'm afraid.
It is one thing to not want to defend vile Cretins who are the President but you can still defend the Presidency as an office of consensus.

Nah. Space behind a door doesn't deserve respect. A person occupies that office, and they earn or not earn respect based on their performance and actions.

Like I said, nothing to respect going on ten years now.

Edit: and I respect "consensus" even less. Three times in a row we decided to elect someone not worthy of the job (not that any of the alternatives were better, but we chose them as well).


70 years to defend.

70 years to respect.

Who is a vile cretin? I really hope this is a misunderstanding Dingo?


SMOOOOOOOOORRRRRG!

HOOOOOORRRRRK!

BAAAAAAARRRRRRF!

RAAAAAAAALLLLLPH!


Moorluck wrote:
Kortz wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

For the most part, I approve of President Obama.

My reservations about him are that he is too conservative and moves too slowly due to insisting on trying to reach middle ground with his opponents.

Yeah, I knew the Left would be disappointed in him almost immediately, even as the hysterical crybabies of the Right set their panties on fire because a black man and supposed "liberal" is in the White House.

Obama is a firm believer in the middle ground, though, and I think he sees the political process as necessarily corrupt but that it can be pushed forward for the greater good even as it corrupts. It's a pragmatic way of dealing with the real world and a little too subtle 24-hour news cycle.

Yeah, that's what it is. We're all a bunch of racists and him being black is the only thing anybody could ever see wrong with him.

WTF ever. I am so sick of that bull. I don't have a damn problem with a black president, hell I think we need to get away from the old school white money up in DC, so no it's not the fact it was black man, it's the fact that IMO he's a charming smooth talking hack with no qualifications for the job whatsoever. Pretty much no better than the guy we had in there before.

An ugly issue, there. I feel that those who are not racist will always be used as a screen for those that are in this and many other cases.

bugleyman wrote:
Not everyone who disapproves of his performance as president is a racist. However, some people pretty clearly are, whether they realize it or not (and I think many of them do not). Unfortunate, but unreasonable to deny. That said, "you're a racist" isn't a cogent critique of someone's position.

Agreed. I think it would behoove those with a serious non-race related issue to the president to bring up their issues and why and admit that there will always be people who are racist jerks even as they separate themselves from that crowd. To protest too strongly here, unfortunately, makes one look guilty of what they are denying.


houstonderek wrote:
Molloch wrote:

houstonderek?

Molloch?

Gentlemen?


pres man wrote:
Kortz wrote:
At the end of the day you are either on the same side as Glenn Beck and the Tea Baggers or you aren't.

I would think that should read, "Glenn Beck OR the Tea Baggers". Given the description of what "tea-bagging" is, I would imagine that the people that participate in it would most likely be on the other side from Beck (at least those that are more open about that lifestyle).

Off-Topic: Which hit me with a thought, not tea-bagging specificly, just groups falling into which political movements. Why are Dems so anti-witchcraft/paganism? I would have thougth that most people that are pagans, would be drawn to the Dems, so they would be one of the parts of the Dems' "big tent". And yet given the attacks by some Dem supporters about the woman from Delaware, you'd think that being a pagan was something that Dems were against. Anybody else find the whole villify someone who talked about once being interested in the "occult", as a strange tactic for the Dems?

Going after her for not actually knowing anything about pagan practices would seem more natural, than merely implying "exploring witchcraft" disqualifies one to hold office.

I think the Democrats are araid of opening their tent too big. It starts ripping at the seams. Remember Lieberman?

In other words, the Democrats start splitting off if the Democrats get too tolerant. They're terrified of alienating the Christian majority.


pres man wrote:
are Dems so anti-witchcraft/paganism? I would have thougth that most people that are pagans, would be drawn to the Dems, so they would be one of the parts of the Dems' "big tent".

I think KC has it right. For all the talk of the "poor oppressed Christians," anyone not openly flying a Jesus flag has no political future, if an opponent who does shows up.


Poll: Bill Clinton most popular politician.

As a rule I never put much stock in these things as 1,000 "random" citizens is hardly an accurate measure on how the whole country feels. Still, I love the picture they use at the top, it's like they just told him the results of the poll.


pres man wrote:
Off-Topic: Which hit me with a thought, not tea-bagging specificly, just groups falling into which political movements. Why are Dems so anti-witchcraft/paganism? I would have thougth that most people that are pagans, would be drawn to the Dems, so they would be one of the parts of the Dems' "big tent". And yet given the attacks by some Dem supporters about the woman from Delaware, you'd think that being a pagan was something that Dems were against. Anybody else find the whole villify someone who talked about once being interested in the "occult", as a strange tactic for the Dems?

I'd be b.s. from either party, but from the Demcrats it's also completely hypocritical, and I say this as a registered Democrat.

351 to 380 of 380 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Frankly I am Tired of the Criticism of Barack Obama All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Off-Topic Discussions