Living under Obama's presidency


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 1,595 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Samnell wrote:
I just don't care about mayors telling Chick-fil-a they're not welcome. Politicians do that all the time for all manner of businesses they find unsavory, from coal-burning power plants to strip clubs and adult novelty emporiums. Talk about non-news.

I don't, either. But didn't someone actually threaten to without building permits? If so, I find that unacceptable.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Sadly many Republicans are getting their news from one source these days. It's not leading to a well informed electorate, opinionated yes, but terribly misinformed. But then again journalism in general is lazy and cheep these days, nobody wants to take the time to check sources, do a little research, get their hands dirty. It's just so much easier to get a camera somewhere and/or talk to pundits.

This. But not just limited to Republicans. Go up to the average citizen, regardless of party affliation, and ask them about the NDAA or Abdulrahman or the Walmart strikes or CISPA/SOPA, and you'll most likely get a blank stare. Because, most Americans do get their news from one source: TV. TV is driven by ratings and that leads to sensationalism. Instead of learning about stuff that matters, the populace gets spoonfed about stuff that really doesnt matter like sexting and cyberbullying. The one thing that gives me hope is that the younger generations seem to be getting their news more from the internet and user generated social media. Now that has problems of its own (people have a tendency to only read sites that reinforce their preconceived ideas rather than ones that challenge them), but its a start, in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Celestial Healer wrote:

Emphases mine.

There is a dissonance here.

Thanks for the threadcrap, by the way.

Some people don't see same-sex marriage as a human rights issue. Personally, I'm not sure if the confusion stems from a belief that homosexuals aren't human, or a belief that marrying whom you choose isn't a right.

Either way, those people are dead wrong.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
This. But not just limited to Republicans. Go up to the average citizen, regardless of party affliation, and ask them about the NDAA or Abdulrahman or the Walmart strikes or CISPA/SOPA, and you'll most likely get a blank stare. Because, most Americans do get their news from one source: TV. TV is driven by ratings and that leads to sensationalism. Instead of learning about stuff that matters, the populace gets spoonfed about stuff that really doesnt matter like sexting and cyberbullying. The one thing that gives me hope is that the younger generations seem to be getting their news more from the internet and user generated social media. Now that has problems of its own (people have a tendency to only read sites that reinforce their preconceived ideas rather than ones that challenge them), but its a start, in my opinion.

Working two jobs in order to make ends meet doesn't help, either.

Of course I suppose one might believe that the decline of the middle class is all Obama's fault. Then again, one might believe oneself to be Napoleon...


bugleyman wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
This. But not just limited to Republicans. Go up to the average citizen, regardless of party affliation, and ask them about the NDAA or Abdulrahman or the Walmart strikes or CISPA/SOPA, and you'll most likely get a blank stare. Because, most Americans do get their news from one source: TV. TV is driven by ratings and that leads to sensationalism. Instead of learning about stuff that matters, the populace gets spoonfed about stuff that really doesnt matter like sexting and cyberbullying. The one thing that gives me hope is that the younger generations seem to be getting their news more from the internet and user generated social media. Now that has problems of its own (people have a tendency to only read sites that reinforce their preconceived ideas rather than ones that challenge them), but its a start, in my opinion.

Working two jobs to make ends meet doesn't help, either.

Of course I suppose one could believe that the decline of the middle class is all Obama's fault. Then again, one might also believe oneself to be Napoleon...

There is much truth to your first sentence. When one is merely worried about putting food on the table, one usually doesnt have time to worry about things happening on the other side of the country or around the world. This I find to be almost completely analgous to our government. Why are we spending trillions (with a t) to be heros around the world? There are plenty of opportunites to use those trillions here on the homefront. That is our governments job. Using those trillions around the world is not our governments job, no matter how noble the intentions.

You lost me with your second sentence, however. Was there someone who asserted that? If so, theyre stupid. End of story. Or is pertinent is some way that Im not seeing?


TheWhiteknife wrote:
There is much truth to your first sentence. When one is merely worried about putting food on the table, one usually doesnt have time to worry about things happening on the other side of the country or around the world. This I find to be almost completely analgous to our government. Why are we spending trillions (with a t) to be heros around the world? There are plenty of opportunites to use those trillions here on the homefront. That is our governments job. Using those trillions around the world is not our governments job, no matter how noble the intentions.

Because we're not spending trillions to be heroes around the world. We're spending trillions to maintain American hegemony, which lets American based corporations make a ton of money. To some extent we're enforcing peace for similar reasons: because it's better for us to have a peaceful world to trade with.

Much of that money comes back to US defense companies anyway.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
There is much truth to your first sentence. When one is merely worried about putting food on the table, one usually doesnt have time to worry about things happening on the other side of the country or around the world. This I find to be almost completely analgous to our government. Why are we spending trillions (with a t) to be heros around the world? There are plenty of opportunites to use those trillions here on the homefront. That is our governments job. Using those trillions around the world is not our governments job, no matter how noble the intentions.

Because we're not spending trillions to be heroes around the world. We're spending trillions to maintain American hegemony, which lets American based corporations make a ton of money. To some extent we're enforcing peace for similar reasons: because it's better for us to have a peaceful world to trade with.

Much of that money comes back to US defense companies anyway.

Im well aware. But it is sold to the population by our rulers as being heros. Like killing Gaddafi because he may or may not have in the future attacked civilians. Like ousting the Taliban because they hurt innocents. Like starving and killing Iranians because they may or may not build a bomb that they may or may not use. We are institutionalising the Vietnam-era logic of we have to destroy something in order to save it. It was a silly logic then and its a silly logic now.

Also: I dont blame Obama for the death of the middle class. But I do blame Obama and the Bush/Cheney administrations for the death of civil liberties. The age of Hell


TheWhiteknife wrote:
You lost me with your second sentence, however. Was there someone who asserted that? If so, theyre stupid. End of story. Or is pertinent is some way that Im not seeing?

I assume you didn't watch the presidential debates? Because Romney and most of the Republican party routinely blame the plight of the middle class on Obama.


ahh ok. No, I didnt watch because I dont really care what either of those lying liars decide to lie about. ;p


TheWhiteknife wrote:
ahh ok. No, I didnt watch because I dont really care what either of those lying liars decide to lie about. ;p

Half-truths flew on both sides. And although I voted for Obama again, he has absolutely been a disappointment in some ways -- he is simply better than the alternative.


Its not so much the half-truths that our rulers tell that bother me, its what the corrupt debate commission makes sure isnt even asked that bother me. Like I said, I didnt watch any of the main party debates, but Im willing to bet dollars to donuts that there were no questions about the NDAA, kill-lists, trespass bill, Abdulrahman, the drug war, etc etc asked. I mean is Romney even prepared for the awesome responsibility that would come with being handed the ability to kill or indefinitely imprison anyone he wanted to? I would want to know, but apparently Joe Averageamerican doesnt.

Edit-Im not arguing or even disagreeing with you. Im just ranting about our bs two-party system and our completely brain-dead sycophantic media. I hate the written medium sometimes and want to keep up the lovefest started by thejeff love and the forum pals thread


TheWhiteknife wrote:
I would want to know, but apparently Joe Averageamerican doesnt.

In my opinion the "average" American simply wants to be "safe" (whatever that means) and doesn't want to know what it costs. Of course what we will get will be entirely different, but that's another story...


I concur.


Can I ask your opinion on something, White?

Clinton chose not to kill Bin Ladin with a targeted strike, and was reviled by the right wingers for not doing so (only after 9/11, cause, as you said, no one informs themselves these days) until he (Clinton) yelled at a newscaster. 9/11 rolls around and Darth Chaney, Sith Lord par exellence, uses it as an excuse to severely limit whatever civil liberties he can get his hands on. Now, Years more later we've got Comrade Obama uses drone strikes to kill american citizens just for the fun of it, because he wants to and he can.

My question is, would you approve of Clinton using such a drone strike to kill Bin Laden, thus preventing the erosion of our civil liberties in the scheme of things? This might sound like a gotcha question (hell, it would if anyone asked it of me), but I'm honestly curious.


Too much of a gotcha question. Once you bring time travel in, it's hard to take seriously.


He doesn't have to travel in time, just wish the president at the time had done something else; sounds like a perfect fit :P

Edit: What can I say, this is a call back to the targeted killings = assassination thread. Personally I think the UMVs are a tool the military uses. I'm not sure there even is a difference between war and genocide. As Jeff said, that's why war is a bad thing.


First, I dont really consider "gotcha" questions to be bad. I hate that politicians gripe about them as if having their hypocrises pointed out to the public is a bad thing. (You hear me, Newt Gingrich?!? F@#$ youuuuuuuuuuuu!)

Now to answer your question: No. Clinton, in this case, did the right thing. You cannot "solve" terrorism by killing. A targeted strike on Bin Laden would only serve to prove him right, giving credence to his ideas, drawing more people to his banner. Sure it may have prevented 9/11, but who is say that it would have prevented a 9/12 or a 10/16 or what-have-you then? The Patriot Act (humourously-in-a-dark-way based on Joe Biden based legislation) would then still be available to be rushed through Congress. A better way would be to actually take responsibility for our mis-steps in the region and actually try apologising for our mistakes. Admit that we were wrong for reinstalling the Shah in Iran. Apologise for shooting down the airbus. Maybe stop vetoing every condemnation of Isreal for human-righst abuses and basically hold ourselves accountable for our actions to the same degree that we hold others accountable. Then after a lil goodwill has built up, ask Afghanistan to extradite Bin Laden, agree to their reasonable terms and hold him for a fair well-defended trial.

I get told that I am blame America first type person, but I really dont think I am. I see myself as America should hold itself responsible for the things that it has actually done type person.

Edit to keep up with your edit: I dont have a problem with drones in and of themselves. Its the way that we are using them that worries me. (signature strikes, what constitutes a "militant", lack of oversight over who is actually a terrorist, etc.) They are just a tool, like a gun or a tank. Its the same way that I oppose gun bans, yet I still think murder should be illegal. To me terrorism always was and should always be a law enforcement issue. The goal should always be the apprehension and trial of the terrorists and their deaths should only be to stop them in the midst of an attack or if they are presenting a clear and present danger to their captors.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

First, I dont really consider "gotcha" questions to be bad. I hate that politicians gripe about them as if having their hypocrises pointed out to the public is a bad thing. (You hear me, Newt Gingrich?!? F@#$ youuuuuuuuuuuu!)

Now to answer your question: No. Clinton, in this case, did the right thing. You cannot "solve" terrorism by killing. A targeted strike on Bin Laden would only serve to prove him right, giving credence to his ideas, drawing more people to his banner. Sure it may have prevented 9/11, but who is say that it would have prevented a 9/12 or a 10/16 or what-have-you then? The Patriot Act (humourously-in-a-dark-way based on Joe Biden based legislation) would then still be available to be rushed through Congress. A better way would be to actually take responsibility for our mis-steps in the region and actually try apologising for our mistakes. Admit that we were wrong for reinstalling the Shah in Iran. Apologise for shooting down the airbus. Maybe stop vetoing every condemnation of Isreal for human-righst abuses and basically hold ourselves accountable for our actions to the same degree that we hold others accountable. Then after a lil goodwill has built up, ask Afghanistan to extradite Bin Laden, agree to their reasonable terms and hold him for a fair well-defended trial.

I get told that I am blame America first type person, but I really dont think I am. I see myself as America should hold itself responsible for the things that it has actually done type person.

What's funny is how Foreign Aid never ever enters into the War on Terror conversation. I would love to live in a world where the military budget got turned over to the Peace Corps.


Samnell wrote:
thejeff wrote:


A couple years ago I would have agreed with you. We were barely paying attention to Afghanistan and things were getting worse.
Had we really wanted to do right by Afghanistan, and especially by the most vulnerable people there, we'd have let the Soviets keep it.

F**$ yeah, Comrade Samnell!

Vive le Galt!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Celestial Healer wrote:
Cory Stafford 29 wrote:
Well, the left may portray themselves as "tolerant", but they are, in fact, only tolerant if you agree with their views completely. Don't like same sex marriage, and state it publicly. Be prepared for the left to vandalize your stores, have leftist mayors threaten to keep your business out of their cities, and have liberals threaten to charge you with violating "hate speech" laws. That's exaclty what happened when the president of Chik-Fil-A voiced his opinion. Obama's administration has been harassing tea party groups with IRS audits for years now. You can't tell me that isn't politically motivated. I am not saying the right is perfect, but I see much less repression of human rights from them than from the left. Let's not forget that the NAZI's started as leftists. They were a socialist party.

Emphases mine.

There is a dissonance here.

Thanks for the threadcrap, by the way.

I'm not picking on you, Comrade Healer, but I thought your post was as good as any:

I love how someone can come in here and say some pretty standard right-wing talk radio stuff and everybody reams him out, but I say U.S. imperialism is the world's biggest terrorist and no one bats an eye.

You guys rock.

Vive le Galt!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


I love how someone can come in here and say some pretty standard right-wing talk radio stuff and everybody reams him out, but I say U.S. imperialism is the world's biggest terrorist and no one bats an eye.

You guys rock.

Vive le Galt!

I'm a firm believer in the aristocracy of being right. Just hold still while I fit you with your powdered wig and ostrich feather hat...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
ahh ok. No, I didnt watch because I dont really care what either of those lying liars decide to lie about. ;p
Half-truths flew on both sides. And although I voted for Obama again, he has absolutely been a disappointment in some ways -- he is simply better than the alternative.

This, in a nutshell, is my view.

That a vote against Romney, insofar as a vote of this sort happens to be for the only other candidate who can realistically win, is tantamount to a vote for Obama is one of the unfortunate results of the U. S. system. In this case, while I have no great love for the devil I know, my observation is that it's better than the devil I don't.


Samnell wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


I love how someone can come in here and say some pretty standard right-wing talk radio stuff and everybody reams him out, but I say U.S. imperialism is the world's biggest terrorist and no one bats an eye.

You guys rock.

Vive le Galt!

I'm a firm believer in the aristocracy of being right. Just hold still while I fit you with your powdered wig and ostrich feather hat...

This is very possibly the best thing I've heard anyone say, like ever; I think of such as my legacy.


I am torn between a desire to wear ostrich feathers and a suspicion that the "aristocracy of being right" is codeword for "stooge of the plutocracy!"

Vive le Galt!

And Lord Dice just confirmed it.


Look, Doodlebug, I'm no stooge of the plutocracy, I'm a founding member. No wig for you!


:(

It's okay.

I prefer a less groomed look.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3


And now, for my next trick, I'm going to go sell socialist newspapers to a crowd trying to get into a middle school to see Obama and hand out a leaflet building an anti-Obama, anti-war rally two days before the election.

Vive le Galt!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

:(

It's okay.

I prefer a less groomed look.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Dude, is that last one you? Like most socialists, you're a handsome chap.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I am torn between a desire to wear ostrich feathers and a suspicion that the "aristocracy of being right" is codeword for "stooge of the plutocracy!"

Vive le Galt!

And Lord Dice just confirmed it.

The knee breeches are really assless chaps, if it helps.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have personally been great under Obama's presidency and have numerous reasons (from personal to general) to support him for four more years.

I'll go ahead and share those reasons here with links to more on each subject (the links are full of links to support evidence):

The business I work in has seen many jobs lost to cheaper South American competitors. My own job is in constant threat of this outsourcing.

The American Jobs Act is the sort of bill that could help protect my job. It provides tax incentives to bring jobs back to America, among other things. Republicans have been blocking it for a year.

I'm not a rich guy and will likely need to rely on Social Security and Medicare in old age even if I become more wealthy. Romney and Ryan have been talking about privatizing (or partially privatizing) Medicare which non-partisan economists agree will double the out of pocket costs for future retires.

Republican policies are bad for my wife's education and job. When the Republicans cut spending, they cut funding for schools and education. This is what happens when state aid is cut. She still needs to finish college for her job in education-related fields.

It'll be awfully hard to not take personally anyone voting for Republican scumbags this election. Why? Republican policies will cause personal injury to me so those votes are essentially personal attacks on me.

I guess the "positive" side is that the GOP platform will prevent gays from getting married which is none my business nor anyone else's except for the gay couple and the religious freedom of whoever wishes to officiate the ceremony. Also, the GOP will protect the zygotes and fetuses of rapists from the horrible women who wish to abort them. Wait, those aren't good things. There is no positive side to the GOP platform.

Reason #1: Conservatives Suck at Economics

Republicans (and Libertarians) argue that we need to give more tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations, not incentives like the American Jobs Act. Fun Fact: Giving corporations more tax breaks doesn't give them any incentive to hire more. It doesn't create more demand for their product or make labor in America any cheaper compared to overseas.

Reason 1 Link

Reason #2: Republican Bigotry Disqualifies Them as a Political Party

It's the easiest litmus test of all to realize that people must not be listened to if they support the oppression or marginalization of any minority in the USA. It's distinctly un-American. Two consenting adults should be able to marry. Religious institutions that want to marry them should have that freedom. It's personal freedom and religious freedom at stake here. Under the guise of religious freedom, Republicans claim that their religious tyranny is otherwise.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#two

Reason #3: Obama's Foreign Policy Is An Example of How It Should Be Done

Libya is where Obama has shined. As part of a UN force requested by Libyan citizens, we helped the Libyan people win their freedom from terrorist supporter Muammar Gaddafi whom Ronald Reagan failed to kill. We did that without any U.S. military casualties (though journalists did die) or troops on the ground. Although our ambassador was killed by an al-Qaeda affiliaetd group using protests against an anti-Islamic movie as a cover, the Libyan people then rallied in support of America and kicked the extremist militias out of their city. Helping people win their own freedom from dictators and gaining the support of people is how an international community should behave.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#three

Reason #4: We're Better Off

Under the Obama administration, I've gotten married and bought my first new car. That seems pretty good for me. We're also better off as a country.

Obama is one of only five Presidents to see the stock market gain over 50% in 3 years. That's a free market capitalist's dream.

Shortly after Obama took office, the Dow hit 6626. It's now at 13,066. The stock market has DOUBLED.

Obama's administration saved the auto industry (without the massive layoffs the Romney plan endorsed), passed universal health care (which Romney endorsed in 2006), and killed the top terrorist in the world (whom Romney says he'd have gotten except that he clearly said he wouldn't have been looking for).

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#four

Reason #5: GOP Report Card: Grade F

What have the Republicans done since they were elected to a majority in the House in 2010?

Instead of focusing on jobs, Republicans have been intent fighting abortion rights, gay rights, and worker rights. Apparently, they think the solution to our economic problems is to degrade worker's rights. I guess they'll be happy once we're like China. Battles have been fought in Wisconsin and Ohio, and Indiana. The Republicans have so lost their way on this issue, that they look to Reagan to remind them that: "Where Free Unions and Collective Bargaining are Forbidden, Freedom is Lost."

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#five

Reason #6: The GOP Has Been Willing to Hurt the USA in Order to Regain Power

There's evidence that Mitch McConnell sabotaged our government for political gain. Numerous sources have corroborated that he orchestrated obstruction of every vote that Democrats supported. That's right, the Republicans decided to oppose the Democrats on everything before the Obama administration even took office.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#six

Reason #7: Obama and Romney Aren't the Same

Some people claim all politicians are the same, that Obama and Romney are the same or that Obama is Bush the Third. They're fed up with Washington and think nothing ever changes or get done. All one has to do is look at Obama's record and see that change for the better can happen. However, not much gets done when a President has a Congress that won't cooperate or that is gridlocked by obstructionists.

How is it that George W. Bush and Obama are similar?
Did they both drop the ball on defense, letting terrorists attack us on American soil, and then retaliate by invading the wrong country? Did they both then attack civil liberties and religious freedom by trying to ban marriage for a minority? No, those were both only Bush. Who was it who tried to take the first step in eliminating Social Security by privatizing it? Again, that was only Bush.

How is it that Romney and Obama are similar?
Do they both want to curtail civil rights for minorities? Do they both want to provoke a war with Iran? Do they both belong to parties that suck at economics? Do they both belong to parties that increasingly feel that Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Do they both want to change government to lift the burden from the wealthy by increasing the burden on all the rest? No, those are only Romney.

http://borazondrill.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-obama-option.html#seven


Freehold DM wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

:(

It's okay.

I prefer a less groomed look.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Dude, is that last one you? Like most socialists, you're a handsome chap.

[blushes]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:
Under the Obama administration, I've gotten married and bought my first new car

I got laid less than ten times under Obama, but got laid hundreds of times under Bush. I'm not better off at all.


Oooh!

This looks juicy:

The progressive case against Obama--
Bottom line: The president is complicit in creating an increasingly unequal -- and unjust -- society

backed with an article about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a piece entitled "Clinton's No Liberal Hero."


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Oooh!

This looks juicy:

The progressive case against Obama--
Bottom line: The president is complicit in creating an increasingly unequal -- and unjust -- society

backed with an article about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and a piece entitled "Clinton's No Liberal Hero."

Yeah! Go Romney. He'll fix everything.


Hmmm. Well, I only just got to the part about voting third party, but, so far, nary a good word for Mitt.


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I'm guessing the Obama apologists are going to remain silent on this, as always. Here's to hoping someone shows up, thus proving me wrong, and explains how is this acceptable.

You are posting this..on a roleplaying forum. And a majority of the people here might not ven be American. If you want your message to reach a lot of Obama apologists, go somewhere else.

Meanwhile, i'll go back to worrying about the lack of influence that the Silver Crusade has in the Society.


Nelith wrote:
Thiago Cardozo wrote:
I'm guessing the Obama apologists are going to remain silent on this, as always. Here's to hoping someone shows up, thus proving me wrong, and explains how is this acceptable.

You are posting this..on a roleplaying forum. And a majority of the people here might not ven be American. If you want your message to reach a lot of Obama apologists, go somewhere else.

Meanwhile, i'll go back to worrying about the lack of influence that the Silver Crusade has in the Society.

And yet, there are many people who responded to it...

Nine pages full of them, in fact.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Hmmm. Well, I only just got to the part about voting third party, but, so far, nary a good word for Mitt.

And here I assumed that was the practical effect of arguing against Obama a week before the election.

We're going to have to deal with either President Obama or President Romney for the next four years. Pretending that convincing people to oppose one doesn't help the other is nonsense.

Third parties are irrelevant, at least on the national level.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And yet, there are many people who responded to it...

Nine pages full of them, in fact.

Nine pages of the same crew saying the same things as always.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I mostly just get a kick out of most of the Obama supporters pretending that he doesnt do the things that he actually does. (thejeff and bugleyman excluded). Look at how they all manage to respond to Andrew R, but give em anything of substance, and I swear I could hear crickets chirping over my laptop.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
I mostly just get a kick out of most of the Obama supporters pretending that he doesnt do the things that he actually does. (thejeff and bugleyman excluded). Look at how they all manage to respond to Andrew R, but give em anything of substance, and I swear I could hear crickets chirping over my laptop.

I have no illusions about Obama. He's center left. I didn't expect a revolution when I voted for him, though I dare say I had the audacity to hope. He has been a marked improvement over GWB, and Romney would be a return to failed policies like supply side economics and slashing earned benefits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with all that. Except I did fall for his lies in 2008 and thought that he would do some of the good things that he both promised and has it in his power to do. Like ending warrantless wiretaps or going to war without Congressional approval.


TheWhiteknife wrote:

I agree with all that. Except I did fall for his lies in 2008 and thought that he would do some of the good things that he both promised and has it in his power to do. Like ending warrantless wiretaps or going to war without Congressional approval.

What's this about without congressional approval? Are you talking about Libya?

Sovereign Court

I'd say the West's intervention in Libya was one of the things that made me think there was hope for humanity. I wish the same sort of intervention was possible in Syria.


meatrace wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
I mostly just get a kick out of most of the Obama supporters pretending that he doesnt do the things that he actually does. (thejeff and bugleyman excluded). Look at how they all manage to respond to Andrew R, but give em anything of substance, and I swear I could hear crickets chirping over my laptop.
I have no illusions about Obama. He's center left. I didn't expect a revolution when I voted for him, though I dare say I had the audacity to hope. He has been a marked improvement over GWB, and Romney would be a return to failed policies like supply side economics and slashing earned benefits.

The center is so skewed towards the right in the US that you might say that. Obama sounds like a right wing for me and people abroad, I'd dare say.


The problem is not that he did not do enough to stop Bush's odious policies. The problem is that he maintained them and expanded on them in a very efficient and powerful fashion.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

And yet, there are many people who responded to it...

Nine pages full of them, in fact.

Nine pages of the same crew saying the same things as always.

But isn't it true of all forums about politics?


Questioning and harassment of people for their political views


Thiago Cardozo wrote:
The center is so skewed towards the right in the US that you might say that. Obama sounds like a right wing for me and people abroad, I'd dare say.

Yup. That's what happens when you have a terrible public education system. Money == votes.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Sigard Spleenbiter wrote:
Under the Obama administration, I've gotten married and bought my first new car
I got laid less than ten times under Obama, but got laid hundreds of times under Bush. I'm not better off at all.

I misread this as "laid off".

401 to 450 of 1,595 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Living under Obama's presidency All Messageboards