Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Your thoughts on Obama's economic record.


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
Oddly, I agree with the first part of this. A moderate Republican is a Democrat. Or, more accurately, the moderate Republicans have left the party and joined the Democrats

It's sad to realize that Reagan would probably be considered too much of a moderate in today's Republican part.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
And you know how that ended. A totalitarian dictatorship and Adolf Hitler... That is why I will not vote for Obama.

You won't vote for Obama because Hitler.

"I always made one prayer to God, a very short one. Here it is: 'O Lord, make our enemies quite ridiculous!' God granted it."


Aretas wrote:
A moderate Republican is a Democrat. Enough of the Democrat bullying. Conservatives are standing up for their values, that showed in the 2010 Congressional races.

And "conservative" values are going to die the slow, painful death they have so richly deserved. They're a pack of meteor-worshiping dinosaurs.

Quote:

Betts says: "We will treat you accordingly" "you are part of the problem"

PAH!

I hate rhetoric, except when something monumentally important is on the line. We're in the middle of the defining political shift of our generation. The culture wars are back, and this time I very much doubt there will be a truce. Rather, I expect the political equivalent of a surrender, and a retreat into hiding. The GOP is a disgrace.


ciretose wrote:

@Kryzbyn

Yes. Now ask yourself "Who was in charge of the house, senate, and supreme court in 2003..."

Then go read the part about Financial Derivative Regulation / Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and ask yourself the same question.

Your point? Obama had a majority also early in his term, but people whine about him not doing anything because of those derned Republicans...


Kryzbyn wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@Kryzbyn

Yes. Now ask yourself "Who was in charge of the house, senate, and supreme court in 2003..."

Then go read the part about Financial Derivative Regulation / Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 and ask yourself the same question.

Your point? Obama had a majority also early in his term, but people whine about him not doing anything because of those derned Republicans...

Obama accomplished quite a lot during his first couple years. The GOP (and its supporting voters) really wish that weren't the case, but damn that's an impressive list.

Andoran

The beauty of Democracy is that the people always get the government they deserve and/or are willing to accept. With Best wishes for the safety of our nation- and a Happy Mothers Day to all moms out there.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
The beauty of Democracy is that the people always get the government they deserve and/or are willing to accept. With Best wishes for the safety of our nation- and a Happy Mothers Day to all moms out there.

And that's the point. The Republican party is trash. We know that. The goal now is to convince the rest of the country that there is a better option, so that hopefully we are never put in a position of being governed by anyone associated with them.

And for those who refuse to listen? They will be marginalized, and their world will shrink around them.


Threads like this are useless. Nobody is going to convince anybody of anything they refuse to believe in, even if it is the straight-up, fact-driven truth.

People are gonna hate. And it is, unfortunately, a tendency of human beings to want to be outraged, angry, and scandalized. To indulge their basest, worse instincts for the pleasure it provides them.

So the majority will believe whoever lies loudest and angriest, and humanity will continue to make no progress. So long as there is a huge amount of people ready and willing to defend their gas guzzlers, and their own blissful ignorance with hate and violence, we are pretty much doomed.

Why discuss it? You basically give nothing but a forum for those with an anti-Obama slant to spread lies and hyperbole in an effort to "win" (despite the obvious and clear fact that "winning" an election to a Republican is no more significant or productive than when your favorite football team wins a game, and therefore that party - capable of nothing but obstructionist BS - ought to be removed from the process completely), and a forum for those who think Obama means well (which I agree with) to try to explain why, but come up short with anything to show for it.

One party is more guilty in this. Clearly. But neither is accomplishing anything, so who cares?


Bruunwald wrote:

Threads like this are useless. Nobody is going to convince anybody of anything they refuse to believe in, even if it is the straight-up, fact-driven truth.

People are gonna hate. And it is, unfortunately, a tendency of human beings to want to be outraged, angry, and scandalized. To indulge their basest, worse instincts for the pleasure it provides them.

So the majority will believe whoever lies loudest and angriest, and humanity will continue to make no progress. So long as there is a huge amount of people ready and willing to defend their gas guzzlers, and their own blissful ignorance with hate and violence, we are pretty much doomed.

Why discuss it? You basically give nothing but a forum for those with an anti-Obama slant to spread lies and hyperbole in an effort to "win" (despite the obvious and clear fact that "winning" an election to a Republican is no more significant or productive than when your favorite football team wins a game, and therefore that party - capable of nothing but obstructionist BS - ought to be removed from the process completely), and a forum for those who think Obama means well (which I agree with) to try to explain why, but come up short with anything to show for it.

One party is more guilty in this. Clearly. But neither is accomplishing anything, so who cares?

Because we're not here to convince the people we're arguing against. They're (usually) beyond help. Their ideology is deep-seated, and it has made them comfortable. Threats to that ideology are threats to the person holding it, and they will defend it no matter the intellectual gymnastics they need to go through.

But we can accomplish two things:

1. In the back-and-forth, we can make it obvious to anyone watching - anyone who hasn't made up their mind definitively - that there is a clear, correct choice to make.

2. We can reassure ourselves that this is something worth fighting for, and remind ourselves that what we are up against will not respond to civility or reason - action is the only constructive option. Get out and vote and make your friends and family vote and make them make their friends and family vote. Drive the opposition's support so far into the dirt that their morale never recovers.

Andoran

Scott- one more thing before I leave this thread. Listen to what you are saying: republicans are trash, those who refuse to listen will be marginalized, this time I very much doubt there will be a truce, I expect the political equivalent of surrender and a retreat into hiding. That sounds pretty personal, harsh, vindicative and non supportive of deocratic values to me. I disagree with your views; but do not wish you to be marginalized or for you to have to go into hiding. I was just trying to point out that worsening times can lead the nation into more extreme conflicts and consequences. And- best of wishes to you.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Scott- one more thing before I leave this thread. Listen to what you are saying: republicans are trash, those who refuse to listen will be marginalized, this time I very much doubt there will be a truce, I expect the political equivalent of surrender and a retreat into hiding. That sounds pretty personal, harsh, vindicative and non supportive of deocratic values to me.

That's because those are not democratic values. My democracy is my vote. But I'm not stopping at a vote. I'm taking action. The people you support - and you, by extension - deserve personal ire. They deserve harsh judgment. They deserve our vindictiveness. And they deserve none of our support.

So I will be acting. You don't know me, and that's fine. But during 2008 I poured months of my life into the campaign. During 2010 I went to DC and trained political operatives. This year I will continue to act.

Quote:
I disagree with your views; but do not wish you to be marginalized or for you to have to go into hiding.

And that's good for me. But if you support the Republican party with the level of political awareness that you have? Then yes, I do want you marginalized. I want your political views to have the smallest voice.


thejeff wrote:


Sure, there are other fantasies you could cling to. Neither the Greens or the Libertarians or the Communists or any of the other even less known parties or right-in candidates have the ghost of a chance.

Point of information: since World War II, the Communist Party's position has just been to vote Democrat, except for a brief period in the late forties where the called to vote Progressive.

Because they're stooges of the plutocracy.


Martin Kauffman 530 wrote:
Scott- one more thing before I leave this thread. Listen to what you are saying: republicans are trash, those who refuse to listen will be marginalized, this time I very much doubt there will be a truce, I expect the political equivalent of surrender and a retreat into hiding. That sounds pretty personal, harsh, vindicative and non supportive of deocratic values to me. I disagree with your views; but do not wish you to be marginalized or for you to have to go into hiding. I was just trying to point out that worsening times can lead the nation into more extreme conflicts and consequences. And- best of wishes to you.

Scott's rhetoric sounds like someone from the new black panther party or the nation of Islam!

I'm starting to believe he is talking like a little dictator so the moderator shuts down this thread. He knows this topic among many others critical of B.O. are bad press for the President.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aretas wrote:
I'm starting to believe he is talking like a little dictator so the moderator shuts down this thread. He knows this topic among many others critical of B.O. are bad press for the President.

Yep, you got it. The battleground for the next presidency begins and ends IN THIS THREAD.

/eyeroll


Scott Betts wrote:
Aretas wrote:
A moderate Republican is a Democrat. Enough of the Democrat bullying. Conservatives are standing up for their values, that showed in the 2010 Congressional races.

And "conservative" values are going to die the slow, painful death they have so richly deserved. They're a pack of meteor-worshiping dinosaurs.

Quote:

Betts says: "We will treat you accordingly" "you are part of the problem"

PAH!
I hate rhetoric, except when something monumentally important is on the line. We're in the middle of the defining political shift of our generation. The culture wars are back, and this time I very much doubt there will be a truce. Rather, I expect the political equivalent of a surrender, and a retreat into hiding. The GOP is a disgrace.

What are YOUR values?

Conservatism will win this November! Your talking like a 3rd world despot because you know it.

Why don't you jump in with the rest of the team and come in for the big win?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Im just going to point out, neither the republicans or the democrats actually care... Both parties are out for their own personal glory, and 200k+ a year paychecks.

You want to actually have a chance at something resembling order? dont support either party, find the people who can accomplish what needs to be done.

It will take work and a fair amount of time BUT it can be done. Out of this election im going to vote for who i think might be able to do so. Most people will probably think im crazy, but im voting for Ron Paul (side note: You all are aware you can vote for anyone right? your not limited to the names on the ballot?) But please stop defending either party, they are both horrible for this country.

It was stated a long time ago, that this country divided would fall, and the republican and democratic parties are doing just that.


JadedDemiGod wrote:
Most people will probably think im crazy, but im voting for Ron Paul (side note: You all are aware you can vote for anyone right? your not limited to the names on the ballot?

I can never in good conscious vote for someone who would not have supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's not that I'm a one issue voter, but rather that tells me so much about them and what kind of person they are.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html He however was not against equality. Thought i would put that out there.


Aaand for the record, before this blows up, I feel equality for all people is paramount to society. I also feel strongly against anyone who wishes to treat others with discrimination and hate, and that goes for all things.

Andoran

Aretas wrote:


A moderate Republican is a Democrat. Enough of the Democrat bullying. Conservatives are standing up for their values, that showed in the 2010 Congressional races.

Because they didn't control all three branches of Government for 6 years and run the country from surplus to the worst economic performance since the great depression?

And don't get me started on the wars...

Andoran

Aretas wrote:


What are YOUR values?
Conservatism will win this November! Your talking like a 3rd world despot because you know it.

Why don't you jump in with the rest of the team and come in for the big win?

Because I don't hate gays, I was a history major so I know we are a country of immigrants, I work in criminal justice so I know lack of health care also means lack of mental health services which is part of why we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, I don't think women need wands in their vaginas, and I think birth control is a good thing for people to have access to, because if people don't want to have kids at a certain point in their lives, I don't want them to be parents.

And on this topic, I observed the failure of trickle down economics when the right held all three branches and manage to turn a surplus into a crisis, and I think that doing the same thing that just failed and expecting a different outcome is insanity.

What are your values?


I don't hate gays. I don't have to be a history major to know we are a country of legal immigrants. I've paid attention to politics to know that assertions like lack of health care lead to more incarceration is rhetoric, because while technicly true it probably does not happen on a scale to be a relevant assertion, and find more causality in single parent upbringings. I don't think women want wands in their vaginas either, and in no time has anyone ever denied someone birth control, they've just elected not to pay for it for someone else, religious reasons or for 'hey pay for it yourself' reasons, when they can drive to planned parenthood and get it for a couple bucks, and I also believe that if I can't afford it, I won't go trolling for pussy. That's called personal responsibility, btw. Alien term, I'm sure.

I've seen the economic indicators over the last threee years decline in everyway that's important, and as a president you don't get an "E" for effort. Jimmy Carter did the same exact crap and only got one term, and the decade following was much more prosperous. If doing it again is insanity, then I guess I'm insane.


Aretas wrote:
Scott's rhetoric sounds like someone from the new black panther party or the nation of Islam!

It's almost a shame that you didn't call me a Nazi. It would have completed your insane little trifecta!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JadedDemiGod wrote:
(side note: You all are aware you can vote for anyone right? your not limited to the names on the ballot?)

I just turned 35 last December, so, please, consider voting for Comrade Anklebiter for President of the United States of America this fall.


JadedDemiGod wrote:
Im just going to point out, neither the republicans or the democrats actually care... Both parties are out for their own personal glory, and 200k+ a year paychecks.

That's really not true at all. Definitely, some Democrats are as you describe. But most of them genuinely want the things that we fight for, and are willing to make sacrifices to accomplish it. I know it's easy and fashionable to say, "Yeah, but the two parties are just the same!" but it's simply not true. There are huge differences between how the Democratic party operates and what its supporters value, and how the Republican party operates and what its supporters value.


I'm not saying you're wrong, Scott, but giving the mess that campaign contributions have become, most of those differences are social rather than fiscal. Don't misunderstand me, I think social issues are worth voting on.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I don't have to be a history major to know we are a country of legal immigrants.

Not all of us!


Not for lack of trying, Comrade.


My mother's people hail from southern Italy and I know that at least one of 'em got here under false papers 'cos the condottieri was looking for him.

Come to think of it, my grandfather was a bigamist, too. Maybe I should go contribute to the Polygamy Page.

Osirion

Grey Lensman wrote:
It's sad to realize that Reagan would probably be considered too much of a moderate in today's Republican part.

What's really funny about Reagan, he wouldn't even be voted in by the very people who hold him up as Saint Ronny.

Osirion

Kryzbyn wrote:
Your point? Obama had a majority also early in his term, but people whine about him not doing anything because of those derned Republicans...

You mean the fact that he tried to work with the GOP to get things done and they kept changing the goalposts? Every time he said that they had a good idea they retreated and said it wasn't theirs?


Kryzbyn wrote:
I won't go trolling for pussy.

You won't go trawling for pussy, Citizen Kryzbyn.

Unless you get laid by trolling on Paizo and, if you do, please tell me how.


Yeah I don't do that either, or this but even if I did know how to successfully, as a capitalist I'd have to charge you for the knowledge :)


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Your point? Obama had a majority also early in his term, but people whine about him not doing anything because of those derned Republicans...
You mean the fact that he tried to work with the GOP to get things done and they kept changing the goalposts? Every time he said that they had a good idea they retreated and said it wasn't theirs?

Hey that's a good idea.

The unspoken part:
"...that we will remove from the bill when it gets to the Senate, or in some other commitee backroom, conveniently after we've received your votes to pass it on."


Kryzbyn wrote:
this

Hee hee!


You laugh, but it gets the ladies.

Andoran

@Kryzbyn

1. What economic indicators have declined since Obama was inaugurated? As in link to numbers that have gotten worse in the time since Obama became president. Unemployment is down and GDP is up, so I'm curious what indicators you are talking about .

2. It was kind of hard to be illegal when there were no immigration laws to break.

3. How are they getting stuff from Planned Parenthood when Romney specifically said he plans to close it.

4. Personal responsibility is great, and ironic from the party calling for less accountability in business. How many bankers have been prosecuted? Oh wait, what they did was largely made legal thanks to deregulation. Accountability is for those who don't have lobbyists.

Carter, you may remember, followed 8 years of Republican Presidents who drove the economy into stagflation. Remember Ford's Whip Inflation Now stickers? Most economists credit Paul Volcker. Who appointed him?

Yup.

He had the balls to raise interest rates to fight inflation, which hurt the economy and Carter getting re-elected. But it was the right decision to make. Even Ron Paul has said Volcker was right.

I liked Eisenhower. Bush Sr wasn't bad. Reagan actually had the economy get worse after he took office, ending up with a recession at both ends of his presidency (The 2nd one making Bush Sr a one termer), combined with crack and aids blowing up on his watch, thanks in part to the cuts in services that could have helped mitigate the effects.

Osirion

Kryzbyn wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Your point? Obama had a majority also early in his term, but people whine about him not doing anything because of those derned Republicans...
You mean the fact that he tried to work with the GOP to get things done and they kept changing the goalposts? Every time he said that they had a good idea they retreated and said it wasn't theirs?

Hey that's a good idea.

The unspoken part:
"...that we will remove from the bill when it gets to the Senate, or in some other commitee backroom, conveniently after we've received your votes to pass it on."

Better tell that to Boehner and CO. They've been crowing about how they've been getting their way.

Taldor

I will say simply

Obama is NOT perfect, no one is

The economy had 8 years of massive screws ups before Obama came to town. When he took over it was plunging like a the meteor that hit the Yucatan peninsula

Now lets face it, 8 years to Muck up the economy will not be fixed in 4 years. Typically it takes as many or more to fix it.

Now would Romney fix it? That would have to be seen. But could he muck it up worse? Absolutely.

Would Obama Muck it up? I really think not as it is being fixed but it will take time.

OH and just for the record Clinton did not help it, Bushy just screwed it up tenfold


Kryzbyn wrote:


The unspoken part:
"...that we will remove from the bill when it gets to the Senate, or in some other commitee backroom, conveniently after we've received your votes to pass it on."

I guess my question is: if a party in power can always do this, isn't it IMPOSSIBLE to actually compromise? If one party has the power to do this, and offers compromise, why don't you see that unspoken part in every piece of legislation?

This seems overly paranoid to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

No act of congress invented or encouraged the use of credit default swaps or collateralized debt obligations. JP Morgan gets that honor. These "financial tools" were responsible for convincing regulators that banks weren't at risk and allowed them to keep less collateral on their balance sheets.

Far from reducing risk, they have actually magnified risk and made it systemic.

Osirion

Bush Sr. inherited a bad economy and did some very unpopular things to turn it around. You wanna know who got the credit for it? Clinton. Moves that Bush Sr. implemented in the first couple of years of his administration didn't come to fruition until sometime around 94 or 95, so for anyone to say that Obama has had 3 years to turn things around shows me that they really haven't an idea how it works.


Kryzbyn wrote:
and in no time has anyone ever denied someone birth control, they've just elected not to pay for it for someone else, religious reasons or for 'hey pay for it yourself' reasons,

THIS is the story of a pharmacist in Menomonie Wisconsin who refused to refill a woman's prescription for birth control pills on moral grounds. He also refused to transfer her prescription to another pharmacy down the road, again citing religious convictions. This isn't an isolated incident, there is in fact a national movement for "conscience clauses" for pharmacists, and it is legal in two states (Alabama and South Dakota) for a pharmacist to do so. Most of the movement these days is based on the so-called "abortion pill" plan B, which, being a reasonable chap, you'll certainly agree it isn't.

As for what you seem to be referring to, the Sandra Fluke case, the situation was like this. Georgetown is a catholic school, and it also forces some of its students to buy insurance THROUGH them. She tried to approach the insurance company to get additional coverage for birth control (you know, being personally responsible) and the insurance company said it isn't allowed to provide that coverage at the order of Georgetown. Even independently. It's not an issue of having someone else pay for it, it's an issue of having a RELIGIOUS institution prevent her from paying for it her damn self!


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Bush Sr. inherited a bad economy and did some very unpopular things to turn it around.

Like, ya know, starting wars without asking anyone. When his son, his Royal Fraudulency King George II, tried the same thing it tanked the economy.

You want to give credit to George I for helping a flagging economy? I've no qualms. As long as you don't turn around and say "but our current situation is cuz of Obama!" Not that I suspect you would, but I hear that reasoning ALL the time.

Osirion

meatrace wrote:
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Bush Sr. inherited a bad economy and did some very unpopular things to turn it around.

Like, ya know, starting wars without asking anyone. When his son, his Royal Fraudulency King George II, tried the same thing it tanked the economy.

You want to give credit to George I for helping a flagging economy? I've no qualms. As long as you don't turn around and say "but our current situation is cuz of Obama!" Not that I suspect you would, but I hear that reasoning ALL the time.

He raised taxes. And are you talking about the military action that Congress passed called Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 (officially titled: Joint Resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678)? The Senate passed it by a 52-47 margin and the House passed 250-183. Okay. Sure. He wasn't authorized.

Osirion

meatrace wrote:
You want to give credit to George I for helping a flagging economy? I've no qualms. As long as you don't turn around and say "but our current situation is cuz of Obama!" Not that I suspect you would, but I hear that reasoning ALL the time.

Yes I do give credit to Bush Sr for turning around the economy. I also give kudos to Clinton for recognizing what was happening and NOT SCREWING IT UP. It just took time for the actions to come into play. I've a friend who is really into economics and explained that it usually takes 3-5 years for the policies to take affect.


Well at least Bush I set the precedent that we don;t need to keep the president in office to see if his policy changes are working...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanakht Inaros wrote:
The Senate passed it by a 52-47 margin and the House passed 250-183. Okay. Sure. He wasn't authorized.

It's the slippery slope to totalitarianism. Iraq and Afghanistan were both authorized as well, but that doesn't mean they are popular, either with US citizens or the world as a whole. He started a war without actually declaring war. I mean, he wasn't the first to do it, and he wouldn't be the last, but it should always make one uncomfortable, no? You do admit that it was a war, and there was no actual declaration of war, right?

I was just trying to point out that, for a very long time now, the US has relied on global warfare as a mechanism for economic growth. When Bush II tried it, it failed. It's just not predictably a positive thing any longer.

The rest of your statement I was fine with.


1. Oh, what was it when he took office? What was it a year into his presidency? The unemplyment numbers now are him trying to get it back up to where it was before he f'd it up.

2. Back when? America existed after 1776. You talking before then?

3. Or walmart. Trojans are like 7 bucks for 10 condoms.

4. Personal responsibility is great, yes, and has nothing to do with a business. Hence the term personal.
But that aside, I'm sure it was ok for Pelosi to turn a blind eye to credit card regulation changes, and then benefit from not enacting them handsomely, right? Just a coincidence I'm sure. Which party is she in?

Osirion

Kryzbyn wrote:
Well at least Bush I set the precedent that we don;t need to keep the president in office to see if his policy changes are working...

It's been that way for a very long time. It's as far back as I can go because the only President I remember prior to that was Reagan. Carter's policies were why Reagan had to raise taxes several times.

101 to 150 of 347 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Your thoughts on Obama's economic record. All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.