Obama

[The Dark Lord]

Barack Obama won the US Presidency with a message of hope, unity and belief. One year on, he has become an arrogant, anti-british bigot. He has made Tony Hayward a scapegoat in the oil scandel to hide his own inability to react to the situation. Unemployment is still high, Afganistan is still a diaster, Has he actually achieved anything? He has treated the british is barely concealed disgust. At least Bush treated Blair, if not Britain, with the respect the country of Britain deserves.
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP MY ARSE

Has Barack Obama lost it, or is it really the case that he never had it?

[Junky]

Barack Obama won the US Presidency with a message of hope, unity and belief. One year on, he has become an arrogant, anti-british bigot. He has made Tony Hayward a scapegoat in the oil scandel to hide his own inability to react to the situation. Unemployment is still high, Afganistan is still a diaster, Has he actually achieved anything? He has treated the british is barely concealed disgust. At least Bush treated Blair, if not Britain, with the respect the country of Britain deserves.
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP MY ARSE

Has Barack Obama lost it, or is it really the case that he never had it?
We definitely got what we voted for, change.

[MadManWithaBox]

How has he been insulting britain? I'm not saying you're wrong by the way, I just don't pay any attention to america, american politics, and really anything to do with america at all.

[CaliKid24]

Umm we got what we wanted. If you're complaining about how Obama is, always think how it would be if McCain was elected. Haha. He would not be nice to Britain after this oil spill.

[Peace God]

Can you explain how he's anti-british?

[Sith Lord 13]

Umm we got what we wanted. If you're complaining about how Obama is, always think how it would be if McCain was elected. Haha. He would not be nice to Britain after this oil spill.

Ummm, do you have any reason to believe that? I really don't see anything that would point to McCain blaming Britain.

[Junky]

Umm we got what we wanted. If you're complaining about how Obama is, always think how it would be if McCain was elected. Haha. He would not be nice to Britain after this oil spill.

Care to explain?

[Jamie]

with the respect the country of Britain deserves.
Britain isn't a country, it's a state of sovereignty.

As I'm not much aware of his actions towards the UK recently, I can't say much on the matter, however it seems to me the only actual change he's made in the direction that he was pacing for, has been only a small number of changes in the gay community, out of the large number of changes he's promised.

[The Dark Lord]

How has he been insulting britain? I'm not saying you're wrong by the way, I just don't pay any attention to america, american politics, and really anything to do with america at all.

Can you explain how he's anti-british?

Obama has been calling BP, British Petrolum, which has not been BP's name since 1998, a deliberate attempt to stir up anti-British feeling. David Cameron had to phone him to discuss Obama's retoric. A US politician actually apolgised to Tony Hayward (BP Chairman) for the White House's behaviour. The President has handled the situation appallingly, he has been left without a shread of credability. The man is no longer fit for office.

[Jess]

*shakes head* I thought he would be a great president. guess I was wrong.

[Tiberius]

So...how's that Obama thing working out?

[Dive to Survive]

I hoped Obama would not win the election. At least he's scared the crap out of most people who voted for him.

[Amnesiac]

Obama has been calling BP, British Petrolum, which has not been BP's name since 1998, a deliberate attempt to stir up anti-British feeling.

I didn't realize BP wasn't called British Petroleum anymore until a few days ago. But then again, I don't live in an area where BP is particularly loved (Texas City refinery explosion, anyone?)

Maybe Obama is trying (too hard) to appeal to those who want to absolutely kill BP and have the government seize its assets (which is too much, I have to add). When a British company causes a huge mess in the United States, there's going to be some international tension. I really doubt this is going to strain British-American relations at all, it'll probably clear up after the leak is sealed and everything's sorted out, which will be... in a few months.

[dead]

I hoped Obama would not win the election. At least he's scared the crap out of most people who voted for him.

Why is this?

[Rainstorm]

Barack Obama won the US Presidency with a message of hope, unity and belief. One year on, he has become an arrogant, anti-british bigot. He has made Tony Hayward a scapegoat in the oil scandel to hide his own inability to react to the situation. Unemployment is still high, Afganistan is still a diaster, Has he actually achieved anything? He has treated the british is barely concealed disgust. At least Bush treated Blair, if not Britain, with the respect the country of Britain deserves.
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP MY ARSE

Has Barack Obama lost it, or is it really the case that he never had it?

Ok. Let me ask one thing...

Blaming the CEO of a company who's failure to actually maintain an Oil Rig and caused the largest Oil Spill in US History is being Anti British?

See, if Hayward actually stepped up in his company and made sure all rigs were up to par and weren't in any threat of exploding and collapsing, we wouldn't be insulting him, now would we?

For everything else, Obama can't really do anything until he gets what happened in the Bush Administration fixed up. It took 7 years to fuck up the economy and it's been 7 years since we deployed into the Middle East.

It will be longer than one year to fix it.

[Perseus]

Obama has been calling BP, British Petrolum, which has not been BP's name since 1998, a deliberate attempt to stir up anti-British feeling. David Cameron had to phone him to discuss Obama's retoric. A US politician actually apolgised to Tony Hayward (BP Chairman) for the White House's behaviour. The President has handled the situation appallingly, he has been left without a shread of credability. The man is no longer fit for office.
Lol man, everyone calls BP "British Petroleum". I didn't even know till I saw your post that it wasn't called that, lol.
Ok. Let me ask one thing...

Blaming the CEO of a company who's failure to actually maintain an Oil Rig and caused the largest Oil Spill in US History is being Anti British?

See, if Hayward actually stepped up in his company and made sure all rigs were up to par and weren't in any threat of exploding and collapsing, we wouldn't be insulting him, now would we?

For everything else, Obama can't really do anything until he gets what happened in the Bush Administration fixed up. It took 7 years to fuck up the economy and it's been 7 years since we deployed into the Middle East.

It will be longer than one year to fix it.

The economy goes up and down, man. The President doesn't cause it to spiral downwards.

[Tiberius]

Lol man, everyone calls BP "British Petroleum". I didn't even know till I saw your post that it wasn't called that, lol.


The economy goes up and down, man. The President doesn't cause it to spiral downwards.

When he gets the House to spend 3 trillion extra dollars over the annual government's fiscal budget in a year, he sorta does.

[Perseus]

When he gets the House to spend 3 trillion extra dollars over the annual government's fiscal budget in a year, he sorta does.

I would answer this if I had any knowledge on the subject, but I don't get involved in this wonderful stuff that you do, so I just won't answer, lol.

[Tiberius]

I would answer this if I had any knowledge on the subject, but I don't get involved in this wonderful stuff that you do, so I just won't answer, lol.

Then maybe one shouldn't get involved? :P

[Perseus]

Then maybe one shouldn't get involved? :P

I don't get involved. :P Him blaming Bush on the economy, though, I can get involved in because it wasn't entirely his fault. I say entirely because I don't know everything because I don't get involved. :P

[Jcat3]

I hate obama so much he is a complete dumb ass librol

[Amnesiac]

I hate obama so much he is a complete dumb ass librol

...

Care to elaborate? I will. I don't mind obama, I support the green party by the way. He's not a terrible president, but I don't absolutely love him either. I disagree with his policies in the middle east (the war on terror is pointless in my opinion) and gay marriage (his religious position on it shouldn't be the basis for his political view on it). Healthcare is a major step but it could have been much better. The economy isn't as bad as it was, and we are seeing job growth, which can be attributed to his stimulus plans.

[The Dark Lord]

I didn't realize BP wasn't called British Petroleum anymore until a few days ago. But then again, I don't live in an area where BP is particularly loved (Texas City refinery explosion, anyone?)

Maybe Obama is trying (too hard) to appeal to those who want to absolutely kill BP and have the government seize its assets (which is too much, I have to add). When a British company causes a huge mess in the United States, there's going to be some international tension. I really doubt this is going to strain British-American relations at all, it'll probably clear up after the leak is sealed and everything's sorted out, which will be... in a few months.

The fact is that it was an American company who was drilling at the time of the incident. Also BP is 40% American owned so it isn't really British. Also 1 out of every 6 pounds paid out in dividends goes into the british pension system meaning Obama has no right to stop BP paying out dividends. With elections coming up Obama has tried, and failed, to create a scapegoat in Tony Hayward. The previous Prime Minister resorted to running around kitchens to gain an audiance with Obama, he has treated Britain was border line disgust

[Sith Lord 13]

When he gets the House to spend 3 trillion extra dollars over the annual government's fiscal budget in a year, he sorta does.

What would you have proposed he do? Hike taxes? I'd love to see how the economy reacted to that.

[The Batman]

The fact is that it was an American company who was drilling at the time of the incident. Also BP is 40% American owned so it isn't really British. Also 1 out of every 6 pounds paid out in dividends goes into the british pension system meaning Obama has no right to stop BP paying out dividends. With elections coming up Obama has tried, and failed, to create a scapegoat in Tony Hayward. The previous Prime Minister resorted to running around kitchens to gain an audiance with Obama, he has treated Britain was border line disgust
You throw out a lot of facts do you have any sources?

[Ryhanna]

"BP plc is a British-based global energy company which is the third largest energy company and the fourth largest company in the world. A multinational oil company ("oil major"), BP is the United Kingdom's largest corporation, with its headquarters in St James's, City of Westminster, London."

The above is the first couple of sentances from BP's Wikipedia page. It seems to me that it's based in the UK. BP no longer stands for 'British Petroleum' but it's still mainly British owned. So I wouldn't go around claiming Obama is anti-British...

[MadManWithaBox]

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, at anytime. Don't take what it says as fact.

[Ryhanna]

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, at anytime. Don't take what it says as fact.

I know that and I knew someone would bring it up...
However, it is widely known that BP is a British company and owned mainly by Britian. I just used quoted Wikipedia because it said everything I wanted to get out there.

[MadManWithaBox]

It isn't a case of something being owned by britain. It, like any company, has stocks and shares, meaning it isn't largely owned by britain, its a multinational company/

[CaliKid24]

at least he came out with sources!^^
and the drilling rig that blew up was leased to BP until the year 2013. so it was all British Petroleums fault. imo.
and btw "BP was named by Mother Jones Magazine as one of the "ten worst corporations" in both 2001 and 2005 based on its environmental and human rights records".
Obama has the right to blame that company.

[MadManWithaBox]

Gotta love uneducated, biast americans. Long as you can blame on the worlds problems on a foreign country, and not on the fact that you haven't fought a decent war since 1945, its all ok right.

[CaliKid24]

im holding uneducated, biast american self back. im so tempted to answer back at this but i think ill let it go. the only war my uneducated brain knows is the one where we fucked the british and got our independence from those tea drinking queen worshiping fucks,

[MadManWithaBox]

Wow, so you can hold one decent american victory, and yet not the wars where its america versus people armed with rocks and spears. Thats great.

[CaliKid24]

Again. Look at the list of our allies in the war. Ur countrys in there too. If ur taking pity on terrorists than I dare u to walk to any city in the USA and yell I feel bad for terrorists. And another thing. I'm pretty sure the middle easterns are equiped with a little more than rocks and spears. But u worry about ur own country. If u want to start talking then PM me.

[MadManWithaBox]

I never said I was taking pity on terrorists. I have two relatives serving in the british army as of right now. My dad served, his dad served and so on. I'm not going into why I loathe america, and americans here, as this is not the time or the place.

[CaliKid24]

Nothing personal but I will always defend my country. I don't know one American that will not die or sacrifice for there country. And Obama is our president, do I make posts about how retarded and ugly ur queen is? U make an ignorant post about our president, u shood have proof.

[MadManWithaBox]

You've made.... 5 spelling mistakes there? I rest my case.

[CaliKid24]

I sincerely apologize for my mistakes. I did not feel like taking the time to write all proper. il mak al da miztakes ii wnt! I know how to spell proper, but most Americans are smart enough to understand a few mistakes so why take the time? But if the British can't understand than I will try my hardest to consider them.

[MadManWithaBox]

And thats... 7. good one by the way. you really got one over on me.

[Perseus]

I hate obama so much he is a complete dumb ass librol
Republicans are pretty fucking retarded sometimes, just sayin'. Since they're not in office, all they do is complain about Obama. I mean really, have you seen Fox News? I'm so glad I'm not a republican anymore. I dislike politics. I'd rather have Obama as the president than John McCain. I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative, before someone starts talking about that stuff.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, at anytime. Don't take what it says as fact.

Wikipedia is pretty reliable, man. People aren't like, "durka durka, let's go change shit on Wikipedia." Doesn't sound like fun to me, to be honest. And plus, they're links to websites where they get the information; you can just follow those.

[The Batman]

And thats... 7. good one by the way. you really got one over on me.

When you switch to debating grammar instead of facts it usually shows defeat.

[dead]

Throwing Insults at each other isn't much of a debate.

[MyNameIsJack]

dfada

[Severus Snape]

Obama never had it. He's been making promises he couldn't possibly hope to keep from the beginning. The man is a self serving elitist.

[ricky]

Ok. Let me ask one thing...

Blaming the CEO of a company who's failure to actually maintain an Oil Rig and caused the largest Oil Spill in US History is being Anti British?

See, if Hayward actually stepped up in his company and made sure all rigs were up to par and weren't in any threat of exploding and collapsing, we wouldn't be insulting him, now would we?

For everything else, Obama can't really do anything until he gets what happened in the Bush Administration fixed up. It took 7 years to fuck up the economy and it's been 7 years since we deployed into the Middle East.

It will be longer than one year to fix it.
Everything is because of Bush right? How about people stop blaming Bush, and open their eyes. Obama isn't the god everyone thought he was, the media were on their knees bowing down to him, and he screwed us big time.
...

Care to elaborate? I will. I don't mind obama, I support the green party by the way. He's not a terrible president, but I don't absolutely love him either. I disagree with his policies in the middle east (the war on terror is pointless in my opinion) and gay marriage (his religious position on it shouldn't be the basis for his political view on it). Healthcare is a major step but it could have been much better. The economy isn't as bad as it was, and we are seeing job growth, which can be attributed to his stimulus plans.
We are not seeing Job growth. The only "growth" in jobs were the census workers that were hired, and are now getting fired. Obama has used the gay community for votes. Just like everyone else. He is a politician, he cares about votes. After he gets your vote you are useless to him.
What would you have proposed he do? Hike taxes? I'd love to see how the economy reacted to that.
He is going to increase taxes. He isn't going to renew the Bush tax cuts that expire, that right there is going to increase the taxes.
When you switch to debating grammar instead of facts it usually shows defeat.
:yes:
Agreed, and Obama is a good president.
Why is he a good president? How long did it take him to address the mess in the Gulf of Mexico? How long did it take him to decide to send more troops to Afghanistan? How long are we going to be screwed due to the debt he has put us in?
Obama never had it. He's been making promises he couldn't possibly hope to keep from the beginning. The man is a self serving elitist.
I completely agree. Look at his past, the people he surrounds himself with. He was not the right choice, and hopefully a lot of the people that voted for him have now realized this.

[Jamie]

Gotta love uneducated, biast americans. Long as you can blame on the worlds problems on a foreign country, and not on the fact that you haven't fought a decent war since 1945, its all ok right.Since you're quick to point out the mistakes of others, allow myself to do the same.



"Gotta love uneducated, biast americans. (As) Long as you can blame on (all) the worlds' problems on a foreign country, and not on the fact that you haven't fought a decent war since 1945, it's all ok , right."

Also, bringing up a war, one of which we were on the same side, does nothing to further your point. At all.

[Jamie]

I don't know one American that will not die or sacrifice for there country.
Erm, I wouldn't die for the United States. Nor would I would sacrifice my livelihood for it.
You've made.... 5 spelling mistakes there? I rest my case.
See the post above this one.
And that's... 7. good one by the way. you really got one over on me.
Wow, you made two grammar errors, while trying to point out someone elses'?! Good job!

[The Dark Lord]

You throw out a lot of facts do you have any sources?

My computer wouldn't download the 2009 Annual report but that is where my figures came from

"BP plc is a British-based global energy company which is the third largest energy company and the fourth largest company in the world. A multinational oil company ("oil major"), BP is the United Kingdom's largest corporation, with its headquarters in St James's, City of Westminster, London."

The above is the first couple of sentances from BP's Wikipedia page. It seems to me that it's based in the UK. BP no longer stands for 'British Petroleum' but it's still mainly British owned. So I wouldn't go around claiming Obama is anti-British...

Of course he is being anti-British, We fight alongside you in Afganistan and Iraq, and previously against the Nazis, Obama has destroyed the Special Relationship, the ignorant bastard should read about Churchill, Thatcher even Blair and other British PMs to see how close we are. Obama is now a never was rather than a has been

Agreed, and Obama is a good president.

How? I accept that he has handled the economy well but apart from that, he is endanger of losing the white house to Sarah Palin.

[SneakBrain]

Barack Obama won the US Presidency with a message of hope, unity and belief. One year on, he has become an arrogant, anti-british bigot. He has made Tony Hayward a scapegoat in the oil scandel to hide his own inability to react to the situation. Unemployment is still high, Afganistan is still a diaster, Has he actually achieved anything? He has treated the british is barely concealed disgust. At least Bush treated Blair, if not Britain, with the respect the country of Britain deserves.
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP MY ARSE

Has Barack Obama lost it, or is it really the case that he never had it?









i dont care what he have. he is our president and i will still supporting him until the last day for him at the white house, so stop talking shit because no one cares too. beside he done a lot.

[dead]

Nothing personal but I will always defend my country. I don't know one American that will not die or sacrifice for there country. And Obama is our president, do I make posts about how retarded and ugly ur queen is? U make an ignorant post about our president, u shood have proof.

I do not know one american that will die for the're country. Most of them would go with another country or die for themselves.


i dont care what he have. he is our president and i will still supporting him until the last day for him at the white house, so stop talking shit because no one cares too. beside he done a lot.
It's called debating.

[Tiberius]

What would you have proposed he do? Hike taxes? I'd love to see how the economy reacted to that.

Cut taxes and slashed government spending.

[jimmycouch14]

So...how's that Obama thing working out?

Well he certainly isn’t like the other Illinois president. In fact he is almost disgrace to Abe!

[Tiberius]

Illinois is a disgrace to America; it contains Chicago.

[Raptor22]

Cut taxes and slashed government spending.

I agree. Supply side economics is still the way to go, as it was in 1953, 1983, and 2003. It worked in all three times, yet no liberal wants to acknowledge it.

The only reason Obama is blaming Britain while not doing snap diddly squat in the gulf, is to buy him and his cronies some time to back up two of his socialist agendas:


Show that Business and by an extention capitalism and the free market is incompetent, and then going forward with a takeover and stoppage of domestic oil production and other domestic industries.
Stir up more support for his Cap and Tax climate agenda and other economically crippling legislation, while distracting from the truth about these proposed laws.


Its all really really sad once you think about it...

[Ryhanna]

To be totally honest, I really don't care much for Obama, he came out with all these wonderful promises... America elected him into power and he didn't deliver.

"If it seems to good to be true, it probably is."

No, Obama is not the leader the US thought he would be... but it could be worse. A lot worse. At least Obama isn't going around starting wars, threatening the world with nuclear weapons, etc.

[quartermaster]

I agree. Supply side economics is still the way to go, as it was in 1953, 1983, and 2003. It worked in all three times, yet no liberal wants to acknowledge it.


Supply side economics has never worked and never will work, it is a faux-free market economic system that is inherently corporatist. Granted, supply-side is better than neo-Keynesian theory, but it is still thoroughly flawed. Even the free-market leaning, but Monetarist, Milton Friedman, rejected supply-side as nothing more than a big business subsidy. For you to say that supply-side worked in 1953, 1983 and 2003 would be for you to ignore the government policies that led to the inflation of market "bubbles" and the subsequent recessions that came as a result.

Supply-siders somehow think they can apply free-market rhetoric to policies that are inherently anti-free market; that is to say, they still believe anyone can actually control the economy.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."

-F.A. Hayek

[CantBeTamed]

Umm we got what we wanted. If you're complaining about how Obama is, always think how it would be if McCain was elected. Haha. He would not be nice to Britain after this oil spill.

McCain Would Have Done Better He Has More Experience He Was A POW So He Knows What Its Like For Our Men And Women In Iraq Are You Guys Aware Of How Much Money Obama Has Spent To Hide His Birth Cert. Millions Which Makes Me And My Family Think He Has Something To Hide We Think He Wasn't Born In This Country Which Would Make Him Ineligible To Be President Unless His Parent We Both Natrual Born Citizens And He Was Born While They Were On A Trip Im Not Republican Or Democrat I Will Vote For Whoever I Think Will Do Better I Personally Wanted Hilary In Office LOL Obama Hes Okay But He Has Done Some Dumb Things Thats Why Dont Like Him I Will Proly Vote Against Him Next Election Unless He Changes His Ways

[Wadehampton]

I do not want to get in here arguing but a short humorous statement should declare how I feel.

"Voting for Obama is a lot like winning the special Olympics, even thou he won, you are still retarded"

[Wetherbubble]

Knowing that alot of people don't like British petrol because it had bean ofer a hundred days ant it is not only recking the atmosphere but the Oil industry itself. This will be the last source for the oil industry and a new lite on renewable energy. A new era is about to begin

[Wadehampton]

Knowing that alot of people don't like British petrol because it had bean ofer a hundred days ant it is not only recking the atmosphere but the Oil industry itself. This will be the last source for the oil industry and a new lite on renewable energy. A new era is about to begin

BP has had over 700+ safety violations. Other companies don't even come close.. they have numbers like 2.. 5.. 8.. It is partly the governments fault for giving them the credentials to drill in American waters. They completely ignored BP's lack of safety.

Also to all your freaken "Green" people realize this. Oil is what fueled the industrial revolution. Everything that you wear, everything that you eat, they all contain and where manufactured using oil in the process. Without oil we will go back to how we where living before the industrial revolution. We have burned through 80 percent of the worlds oil supply and the rate is increasing with the industrialization of India and China, India will be consuming more oil than the United States given 20 or so years. Technology will fail to come up with the solutions that we need and it may be even impossible. We have about 10-15 years before the oil is all gone, and trust me we are not going to share the last bit and there will be quite a war over it.

[Rainstorm]

Everything is because of Bush right? How about people stop blaming Bush, and open their eyes. Obama isn't the god everyone thought he was, the media were on their knees bowing down to him, and he screwed us big time.


Well, seeing how as many of the problems Obama is trying to fix now thus resulted from bad choices made during the Bush Administration...

Yes. A lot of stuff is because of Bush.

[The Dark Lord]

i dont care what he have. he is our president and i will still supporting him until the last day for him at the white house, so stop talking shit because no one cares too. beside he done a lot.

Do you always defend Presidents? What about Bush in Iraq and Afganistan? I am also very patriotic but my love for my country doesn't stop me criticising the lying Bliar, the incomponent Brown or even David Cameron. Are you seriously suggesting that nobody cares about the President's conduct/handling of an environmental crisis? What has been done? He is full of empty promises and empty rhetoric, Britain once had someone like Obama and he lead us to Iraq

[CaptainObvious]

BP has had over 700+ safety violations. Other companies don't even come close.. they have numbers like 2.. 5.. 8.. It is partly the governments fault for giving them the credentials to drill in American waters. They completely ignored BP's lack of safety.

Source that, please.

Also to all your freaken "Green" people realize this. Oil is what fueled the industrial revolution. Everything that you wear, everything that you eat, they all contain and where manufactured using oil in the process. Without oil we will go back to how we where living before the industrial revolution. We have burned through 80 percent of the worlds oil supply and the rate is increasing with the industrialization of India and China, India will be consuming more oil than the United States given 20 or so years. Technology will fail to come up with the solutions that we need and it may be even impossible. We have about 10-15 years before the oil is all gone, and trust me we are not going to share the last bit and there will be quite a war over it.

Your numbers here are absolutely wrong. Even extremely pessimistic estimates place our remaining oil reserves at far more than 10-15 years.

[The Batman]

McCain Would Have Done Better He Has More Experience He Was A POW So He Knows What Its Like For Our Men And Women In Iraq Are You Guys Aware Of How Much Money Obama Has Spent To Hide His Birth Cert. Millions Which Makes Me And My Family Think He Has Something To Hide We Think He Wasn't Born In This Country Which Would Make Him Ineligible To Be President Unless His Parent We Both Natrual Born Citizens And He Was Born While They Were On A Trip Im Not Republican Or Democrat I Will Vote For Whoever I Think Will Do Better I Personally Wanted Hilary In Office LOL Obama Hes Okay But He Has Done Some Dumb Things Thats Why Dont Like Him I Will Proly Vote Against Him Next Election Unless He Changes His Ways

You should really do some research before debating.

[CaptainObvious]

McCain Would Have Done Better He Has More Experience He Was A POW So He Knows What Its Like For Our Men And Women In Iraq Are You Guys Aware Of How Much Money Obama Has Spent To Hide His Birth Cert. Millions Which Makes Me And My Family Think He Has Something To Hide We Think He Wasn't Born In This Country Which Would Make Him Ineligible To Be President Unless His Parent We Both Natrual Born Citizens And He Was Born While They Were On A Trip Im Not Republican Or Democrat I Will Vote For Whoever I Think Will Do Better I Personally Wanted Hilary In Office LOL Obama Hes Okay But He Has Done Some Dumb Things Thats Why Dont Like Him I Will Proly Vote Against Him Next Election Unless He Changes His Ways

Good God. The fact that you think Obama is ineligible to be President, or that he has spent any money on trying to hide his birth certificate, is both entirely contrary to fact and ludicrous. But people will believe anything, eh?

[Raptor22]

Good God. The fact that you think Obama is ineligible to be President, or that he has spent any money on trying to hide his birth certificate, is both entirely contrary to fact and ludicrous. But people will believe anything, eh?

People like that drain all the credibility away from conservatives in general. Just like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright do the same for the left. The world would be a much better place if the wackos on both ends of the spectrum just shut up...

[dead]

People like that drain all the credibility away from conservatives in general. Just like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright do the same for the left. The world would be a much better place if the wackos on both ends of the spectrum just shut up...

That is too true.

[Tiberius]

Good God. The fact that you think Obama is ineligible to be President, or that he has spent any money on trying to hide his birth certificate, is both entirely contrary to fact and ludicrous. But people will believe anything, eh?

People think Canada is a real place. :P

It's not really his birth certificate that's at question here, it's the fact that he gave up American citizenship when he went to go live in Indonesia and received college scholarships that only foreigners can get. And to the best of anyone's knowledge, there's no record of him giving up his Indonesian citizenship at 18 claiming it wasn't his choice since he was only 10 at the time.

[Sith Lord 13]

People think Canada is a real place. :P

It's not really his birth certificate that's at question here, it's the fact that he gave up American citizenship when he went to go live in Indonesia and received college scholarships that only foreigners can get.

Either way, I would like some clear answers on this issue. But since the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't have voted for him, but I was willing to give him a chance. I've yet to see him do anything that has really impressed me.

[CaptainObvious]

I must be honest and say that it really lowers my opinion of a person's ability to think critically when they give even slight credence to the idea that Obama's citizenship is even in question. I've never met anyone who is able to think critically and fairly that has ever even considered the idea.

It's not really his birth certificate that's at question here, it's the fact that he gave up American citizenship when he went to go live in Indonesia and received college scholarships that only foreigners can get. And to the best of anyone's knowledge, there's no record of him giving up his Indonesian citizenship at 18 claiming it wasn't his choice since he was only 10 at the time.

I hate to break it to you, but if you've ever read the statutes on this issue (which I suspect you haven't), you'd know that renunciation of citizenship is an extremely specific process that must be performed voluntarily, by:

"(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State"

Furthermore, this specific requirement means you cannot renounce the citizenship of a minor for that minor; the minor must appear themselves and convince the diplomatic or consular officer that they are making the declaration of their own will and completely understand it.

In light of that specific, active requirement, the idea that Obama receiving foreign scholarships could somehow renounce his US citizenship before he turned 18 is beyond ludicrous. Why would you believe such a dumb thing?

I agree. Supply side economics is still the way to go, as it was in 1953, 1983, and 2003. It worked in all three times, yet no liberal wants to acknowledge it.

The fact that you think this is amazing, since both the 1983 and 2003 tax cuts created massive deficits that were unequalled until Obama inherited the financial crisis at the beginning of his term. Both Bush and Reagan cut taxes on the rich and paid for it through deficits, which has seriously crippled the US government's long term financial viability - and for what?

[Raptor22]

The fact that you think this is amazing, since both the 1983 and 2003 tax cuts created massive deficits that were unequalled until Obama inherited the financial crisis at the beginning of his term. Both Bush and Reagan cut taxes on the rich and paid for it through deficits, which has seriously crippled the US government's long term financial viability - and for what?

Well what you fail to consider is the increase in defense spending during both periods increasing America's security in the long run. Were the deficits incurred in both periods more a result of the supply side economics, or of the increased defense spending...

If you really think about it how much have we saved with that defense spending? How much would a nuclear war have cost had we not forced the USSR into bankruptcy? How much would another 9/11 have cost if we didnt cut out the Taliban and Al Queda at the roots in Iraq and Afghanistan? There wasnt a single successful terror attack in the US after 9/11 under President Bush, but under Obama there has been three. There was the guy who shot up the Army base in Texas, the guy who lit his underwear on fire, and the guy who tried to blow up his SUV in Times Square.

You also fail to consider the economic boom and periods of extremely low unemployment that accompanied both tax cut periods. I'm not sure why I have to spell this out for you but periods of economic boom are good because that means people are employed and no longer a strain on the federal government. In 2007, unemployment in this country was at its lowest rate since the beginning of the Eisenhower administration. Business and the free market could flourish as intended without the extra taxation burden.

A downside to low unemployment and economic boom is that people, banks, and corporations have excess money, get complacent and make poor economic decisions. So that way when people buy houses they cant afford with adjustable rate loans they cannot afford, and the banks go down the toilet because they cant pay their own loan obligations. If we really want to play the blame game we can go all the way back to 1968 and Lyndon B Johnson and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the later Fair Housing Amendments Act. These acts benefited loan companies to make risky decisions to appease the government affirmative action housing regulations by fulfilling the quotas numerated in the verbiage of the law, even though they were not qualified to be homeowners. It shows a high level of economic ineptitude to claim that the Bush tax cuts have sole responsibility for the economic crisis we find ourselves in. Its just more of the pervasive liberal MSNBC "blame Bush" mentality that frankly does not stand up to the slightest intelligent quantitative evaluation.

http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn73/Raptor2253/reaganchart.jpg

[CaptainObvious]

Well what you fail to consider is the increase in defense spending during both periods increasing America's security in the long run. Were the deficits incurred in both periods more a result of the supply side economics, or of the increased defense spending...

Both, but largely the unfinancable tax cuts, which are what I'm taking issue with here. So the rest of what you said is fascinating, but irrelevant.

[Raptor22]

Both, but largely the unfinancable tax cuts, which are what I'm taking issue with here. So the rest of what you said is fascinating, but irrelevant.

I think that that is an interesting topic to delve into is to find the actual breakdown the federal budget for that year, and then weigh the economic benefits to the disadvantages.

However as I said in my above post:

It shows a high level of economic ineptitude to claim that the Bush tax cuts have sole responsibility for the economic crisis we find ourselves in. Its just more of the pervasive liberal MSNBC "blame Bush" mentality that frankly does not stand up to the slightest intelligent quantitative evaluation.

Way to completely blow me off as opposed to presenting a compelling argument for the opposing viewpoint, something that I welcome. :)

[CaptainObvious]

I blew that part of your post off because I never once said that the massive fiscal irresponsibility i.e. Bush have "sole responsibility for the economic crisis" we are in. That would indeed be unjustifiable.

However, since I never once said that, to act as if what that said somehow applies to me makes what you did there was a straw man argument. Until you can learn to argue without employing fallacies, I'd suggest you not whine when I ignore them.

[Wadehampton]

Source that, please.



Your numbers here are absolutely wrong. Even extremely pessimistic estimates place our remaining oil reserves at far more than 10-15 years.

Home > World News
BP's Dismal Safety Record
BP Has One of the Worst Safety Records of Any Oil Company Operating in the U.S.

15 comments
By PIERRE THOMAS, LISA A. JONES, JACK CLOHERTY and JASON RYAN
May 27, 2010

As the nation comes to grips with the worst oil disaster in its history , there is evidence BP has one of the worst safety track records of any major oil company operating in the United States.
The employees stationed on the Gulf oil rig testify in a congressional hearing.

In two separate disasters prior to the Gulf oil rig explosion, 30 BP workers have been killed, and more than 200 seriously injured.

In the last five years, investigators found, BP has admitted to breaking U.S. environmental and safety laws and committing outright fraud. BP paid $373 million in fines to avoid prosecution.

BP's safety violations far outstrip its fellow oil companies. According to the Center for Public Integrity, in the last three years, BP refineries in Ohio and Texas have accounted for 97 percent of the "egregious, willful" violations handed out by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
Related

Gov. Jindal: Stop Spill or Get Out of the Way

'We're About to Die Down Here': Carville Blasts Obama's Oil Spill Response

BP Denies Responsibility for Spill Accident

The violations are determined when an employer demonstrated either an "intentional disregard for the requirements of the [law], or showed plain indifference to employee safety and health."

OSHA statistics show BP ran up 760 "egregious, willful" safety violations, while Sunoco and Conoco-Phillips each had eight, Citgo had two and Exxon had one comparable citation.

Failure to Act

After a 2005 BP refinery explosion in Texas City, Texas that killed 15 people and injured 180, a Justice Department investigation found that the explosion was caused by "improperly released vapor and liquid." Several procedures required by the Clean Air Act to reduce the possibility of just such an explosion either were not followed, or had not been established in the first place.

BP admitted that its written procedures to ensure its equipment's safety were inadequate, and that it had failed to inform employees of known fire and explosion risks. The company paid $50 million in criminal fines in connection with that disaster, and acknowledged violating the Clean Air Act.

Jordan Barab, the deputy assistant secretary of Labor for OSHA, said BP refineries have a "systemic safety problem," and that the tragedy in BP-Texas City "revealed serious process safety and workplace culture problems at the facility."

and........

Buchanan demands probe of BP's NEPA waiver

By Juliet Eilperin

The news that the Minerals Management Service exempted BP from conducting a detailed environmental analysis on its disastrous drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico prompted calls for a congressional probe Wednesday.

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.) has called on the House Committee on Government Oversight and Reform to investigate why the Obama administration gave BP a categorical exclusion from conducting the study required under the National Environmental Policy Act at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico.

Referring to the Washington Post article on the matter, Buchanan writes, "Safety regulations are put in place to prevent catastrophes of this nature; circumvention of these standards puts our environment and economy at risk, as evidenced by this massive spill."
By
Juliet Eilperin

That is for the safety violations. You said that even the lowest estimations put us at 10-15? Does that account for the fact that there are many deposits that our current technology does not allow us to tap into to? Siberia is sitting on top of vast reserves of oil, gold, gems, and all kinds of natural resources yet we can not extract them in a profiting manor or in any effective manor really.

[Raptor22]

I blew that part of your post off because I never once said that the massive fiscal irresponsibility i.e. Bush tax cuts are has "sole responsibility for the economic crisis" we are in. That would indeed be unjustifiable.

However, since I never once said that, to act as if what that said somehow applies to me makes what you did there was a straw man argument. Until you can learn to argue without employing fallacies, I'd suggest you not whine when I ignore them.

Well I can say that I am certainly surprised by your reasonable demeanor and tact in our discussion. It takes someone mature to be able to have a reasonable discussion without taking a complete hard line on every issue, or believing in sweeping generalizations.

For instance my dad does not have any idea why I support legalization of Marijuana when I do not smoke it and I dont plan to. Thats definitely a liberal argument that I am behind, even though I am a conservative. One has to follow their own path that they believe is correct. :)

[SneakBrain]

Do you always defend Presidents? What about Bush in Iraq and Afganistan? I am also very patriotic but my love for my country doesn't stop me criticising the lying Bliar, the incomponent Brown or even David Cameron. Are you seriously suggesting that nobody cares about the President's conduct/handling of an environmental crisis? What has been done? He is full of empty promises and empty rhetoric, Britain once had someone like Obama and he lead us to Iraq

u dont even live at the united states, so just cut the bullshit.

[Junky]

Obama's been in a year and a half now, and can somebody tell me what has he actually done?

[Ryhanna]

Obama's been in a year and a half now, and can somebody tell me what has he actually done?

Oh, you know, bits and peices. :P

[The Dark Lord]

u dont even live at the united states, so just cut the bullshit.

Why are taking you offence? It has been widely reported that Obama's Presidency has been a failure. Obama won the White House on a ticket of hope, belief and improvement, and hasn't delivered change to America. The economy has improved and unemployment is on the rise. Obama HAS failed, whether I'm American or not, it doesn't matter, so why don't you cut the bullshit?

[The Redlight Bandit]

I hoped Obama would not win the election. At least he's scared the crap out of most people who voted for him.

Lmao... hahahahaha

[CaptainObvious]

u dont even live at the united states, so just cut the bullshit.

This is an ad hominem attack. Do not do it again.

[Mythical]

Obama is terrible (no offense) i mean really, what has he done so far except sit on his chair and be a media addict? Believe me, John McCain wouldnt have been much better, but at least he was a war Veteran. Well, hopefully some Americans are getting smart and realizing that he isnt so "Great" after all

[CaptainObvious]

Obama is terrible (no offense) i mean really, what has he done so far except sit on his chair and be a media addict?

Gee, what an insightful comment. I was unaware one's sitting position was intimately tied into their ability to lead a nation. Actually, I'd generally prefer Obama to be sitting, as that increases the likelihood that he's actually doing work.

Believe me, John McCain wouldnt have been much better, but at least he was a war Veteran.

And Obama was black. Quick, let's throw out a bunch of other attributes that have little or nothing to do with their national leadership abilities!

[Sith Lord 13]

This is an ad hominem attack. Do not do it again.

Thank you. Glad to see people know what they're talking about. :)


And Obama was black. Quick, let's throw out a bunch of other attributes that have little or nothing to do with their national leadership abilities!

Glad to see someone realizes that Obama's race has nothing to do with his leadership abilities, or whether or not he deserves to be commander-in-chief.

I have to disagree with your assessment though, being commander-in-chief of the armed forces is a big responsibility, and having served in the military prior to assuming the post offers one a better idea of how best to lead the armed forces. Also, one who hasn't followed orders is in no position to give them.

[The Redlight Bandit]

Obama needs to resign. just sayin'

[Sith Lord 13]

Obama needs to resign. just sayin'

I dislike the fellow, sure, and really hope he doesn't get re-elected, but what has he done that makes you feel he should resign?

[The Redlight Bandit]

I beleive that he lied and didnt' keep the promises by which we was elected president.

[The Dark Lord]

And Obama was black. Quick, let's throw out a bunch of other attributes that have little or nothing to do with their national leadership abilities!

I think there is a slight difference between fighting for your country and being willing to die for your country and being black. I also feel that McCain would have handled the armed forces with more compassion and respect, as only those who have fought in war can truely understand the hardships of war

Obama needs to resign. just sayin'

In spite of your compelling and convicing arguments, I think your are over reacting

[Dive to Survive]

Why is this?

His decisions. Look 'em up.

[SneakBrain]

Why are taking you offence? It has been widely reported that Obama's Presidency has been a failure. Obama won the White House on a ticket of hope, belief and improvement, and hasn't delivered change to America. The economy has improved and unemployment is on the rise. Obama HAS failed, whether I'm American or not, it doesn't matter, so why don't you cut the bullshit?

well, get over it beside why u cares its not even hurting u so STFU

This is an ad hominem attack. Do not do it again.

OH YEAH, what u would do about it?

[Sith Lord 13]

well, get over it beside why u cares its not even hurting u so STFU

OH YEAH, what u would do about it?

First, don't double post. That's what the edit button is for.

Second, like it or not, the President of the US has a profound impact on the rest of the world, especially when he's pressuring a multinational corporation.

Third, he's a mod, you can be infracted.

[Jamie]

well, get over it beside why u cares its not even hurting u so STFU
This shows how little knowledge you have on how much influence and range the President of the United States has.
OH YEAH, what u would do about it?
Probably infract you for disobeying a moderator.

[dead]

His decisions. Look 'em up.

I know them already. I want you to say the ones that make you feel that way.

[SneakBrain]

First, don't double post. That's what the edit button is for.

Second, like it or not, the President of the US has a profound impact on the rest of the world, especially when he's pressuring a multinational corporation.

Third, he's a mod, you can be infracted.


i dont really care what he is.

and what the hell are you talking about First (less than) two years health care, peace treaty between russia, less taxes for middle class, lower unemploymen. I think he has down more than any prez in the first two years than any other.

Please stop double posting, use the edit button. ~ Archangel_Liriel

This shows how little knowledge you have on how much influence and range the President of the United States has.

Probably infract you for disobeying a moderator.

well, excuse me if i respect any political point of view and i know more then u and its enough for me that he is my "influence"

[The Dark Lord]

well, get over it beside why u cares its not even hurting u so STFU



OH YEAH, what u would do about it?

WW2 didn't hurt you, slavery didn't hurt you, TV didn't hurt you, sport doesn't hurt you, yet you hold opinions on these subjects so please don't tell me what I can and can't comment on

i dont really care what he is.

and what the hell are you talking about First (less than) two years health care, peace treaty between russia, less taxes for middle class, lower unemploymen. I think he has down more than any prez in the first two years than any other.

well, excuse me if i respect any political point of view and i know more then u and its enough for me that he is my "influence"

You don't know more than us, you debating technique seems to be to bully and become abusive to people and you don't respect any political point of view, so loss the agression and only post arguments which are written in English and have a clear point to them.

btw Lincoln abolished slavery within 2 years which ranks about anything Obama will ever do. Also I'm not sure about "unemploymen" but Obama's fiscal package failed and unemploymenT is still at 10%, McCain and anyone else would have got a peace treaty with Russia and he has lost 20% in the polls so I don't think the prez has done that well.

[SneakBrain]

WW2 didn't hurt you, slavery didn't hurt you, TV didn't hurt you, sport doesn't hurt you, yet you hold opinions on these subjects so please don't tell me what I can and can't comment on



You don't know more than us, you debating technique seems to be to bully and become abusive to people and you don't respect any political point of view, so loss the agression and only post arguments which are written in English and have a clear point to them.

btw Lincoln abolished slavery within 2 years which ranks about anything Obama will ever do. Also I'm not sure about "unemploymen" but Obama's fiscal package failed and unemploymenT is still at 10%, McCain and anyone else would have got a peace treaty with Russia and he has lost 20% in the polls so I don't think the prez has done that well.





Obama didn't vote against the war in Iraq when he was a Senator (because he was a state senator). but he used his wisdom to see that it was the wrong war and that we should continue the fight against the real terrorist that killed 3,000 Americans. Thank god we have a forward thinking President like this.

[The Dark Lord]

Obama didn't vote against the war in Iraq when he was a Senator (because he was a state senator). but he used his wisdom to see that it was the wrong war and that we should continue the fight against the real terrorist that killed 3,000 Americans. Thank god we have a forward thinking President like this.

Barack Obama joined an anti-war protest march against the war in Iraq and yet still voted for it? Either you are grossly misinformed (highly likely) or Obama has no principles (also highly likely). You are incapable of seeing Obama for what he is: A racist, homophobic failure who still hasn't got to grips with the oil spill or Afganistan. He is nothing more than a black Blair: a lying, failing war criminal. Why can't you see this? You aren't Barack Obama are you? He has the blood of 100000 Iraqis on his hands

[SneakBrain]

Barack Obama joined an anti-war protest march against the war in Iraq and yet still voted for it? Either you are grossly misinformed (highly likely) or Obama has no principles (also highly likely). You are incapable of seeing Obama for what he is: A racist, homophobic failure who still hasn't got to grips with the oil spill or Afganistan. He is nothing more than a black Blair: a lying, failing war criminal. Why can't you see this? You aren't Barack Obama are you? He has the blood of 100000 Iraqis on his hands



finally u said it i knew what u were thinking about "black"! Oh and since you are so well educated, how about you give me your expert analysis of Brzezinski's quotes. It seems pretty straight forward to me, not much ambiguity. But you tell me how it is supposed to be interpreted, in your infinite wisdom. I'm sure you are busy though, sucking on Brzezinski's cock while watching videos of fighter jets bombing children in foreign countries while you fly your beautiful flag and holler a war cry. Wake up you fucking douche. that what Obama is "anti".

[The Dark Lord]

finally u said it i knew what u were thinking about "black"! Oh and since you are so well educated, how about you give me your expert analysis of Brzezinski's quotes. It seems pretty straight forward to me, not much ambiguity. But you tell me how it is supposed to be interpreted, in your infinite wisdom. I'm sure you are busy though, sucking on Brzezinski's cock while watching videos of fighter jets bombing children in foreign countries while you fly your beautiful flag and holler a war cry. Wake up you fucking douche. that what Obama is "anti".

Yes, I admit it I don't like Obama because he is black. Who is Brzezinski? Surely someone who was anti-Iraq and anti-Afganistan would be a pacifist and not a war monger as you have described. Obama is anti-British and anti-gays, that is what Obama is "anti". I can't believe you are so incapable of seeing Obama's flaws. Your opinion of Afganistan is fueled by media propaganda. It seems that Obama has now lost confidence of his generals and there is a growing opinion that we are going to have to talk and negociate with those "child bombers". I don't see where I am wrong about him being a black Blair: elected with a message of hope and change, talented orators, charismatic leaders, support Iraq and ended up failing. Where am I wrong? Also you give me a source stating that Obama supported Iraq because I can't believe even America would elect some with a such a lack of basic principles.

[Sage]

Obama won the White House on a ticket of hope, belief and improvement,

>Implying that isn't what being a politician is all about

[The Dark Lord]

>Implying that isn't what being a politician is all about

There is a difference between talking the talk and implamenting the changes promised

[SneakBrain]

Yes, I admit it I don't like Obama because he is black. Who is Brzezinski? Surely someone who was anti-Iraq and anti-Afganistan would be a pacifist and not a war monger as you have described. Obama is anti-British and anti-gays, that is what Obama is "anti". I can't believe you are so incapable of seeing Obama's flaws. Your opinion of Afganistan is fueled by media propaganda. It seems that Obama has now lost confidence of his generals and there is a growing opinion that we are going to have to talk and negociate with those "child bombers". I don't see where I am wrong about him being a black Blair: elected with a message of hope and change, talented orators, charismatic leaders, support Iraq and ended up failing. Where am I wrong? Also you give me a source stating that Obama supported Iraq because I can't believe even America would elect some with a such a lack of basic principles.



so now we know that you judged him as a failure person because he is black, in this moment ur argument is so weak. his skin doesn't matter to me, by the way how he is anti Britain is that because he didnt kiss the queen butt or something.


Who said obama is supporting Iraq, he dont! but he is not supporting wars too. look at the future things will get better if his policy continue on its Improvements.

[Sage]

There is a difference between talking the talk and implamenting the changes promised

There's also a different between understanding what I just said and completely missing the point. All politicians fail to go through with their promises.

[SneakBrain]

There's also a different between understanding what I just said and completely missing the point. All politicians fail to go through with their promises.


yeah exactly, not just obama, people hate him just because he is black but they will see a lot of blacks in future and they have to deal with them

[The Dark Lord]

Obama didn't vote against the war in Iraq when he was a Senator (because he was a state senator). but he used his wisdom to see that it was the wrong war and that we should continue the fight against the real terrorist that killed 3,000 Americans. Thank god we have a forward thinking President like this.

so now we know that you judged him as a failure person because he is black, in this moment ur argument is so weak. his skin doesn't matter to me, by the way how he is anti Britain is that because he didnt kiss the queen butt or something.


Who said obama is supporting Iraq, he dont! but he is not supporting wars too. look at the future things will get better if his policy continue on its Improvements.

Yes I hate him because he is black. You are soo smart and shrewd. Your ability to recognise sarcasm is the envy of all VTers. Yes, he is anti-British because he didn't kiss the Queen's butt (which was soo funny), he also ignored Gordon Brown and refered wrongly to BP as British despite it being 40% American. Things will get better only because they can't get any worse. I actually judge him as a failure because he lost the respect of McCrystal, the inability to deal effective with Afganistan, and his economic policy. He is a liar, a time waster, and a self serving elitest. Wake Up to fact he is failing. His opinion polls average 66% upon election, they now average 49%, so its not just me that thinks he is failing. Also does that mean 51% of Americans are racist because they don't like Obama?

btw in future could you try posting in english please? Thankyou

[The Batman]

Yes, I admit it I don't like Obama because he is black.
Unless you're being sarcastic that kills any thing else you have to say about since it's coming from an angry racist.
yeah exactly, not just obama, people hate him just because he is black but they will see a lot of blacks in future and they have to deal with them

Actually not, people hate him because they don't realize change doesn't happen overnight. It's taken this long to get his healthcare plan in motion, if everything depended on the president then yea we would be seeing more changes but since he has to depend on the house and senate everything he does must go through them.

[The Dark Lord]

Unless you're being sarcastic that kills any thing else you have to say about since it's coming from an angry racist.

Don't worry I am being sarcastic. If you had read the full conversation, then you would have seen the level of ignorance I have been debating(?) with. Anyway I don't think being racist would have killed anything else I have had to say, as although racism is wrong and irrational, everyone is wrong and irrational in some way. Btw I am not advocating racism I just think that Obama's race shouldn't be the defining factor in his presidency, which exposes how little he actually has done.

[The Batman]

Don't worry I am being sarcastic. If you had read the full conversation, then you would have seen the level of ignorance I have been debating(?) with. Anyway I don't think being racist would have killed anything else I have had to say, as although racism is wrong and irrational, everyone is wrong and irrational in some way. Btw I am not advocating racism I just think that Obama's race shouldn't be the defining factor in his presidency, which exposes how little he actually has done.
His race might have helped him but it wasn't it didn't play a huge part in him winning. Since atleast 1980 the majority of black and hispanic votes went to Democrats. Also, black turnout to the election was only 13% so still the majority of the people voting for him were looking at issues other than his race. His race is just what was publicized most.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html

[The Dark Lord]

His race might have helped him but it wasn't it didn't play a huge part in him winning. Since atleast 1980 the majority of black and hispanic votes went to Democrats. Also, black turnout to the election was only 13% so still the majority of the people voting for him were looking at issues other than his race. His race is just what was publicized most.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/exit-polls.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1083335/Breakdown-demographics-reveals-black-voters-swept-Obama-White-House.html

The Daily Mail is not a reliable source.

I think it did play a bigger part than you are suggesting. He was able to portray himself as the man to end Racist America and as a United, and it disguished him from a war hero (McCain), I also think McCain was handicapped by being a Republician after Bush and that Obama was the least Bush-like candidate. Obama won the Presidency through an effective media campaign, unfortunately PR and skillful orator wouldn't save you in office. I'm not American so correct if I'm misreading the situation

[Antares]

Yes, I admit it I don't like Obama because he is black.

Really? Are you serious?
Racist much?

Just because he is black doesn't mean he isn't fit to be our president. Also, the things that are going down in our country have nothing to do with the fact that hes black.

Wake up.

[The Dark Lord]

Really? Are you serious?
Racist much?

Just because he is black doesn't mean he isn't fit to be our president. Also, the things that are going down in our country have nothing to do with the fact that hes black.

Wake up.

Doesn't nobody on VT appreciate sarcasm?

[Antares]

I wasnt sure if you were being sarcastic or not...glad thats cleared up :P

[Jamie]

slavery didn't hurt you
Yeah, the constant battle between the Union/Confederates, and the 618,000 casualties didn't hurt us one bit, ya' know, at all. :rolleyes:

As well as the extreme tension that was still looming for decades afterwards.

[The Dark Lord]

Yeah, the constant battle between the Union/Confederates, and the 618,000 casualties didn't hurt us one bit, ya' know, at all. :rolleyes:

As well as the extreme tension that was still looming for decades afterwards.

The point of the post, which you have clearly missed, was that amsocool was saying I couldn't form an opinion on the oil spill because it didn't affect me directly, so I was giving him examples that didn't directly affect him so he couldn't form an opinion on slavery.

btw the Civil War lasted from 1861-1865, so it didn't directly affect you and slavery wasn't the sole cause of the war

[The Dark Lord]

There's also a different between understanding what I just said and completely missing the point. All politicians fail to go through with their promises.

Not always, You can't say its okay for Obama not to deliver his promises because no one else does

[Jamie]

Because I "clearly missed" the point of the post (which, I was strictly replying to your statement over one thing, not the entirety of the post, because nothing else in the post leaked as much water) I'll go on.
The point of the post, which you have clearly missed, was that amsocool was saying I couldn't form an opinion on the oil spill because it didn't affect me directly, so I was giving him examples that didn't directly affect him so he couldn't form an opinion on slavery.
Your post (specifically the first reply to amsocool) was pretty condescending, I caught that, it was also naming off things you don't believe "hurt" Americans, with a sarcastic end.

btw the Civil War lasted from 1861-1865
No?!
so it didn't directly affect you
Because I could name off 20 things from the top of my head that affected the U.S. during, and after the American Civil War, I think I'll just let you go on to tell how slavery didn't affect us.

Unless you're stating that slavery in the U.S. doesn't directly affect me today, then you should have said "Slavery doesn't affect you", because it's a little hard to respond to a post about current problems, when it is worded in past-tense.
and slavery wasn't the sole cause of the war
It was a major (if not the largest) cause of the war. For some reason, I just think slavery was a little more of an important matter than the tariffs that loomed over the nation.

[Sage]

You can't say its okay for Obama not to deliver his promises because no one else does

I'm not saying that's okay. I think you're just being unrealistically upset over Obama not delivering promises when virtually no politician ever does. He's a politician. He makes more promises than he can deliver on. What do you expect? That's what politicians do.

[The Dark Lord]

Because I "clearly missed" the point of the post (which, I was strictly replying to your statement over one thing, not the entirety of the post, because nothing else in the post leaked as much water) I'll go on.

Your post (specifically the first reply to amsocool) was pretty condescending, I caught that, it was also naming off things you don't believe "hurt" Americans, with a sarcastic end.

No?!

Because I could name off 20 things from the top of my head that affected the U.S. during, and after the American Civil War, I think I'll just let you go on to tell how slavery didn't affect us.

Unless you're stating that slavery in the U.S. doesn't directly affect me today, then you should have said "Slavery doesn't affect you", because it's a little hard to respond to a post about current problems, when it is worded in past-tense.

It was a major (if not the largest) cause of the war. For some reason, I just think slavery was a little more of an important matter than the tariffs that loomed over the nation.

Where to begin? The American Civil War did last from 1861 to 1865. Slavery wasn't the major cause of the war, Lincoln adknowledged this, when asked if slavery caused the war, he replied "it had something to do with it". Economic and cultural differences were more important. Slavery didn't/doesn't directly affect you. Were you a slave? No. Also if you read some of amsocool's posts, you would see it was pretty difficult not to patronise him.

[Jamie]

The American Civil War did last from 1861 to 1865.
You don't understand. I'm aware of the years in which the war was fought, I thought my "No?!" was noticeably sarcastic, guess not.
Slavery wasn't the major cause of the war
It really was.
Lincoln adknowledged this
Oh? In which statement, speech, or interview was this acknowledged by Lincoln?
when asked if slavery caused the war, he replied "it had something to do with it".
Erm, when did he say this? I don't see any results for a statement by Lincoln even closely similar to what you've quoted.
Economic and cultural differences were more important.Considering slaves were cheap manual labor (in terms of how much one could be acquired for) it's a pretty big reason to rebel against the country, when the workers of a plantation, personal maids, and the like are threatened of being taken away, especially if you've already paid the due for one of them.
Slavery didn't directly affect you.
You say "didn't", erm, how could it have affected me? I was kind of born into the 1990s, therefore you're right, it didn't affect me, however you mean that... I'll let you respond.
Slavery doesn't directly affect you.
I never said slavery affects me, but it did affect Americans during the riff in the union and confederacy.
Were you a slave? No.
So one would had to have been a slave... for slavery to had somehow affected them? I don't think so.
Also if you read some of amsocool's posts, you would see it was pretty difficult not to patronise him.
I notice that, I had no problem with the condescending manner nor with the sarcasm, just the example you gave.

[Awesome]

Well if Obama and Hillary Clinton ran in next election, I would wish Clinton wins the election.

[Junky]

Well if Obama and Hillary Clinton ran in next election, I would wish Clinton wins the election.
The clintons are about as shady as they come.

[quartermaster]

You don't understand. I'm aware of the years in which the war was fought, I thought my "No?!" was noticeably sarcastic, guess not.

It really was.

Oh? In which statement, speech, or interview was this acknowledged by Lincoln?

Erm, when did he say this? I don't see any results for a statement by Lincoln even closely similar to what you've quoted.
Considering slaves were cheap manual labor (in terms of how much one could be acquired for) it's a pretty big reason to rebel against the country, when the workers of a plantation, personal maids, and the like are threatened of being taken away, especially if you've already paid the due for one of them.

You say "didn't", erm, how could it have affected me? I was kind of born into the 1990s, therefore you're right, it didn't affect me, however you mean that... I'll let you respond.

I never said slavery affects me, but it did affect Americans during the riff in the union and confederacy.

So one would had to have been a slave... for slavery to had somehow affected them? I don't think so.

I notice that, I had no problem with the condescending manner nor with the sarcasm, just the example you gave.

It's fairly well-established by even mainstream historians that the American Civil War was really not about slavery. Slavery, to be sure was an issue, but it was much less the idea of slavery (which was, by this time, already proving itself to be expensive and unproductive compared to abundant immigrant labor), but federal verses state authority. The Civil War was not the result of the North-South slavery split, but morose the result of the age-old state-federal split. There are a lot of facts I could get into, but to be honest, I do not feel like it, so I will let Lincoln, Grant and Longstreet do the talking for me.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
-Abrahan Lincoln


"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
-Gen. Ulysses S. Grant (USA)


"We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumter."
-Gen. James Longstreet (CSA)

Slavery was simply an issue or ploy used by Lincoln in order to: (a) create a moral crusade against the South (as to justify his illegal war), (b) coerce the CSA back into the Union by threatening to eliminate slavery in the South (mind you, he did not eliminate slavery in the North) and more importantly, (c) ensure that the CSA was not recognized as a country by anti-slavery France and Britain (who could not reasonably ally/openly support a country who is fighting a war to maintain slavery). Lincoln launched a war of rhetoric to turn this conflict into one over the slavery question, but it was never about that, it was ALWAYS about preserving the Union and maintaining Federal, that is to say, Northern, control over the states.

Edit:

Take into account the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation, the document hailed for "freeing the slaves," was a two part document. The first part only threatened to free the slaves in the South (again, ONLY in the South) if the Southern States did not return to the Union and then subsequently, in the second part, declared the slaves free, when the States did not comply. Even then, the Proclamation, that is to say the first Federal threat/mention of freeing the slaves, was signed in 1863, two years after the war began and three years after the first Southern States seceded, supposedly over the issue of slavery. Quite simply, the dates and your explanation do not add up.

[The Dark Lord]

It's fairly well-established by even mainstream historians that the American Civil War was really not about slavery. Slavery, to be sure was an issue, but it was much less the idea of slavery (which was, by this time, already proving itself to be expensive and unproductive compared to abundant immigrant labor), but federal verses state authority. The Civil War was not the result of the North-South slavery split, but morose the result of the age-old state-federal split. There are a lot of facts I could get into, but to be honest, I do not feel like it, so I will let Lincoln, Grant and Longstreet do the talking for me.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
-Abrahan Lincoln


"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."
-Gen. Ulysses S. Grant (USA)


"We should have freed the slaves and then fired on Fort Sumter."
-Gen. James Longstreet (CSA)

Slavery was simply an issue or ploy used by Lincoln in order to: (a) create a moral crusade against the South (as to justify his illegal war), (b) coerce the CSA back into the Union by threatening to eliminate slavery in the South (mind you, he did not eliminate slavery in the North) and more importantly, (c) ensure that the CSA was not recognized as a country by anti-slavery France and Britain (who could not reasonably ally/openly support a country who is fighting a war to maintain slavery). Lincoln launched a war of rhetoric to turn this conflict into one over the slavery question, but it was never about that, it was ALWAYS about preserving the Union and maintaining Federal, that is to say, Northern, control over the states.

A wonderful and facinating post. The biggest threat to Unity was the different economic policies. The North had industrialised meaning the Congress's economic policy was seen, by the South, as favouring the North. The southern economy was mainly farming. There is a common belief that every farm had slaves on it. There is disputed by many historians who have found evidence that it was only on large plantations that slaves were held in large numbers, leading to the question: How bad was slavery?

btw Did Longstreet really say that? I know it was a line in the film Gettysburg but did he say that in real life? just wondering

[quartermaster]

A wonderful and facinating post. The biggest threat to Unity was the different economic policies. The North had industrialised meaning the Congress's economic policy was seen, by the South, as favouring the North. The southern economy was mainly farming. There is a common belief that every farm had slaves on it. There is disputed by many historians who have found evidence that it was only on large plantations that slaves were held in large numbers, leading to the question: How bad was slavery?

There really is no dispute between historians in this realm, either, as very few Southerners actually owned slaves. Most Southerners owned small, self-sufficient farms or were workers on other farms; it was only the large plantations (100-1000 slaves) and the remnants of the old Yeoman farmers (2-7 slaves), that owned slaves. The pretense of slavery being a real issue, when stacked against decent scrutiny, does not make much sense, nor does it actually coincide with the historical facts.


btw Did Longstreet really say that? I know it was a line in the film Gettysburg but did he say that in real life? just wondering

Yes, this statement was made by Longstreet shortly after the war ended. Of course, tracking the exact quote is never easy business, however, Gettysburg used this quote based on a similar quote/sentiment (the exact wording of which is not known precisely) made by Longstreet, who was, himself, a Carpetbagger after the war. Even then, you can find many a Longstreet writing that espouse these same sentiments.

[tpzy94]

um first off no cares bout britain we always help yuu guys out n get nada n return n stop hatin cuz we got a black president people always think he gonna change it all in 1 day well it took 8 years ta get in this mess so....

[The Dark Lord]

um first off no cares bout britain we always help yuu guys out n get nada n return n stop hatin cuz we got a black president people always think he gonna change it all in 1 day well it took 8 years ta get in this mess so....

I'll begin by translating this post into english.

first off nobody cares about Britain. We always help Britain out and get nothing in return. Stop hating Obama because he is black. People think that that he is a miracle worker but he has to sort out the dreadful Bush policies

People do care about Britain. Gordon Brown was well respected, not just by Barack Obama and America, but also by the world for his handling of the global financal crisis. Britain is in alliance with America against Iraq and Afganistan and Tony Blair developed a very close relationship with George W. Bush. America wouldn't exist without Britain. Also I don't hate Obama because he is black, I think he is a liar, a hypocrite and a failure. He is merely a self serving elitest.

[tpzy94]

dude how is he a liar all political leaders lie bush never sed he was goin to ruin america but he did and hes obviously not a failure if hes the 1st black president smarty

[The Dark Lord]

dude how is he a liar all political leaders lie bush never sed he was goin to ruin america but he did and hes obviously not a failure if hes the 1st black president smarty

He was elected with a message of hope and unity, to fix the economy and Afganistan. He has failed. Just because is the 1st black President doesn't make him a success, smarty.

[Raptor22]

dude how is he a liar all political leaders lie bush never sed he was goin to ruin america but he did and hes obviously not a failure if hes the 1st black president smarty

How did Bush ruin America exactly?

He kept is safe from terrorism after 9/11
He deposed a dictator responsible for murdering 750,000 people
He led our economy to its peak, the highest its ever been
He created the lowest unemployment since the Eisenhower administration.

[CaptainObvious]

He kept is safe from terrorism after 9/11

Statistically, you're really not all that much safer after than before. To decide there has been any substantive change is unsupported by the facts.

He deposed a dictator responsible for murdering 750,000 people

Oh come on. A number of regimes around the world are responsible for that and worse. The Iraq War, whether or not it ridded us of Saddam, has been a gignatic clusterfuck for America.

He led our economy to its peak, the highest its ever been
He created the lowest unemployment since the Eisenhower administration.

That was a bubble. It burst. Been paying attention to the financial news since, oh, late 2007?

[Raptor22]

Statistically, you're really not all that much safer after than before. To decide there has been any substantive change is unsupported by the facts.

Bullshit. It hasnt happened because we cut the roots off from underneath the international Islamic extremist terrorist regime and distracted them with our incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA has become very successful at preventing terrorist attacks in the United States foiling at least a half dozen since 9/11. This is in contrast to the Clinton Administration where there were at least three that I can think of off the top of my head, the first WTC bombing, the Nairobi Embassy bombing, and the USS Cole Bombing.

For the record there has been three successful Islamic extremist terrorist attacks since Obama took office.


Shootings at Fort Hood
Guy who tried to blow up his underwear last Christmas
Guy Who Tried to Blow Up Times Square with an SUV


Oh come on. A number of regimes around the world are responsible for that and worse. The Iraq War, whether or not it ridded us of Saddam, has been a gignatic clusterfuck for America.

While the Iraq war was previously in a state of disorder, President Bush's surge and David Patreus' counterinsurgency efforts worked. For the record it was President Bush who began the troop withdrawals and re-purposing, not Obama.

That was a bubble. It burst. Been paying attention to the financial news since, oh, late 2007?

Yes, thats because the liberal LBJ and Bush I era Equal Housing regulations caught upto itself. Individuals and especially banks were making really stupid decisions about who to lend to and borrow from. Interest rates were low which encouraged investment, so the banks rode the cashflow rollercoaster. However they weren't prepared for when their Adjustable rate mortgage schemes fell flat when people (who shouldnt have been granted a loan in the first place) couldn't pay for their shit. The banks brought this all upon themselves. The Bush economic plan was successful, the banks just took too many risks for too little long term gain or stability.



Responses in red.

[CaptainObvious]

Responses in red.

*sigh* Here we go:

Bullshit. It hasnt happened because we cut the roots off from underneath the international Islamic extremist terrorist regime and distracted them with our incursions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA has become very successful at preventing terrorist attacks in the United States foiling at least a half dozen since 9/11. This is in contrast to the Clinton Administration where there were at least three that I can think of off the top of my head, the first WTC bombing, the Nairobi Embassy bombing, and the USS Cole Bombing.

Seriously? You're using a dishonest accounting to come up with that list. The USS Cole was a military target; if we're counting military targets stationed in foreign nations of terrorism there's a few thousand dead since 9/11 that you need to account for.

So it's WTC bombing + embsasy vs 9/11. 9/11 was far worse than both, combined.

For the record there has been three successful Islamic extremist terrorist attacks since Obama took office.

Shootings at Fort Hood
Guy who tried to blow up his underwear last Christmas
Guy Who Tried to Blow Up Times Square with an SUV

The first wasn't a terrorist attack (the guy was a religious nut, but a shooting rampage is a shooting rampage). And how can you use the word "tried" twice - in reference to failure - and say that they were successful attacks? That makes no sense. None of those are terrorist attacks of note.

Yes, thats because the liberal LBJ and Bush I era Equal Housing regulations caught upto itself. Individuals and especially banks were making really stupid decisions about who to lend to and borrow from. Interest rates were low which encouraged investment, so the banks rode the cashflow rollercoaster. However they weren't prepared for when their Adjustable rate mortgage schemes fell flat when people (who shouldnt have been granted a loan in the first place) couldn't pay for their shit. The banks brought this all upon themselves. The Bush economic plan was successful, the banks just took too many risks for too little long term gain or stability.

Cool story, but beside the point. My point had nothing to do with whose fault the bubble was; it is what it is in that regard. My point is that since it was a bubble, you can't point to it as if Bush pushed the economy to a massive fundamental growth. No, he rode a massive bubble, and got off just as it was bursting. That is a fact regardless of whose fault it was.

[Ryhanna]

hes obviously not a failure if hes the 1st black president smarty

Which has absolutley nothing to do with success.

You have to do a good job to not be a failure... I'm not sure if Obama's done that yet. I don't see anyone here hating on him because he's black, so if we could drop the race card that would be fine...

Obama was elected for change - He definatley brought change, but I'm not sure it's the sort of change America wanted...

[Shortkid]

Its better if you try not to judge others. It may be hard at first to move away from your tendency to label and judge everything you run across, but with practice it can be done. And, you'll feel so much better!

[Raptor22]

Cool story, but beside the point. My point had nothing to do with whose fault the bubble was; it is what it is in that regard. My point is that since it was a bubble, you can't point to it as if Bush pushed the economy to a massive fundamental growth. No, he rode a massive bubble, and got off just as it was bursting. That is a fact regardless of whose fault it was.

My point is that President Bush and his economic policies were responsible for the creation of the economic bubble, yet he had absolutely nothing to do with its demise. The bubbles always burst because stupid people ride the bull market and use good economic times as an excuse to make poor economic decisions. When large groups of people, including banks and corporations collectively make irresponsible decisions the whole thing tends to catch up with itself at some point. Its just human nature...

[CaptainObvious]

My point is that President Bush and his economic policies were responsible for the creation of the economic bubble, yet he had absolutely nothing to do with its demise.

Ummmmmmmmmmm....

Wow, I almost don't know where to begin. But I'll start here: an economic bubble is a bad thing. If Bush was responsible for the creation of the bubble, he fucked up HARD. But he wasn't. So what does this prove?That you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Raptor22]

Ummmmmmmmmmm....

Wow, I almost don't know where to begin. But I'll start here: an economic bubble is a bad thing. If Bush was responsible for the creation of the bubble, he fucked up HARD. But he wasn't. So what does this prove?That you have no idea what you're talking about.

You just used many words to say absolutely nothing. You cannot back up anything that you have said in this thread or any other thread with your nonsensical uppity left-wing ideologies.

Perhaps someday logic will come out of nowhere and smack you in the forehead and you will wake out of your current state of retardation...

[CaptainObvious]

You just don't understand what I'm saying, do you? An economic bubble is when assets throughout the market become priced in a way that does not reflect underlying market fundamentals. Make sure you understand what that means. If you now understand, you should have already realized this, but: economic bubbles are a bad thing. Why are they a bad thing? Because bubbles almost inevitably burst, and collapses of that nature often seriously fuck up the economy (c.f. 2008 onwards).

So if Bush were responsible for the creation of the economic bubble, that would be a massive fuck up, because economic bubbles are a very big problem (and this one has been roundly fucking up the world since it started bursting). But Bush wasn't responsible (at least not alone) - responsibility rests with a complex combination of poor systematic risk management in complex derivatives markets, lax regulation, poor attention to fundamental assets underlying securitized products, and a number of other factors. To say Bush led the economy to its highest point ever is not a compliment if that highest point was at the top of a massive bubble that burst. It's like crediting Clinton with the massive tech bubble, as if that too wasn't a very bad thing.

In case you still don't get it, the last, and shortest restatement:

My point is that President Bush and his economic policies were responsible for the creation of the economic bubble

This is untrue. If it were true, it would be an extremely bad thing. Got me?

Now I'll get to the specific ridiculous things you said:

You just used many words to say absolutely nothing.

Actually, I said quite a lot. Most of it seems to have gone right over your head, but that's your problem.

You cannot back up anything that you have said in this thread or any other thread with your nonsensical uppity left-wing ideologies.

What have I not backed up that you need substantiated in this post that you quoted? That economic bubbles are a bad thing? Have you ever taken so much as an introductory economics course?

Perhaps someday logic will come out of nowhere and smack you in the forehead and you will wake out of your current state of retardation...

As retardation goes on the issue of the credit crisis? I work in risk management at an investment bank. Specifically, I work on counterparty credit risk. So with regard to the financial crisis - which was caused by a credit crunch stemming from the failures of massive counterparties - I'm actually just about the best qualified person in this thread to comment.

More importantly, this is an ad hominem attack. Beyond being an absolutely useless and fallacious method of debating, it is also disallowed on the forum. If you can't debate without attacking ideas instead of people, don't post. Consider this your warning for this thread.

[bmurdock60]

what do you mean the civil war was about slavery it was about preserving the union. Slavery was spliting the union but there were tons of other things it was the split not slavery/

[tpzy94]

dude its only been like a year he cant chnage tha world in 2 days it takes time ok n bush didnt save us from terrist attacks he CAUSED THEM this is why we are in it rite nw and umemployment rate was because of CLINTON not PUNK BUSH look that up he didnt do a damn thing for us just cause more trouble

[Insanity Fair]

dude its only been like a year he cant chnage tha world in 2 days it takes time ok n bush didnt save us from terrist attacks he CAUSED THEM this is why we are in it rite nw and umemployment rate was because of CLINTON not PUNK BUSH look that up he didnt do a damn thing for us just cause more trouble

Did you hit your head when you were a young child?

[jimmycouch14]

Obama offers hope through giving everyone everything they want through tax payer money. Guess what, someone has to pay for this. It doesn’t grow on a money tree! Where the heck does this come from?

[walpoler93]

im hoping he wont be around after the next election, fingers crossed!

[Dog Desab]

alright the debate is about obama but first i just wanna say that i hate politics... second i like obama because... third we have the same birthday (or 1 day apart but close).... other than that i could care less for him

[Amnesiac]

Well if Obama and Hillary Clinton ran in next election, I would wish Clinton wins the election.

I don't think that would be possible... Hillary Clinton's already secretary of state, there's no way she'd run.

[Junky]

Obama offers hope through giving everyone everything they want through tax payer money. Guess what, someone has to pay for this. It doesn’t grow on a money tree! Where the heck does this come from?
Everyones like Shoopda wooop! free health care! Until they get slammed with new income taxes and a value added tax for the "free" health care.

[swimmerjeff]

I don't think that would be possible... Hillary Clinton's already secretary of state, there's no way she'd run.
Actually, this is historically (and thus precedent-ally) wrong.
For example: when Henry Clay realized in the election of 1824 he could not win, he made a bargain for the position of Secretary of State, which became known as the Corrupt Bargain of 1824. He believed he was guaranteed the position of president, rightly so: Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Quincy Adams, Van Buren, & Buchanan were all Sec State before becoming president. Hillary may very well run- but at the cost of a deeply divided Democratic party. If she wins, she'd be celebrated by some- but a loss would certainly make her a laughable figurehead.

[tpzy94]

Did you hit your head when you were a young child?
NOPE thnx for caring....did u fucking hit yours????

[havinfun123]

.....

[CaptainObvious]

Did you hit your head when you were a young child?

NOPE thnx for caring....did u fucking hit yours????

Enough.

As for Hillary, I doubt she'll run again. I hope she does, as I supported her over Obama in the primary and still think she would've been a better President, but now that she's Sec State she won't run against her boss (barring a serious clusterfuck in the Democratic Party), and she'll be too old in another 6 and a bit years, I'd say.

[The Dark Lord]

dude its only been like a year he cant chnage tha world in 2 days it takes time ok n bush didnt save us from terrist attacks he CAUSED THEM this is why we are in it rite nw and umemployment rate was because of CLINTON not PUNK BUSH look that up he didnt do a damn thing for us just cause more trouble

I accept the fact that you can't change everything in a year, but Obama hasn't even tried to. Bush didn't cause the terriorist attacks, that was Osama Bin Laden. Just accept that thus far Obama has done nothing to be called a success and has done nothing to merit 4 more years in office

[CaptainObvious]

I accept the fact that you can't change everything in a year, but Obama hasn't even tried to. Bush didn't cause the terriorist attacks, that was Osama Bin Laden. Just accept that thus far Obama has done nothing to be called a success and has done nothing to merit 4 more years in office

To say that Obama has done "nothing to be called a success" is only true if your expectations were wildly out of whack to begin with.

[Raptor22]

To say that Obama has done "nothing to be called a success" is only true if your expectations were wildly out of whack to begin with.

I dont blame him if his expectations were out of whack, Obama is the one responsible for it. All of the crap that he promised he would fix while running for president hasnt been fixed. Hes been in office for a year and a half and he still blames Bush for why we still have troops overseas and why the economy is still in the toilet. He won a Nobel prize for talk and not action. Obama is just as mediocre as the presidents before him...

[Sith Lord 13]

To say that Obama has done "nothing to be called a success" is only true if your expectations were wildly out of whack to begin with.

What has he done that you would consider a success.

[darkwoon]

I dont blame him if his expectations were out of whack, Obama is the one responsible for it. All of the crap that he promised he would fix while running for president hasnt been fixed. Hes been in office for a year and a half and he still blames Bush for why we still have troops overseas and why the economy is still in the toilet. He won a Nobel prize for talk and not action. Obama is just as mediocre as the presidents before him...
Some random thoughts about this...

Do you really think something as complex as the foreign policy of one of the most influencial nation of the world can be changed in less than two years? Suppose that the US troops were disengaged from overseas: what would have happened of the US credit with its allies? And worse, with its opponents? It would have only proved two things: that the US military power couldn't win the war against rather minor states, and that it was untrusteworthy on the long term. It is damn pretty easy to start a war - but to end it in a satisfactory way is much harder (and ask Kaiser Wilhelm II or Czar Nicolas II what they think about it).

The same can be said about the economy: it is way easier to spend money than to spare it. Moreover, economy works on the basis of long-term cycles over which national policies have only a limited impact. It took ten years to escape from the 1929 crisis, and the one that started in 2008 is of the same importance, so I think it is illusory to believe a single nation could overcome it in less than two years.

You also have to take the public opinion into account, as well as the private lobbies. Changes that are too fast or too extreme will definitely alienate him a wide part of its own population - see how heated were the debates about the reform of the social security system for a good example of such drastical changes rejected by important parts of the public opinion.

Oh, and finally, as a foreigner, I find quite disturbing that you blame a single man for being (ir)responsible of everything. He's the president, yes. So what? Doesn't have the private industry a share of responsibility? And what about the financial world? And what about the Congressmen, which, unless I'm mistaken, are supposed to represent the citizens? What about the citizens themselves? Don't you think that if the nation as a whole took its own share of responsibility, maybe matters would go a little faster? I find it quite a paradox that the US population often frowns upon too much interventionism of the government in their lives, yet jump on it everytime something turns bad. Perhaps some middle ground position should be taken before judging the President? And maybe the problems are not only caused by the ineptitude of the politicians, but by more fundamental deficiencies in how the US society is organized?

[Raptor22]

Some random thoughts about this...

Do you really think something as complex as the foreign policy of one of the most influencial nation of the world can be changed in less than two years? Suppose that the US troops were disengaged from overseas: what would have happened of the US credit with its allies? And worse, with its opponents? It would have only proved two things: that the US military power couldn't win the war against rather minor states, and that it was untrusteworthy on the long term. It is damn pretty easy to start a war - but to end it in a satisfactory way is much harder (and ask Kaiser Wilhelm II or Czar Nicolas II what they think about it).

The same can be said about the economy: it is way easier to spend money than to spare it. Moreover, economy works on the basis of long-term cycles over which national policies have only a limited impact. It took ten years to escape from the 1929 crisis, and the one that started in 2008 is of the same importance, so I think it is illusory to believe a single nation could overcome it in less than two years.

You also have to take the public opinion into account, as well as the private lobbies. Changes that are too fast or too extreme will definitely alienate him a wide part of its own population - see how heated were the debates about the reform of the social security system for a good example of such drastical changes rejected by important parts of the public opinion.

Oh, and finally, as a foreigner, I find quite disturbing that you blame a single man for being (ir)responsible of everything. He's the president, yes. So what? Doesn't have the private industry a share of responsibility? And what about the financial world? And what about the Congressmen, which, unless I'm mistaken, are supposed to represent the citizens? What about the citizens themselves? Don't you think that if the nation as a whole took its own share of responsibility, maybe matters would go a little faster? I find it quite a paradox that the US population often frowns upon too much interventionism of the government in their lives, yet jump on it everytime something turns bad. Perhaps some middle ground position should be taken before judging the President? And maybe the problems are not only caused by the ineptitude of the politicians, but by more fundamental deficiencies in how the US society is organized?

No I completely agree with you. My other post was not my beliefs but an explanation for the feelings of others who believe what Obama has told them...

[Sage]

I supported Obama before the elections but I think anyone who isn't disappointed with him at the moment, previous supporter or not, is delusional.

[CaptainObvious]

What has he done that you would consider a success.

I think that his moves on moving through the heart of the liquidity crisis and towards a possible recovery and improving regulations in the financial markets were useful and necessary. Additionally, his health care reform had its heart set directly in the right place, and though sadly it's been a little bit gutted it's a step in the right direction in many ways.

Also, although his first year could probably be called rocky in the foreign policy arena, I think he's starting to master that and use his influence more wisely. That will only be told with time. I think he's not been as good as I hoped, but I hope some more assertiveness is in the future.

Overall, it's a mixed bag. Opposition has prevented him from achieving some of his larger goals, but in many places I think his heart's been in the right place. He's done some things that really annoy me, but what President doesn't?

[Sith Lord 13]

I think that his moves on moving through the heart of the liquidity crisis and towards a possible recovery and improving regulations in the financial markets were useful and necessary. Additionally, his health care reform had its heart set directly in the right place, and though sadly it's been a little bit gutted it's a step in the right direction in many ways.

Also, although his first year could probably be called rocky in the foreign policy arena, I think he's starting to master that and use his influence more wisely. That will only be told with time. I think he's not been as good as I hoped, but I hope some more assertiveness is in the future.

Overall, it's a mixed bag. Opposition has prevented him from achieving some of his larger goals, but in many places I think his heart's been in the right place. He's done some things that really annoy me, but what President doesn't?

I have to agree with you on the last part. :) And while I don't doubt his heart to be in the right place, I sometimes wonder where his brain has gone. State-mandated healthcare, in the middle of an economic downturn, is a horrible idea. The way to get out of an economic slum is to slash spending and taxes. Not find more things to spend money on.

What has he done to help the financial crisis exactly? Like my question before, this is a sincere question. I'm not saying he hasn't done stuff, I'd just appreciate it being laid out.

I agree it's been a mixed bag, as there are other people who I feel would have been far worse. I still feel McCain would have been the better choice, and Obama certainly hasn't won my vote for 2012, but we'll have to see who he's running against before I make up my mind about that.

[Raptor22]

I think that his moves on moving through the heart of the liquidity crisis and towards a possible recovery and improving regulations in the financial markets were useful and necessary. Additionally, his health care reform had its heart set directly in the right place, and though sadly it's been a little bit gutted it's a step in the right direction in many ways.

Also, although his first year could probably be called rocky in the foreign policy arena, I think he's starting to master that and use his influence more wisely. That will only be told with time. I think he's not been as good as I hoped, but I hope some more assertiveness is in the future.

Overall, it's a mixed bag. Opposition has prevented him from achieving some of his larger goals, but in many places I think his heart's been in the right place. He's done some things that really annoy me, but what President doesn't?

Well, you cant say that some of the things that happen or didnt happen during his presidency were disappointing or not, just based on whether his heart was in the right place. I think GWB had his heart in the right place when he geniunely believed Iraq to have held WMDs and been a danger to the world. I think GWB had his heart in the right place when he gave FEMA the tools to respond to Katrina, however he did not expect their efforts to fail.

I dont think we have ever had a president who did not believe his actions were in the common good of the nation, no matter how poor the decisions were in hindsight...

Its like rooting for a soccer team and having them miss a goal. I can be disappointed in their performance even if their 'heart is in the right place.' Just because the player tried his hardest to make the goal, doesnt make it any less disappointing when he misses it...

[darkwoon]

I dont think we have ever had a president who did not believe his actions were in the common good of the nation, no matter how poor the decisions were in hindsight...
That would be the only nation in the world where all major leaders were noble people with no other intend than serving the country... Don't you think it is maybe a bit naive perception of politics?

[The Dark Lord]

That would be the only nation in the world where all major leaders were noble people with no other intend than serving the country... Don't you think it is maybe a bit naive perception of politics?

Not really, I don't think politicians intentionly make decisions to hurt their country. For example, in Britain Tony Blair has become a hate figure due to the Iraq war but he believed he was helping Iraq and safe guarding Britain's social security. I refuse to believe that anyone who is in political power would abuse the power to harm their own country

[Sith Lord 13]

I refuse to believe that anyone who is in political power would abuse the power to harm their own country

Anyone? There are corrupt politicians all the time. But I agree with you that the vast majority do wish the best for their country.

[darkwoon]

Not really, I don't think politicians intentionly make decisions to hurt their country. For example, in Britain Tony Blair has become a hate figure due to the Iraq war but he believed he was helping Iraq and safe guarding Britain's social security. I refuse to believe that anyone who is in political power would abuse the power to harm their own country

I haven't spoken about harming the country intentionally. There is a huge gap between that and someone "who did not believe his actions were in the common good of the nation".

I tend to believe that most politicians do not act on the idea of harming the country or to work for its common good. Their first goal is to stay in a position of power for as long as possible - either because they like the exercise of power, or because they like the advantages it provides (money, free services, public recognition, etc.). That satisfying as many citizens as possible is often a good way to achieve such a result is purely a nice side-effect.

As a side note, it is also important to point out that sometimes, "what citizens want" is not "what is good for the nation" - actually, it could be the opposite. That's why it is hard to judge of the action of very liked/hated politicians was good or bad - you need the distance of history to be able to estimate not only if long-term measures had any positive effect, but also if the perception of the contemporary citizens was justified.

[The Dark Lord]

Anyone? There are corrupt politicians all the time. But I agree with you that the vast majority do wish the best for their country.

I am not saying that there are no corrupt politicians, but there is a massive gap between a politician who votes for a particular bill because he has been paid to and someone who lies to their country and takes them into an illegal war.

[Raptor22]

I am not saying that there are no corrupt politicians, but there is a massive gap between a politician who votes for a particular bill because he has been paid to and someone who lies to their country and takes them into an illegal war.

Well, thats not entirely fair on Mr. Bush. He was acting on the UN recommendation on the best intelligence he had, and the senate voted for it including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton...

To say that involvement in the war was completely his doing is unfair.

[The Dark Lord]

Well, thats not entirely fair on Mr. Bush. He was acting on the UN recommendation on the best intelligence he had, and the senate voted for it including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton...

To say that involvement in the war was completely his doing is unfair.

I was refering to Tony Blair, not George Bush who was honest with Americans saying it was a regime change situation and not because of the non existant WMDs

[CaptainObvious]

I have to agree with you on the last part. :) And while I don't doubt his heart to be in the right place, I sometimes wonder where his brain has gone. State-mandated healthcare, in the middle of an economic downturn, is a horrible idea. The way to get out of an economic slum is to slash spending and taxes. Not find more things to spend money on.

I assume you're aware that a rather large portion of ecoonomic theory is actually built around exactly the opposite of your last 2 sentences being true? One can argue with neo-Keynesian economics, but to say that one must slash spending to get out of a business cycle downturn can't just be stated as a fact.

What has he done to help the financial crisis exactly? Like my question before, this is a sincere question. I'm not saying he hasn't done stuff, I'd just appreciate it being laid out.

The bailouts and various government rescues were implemented well, and his financial regulatory overhaul is in many ways overdue. With this stuff it's more about "choose a good economic staff" than anything else.

Well, you cant say that some of the things that happen or didnt happen during his presidency were disappointing or not, just based on whether his heart was in the right place.

That's true. But I don't mean that he had his heart in the right place in believing that something would be a good idea when it wasn't. I mean he had his heart in the right place, proposed the right policies, and pushing and clawing on the part of other political figures and forces gave us a half-assed compromise. That Congressional Democrats can't get their shit together is not Obama's fault.

I think GWB had his heart in the right place when he geniunely believed Iraq to have held WMDs and been a danger to the world. I think GWB had his heart in the right place when he gave FEMA the tools to respond to Katrina, however he did not expect their efforts to fail.

True enough. But again, we're using the terms differently. I think Obama has largely proposed correct policies and been swept under by unreasonable opposition, and his inability to get that reform done in face of that opposition is what I meant by "heart in the right place". GWB, on the other hand, made terrible policy choices, whether or not he did that out of an honest mistaken belief.

I dont think we have ever had a president who did not believe his actions were in the common good of the nation, no matter how poor the decisions were in hindsight...

I agree.

Well, thats not entirely fair on Mr. Bush. He was acting on the UN recommendation on the best intelligence he had, and the senate voted for it including Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton...

To say that involvement in the war was completely his doing is unfair.

Completely his doing? No, there were many powerful figures like Cheney and Wolfowitz whose neoconservative drive to effect regime change in Iraq was much stronger than Bush. However, he holds the lion's share of responsibility, as he was at the top.

Also, the UN certainly didn't recommend to Bush that the intelligence was correct, that's quite the opposite of what happened. America presented alleged intelligence to the UN, not the other way around. This presentation occurred even in spite of there being significant doubt up and down the chain of command as to the veracity of the informant (of course, everyone high enough in the chain to be near Bush denies having had any doubts beforehand, but who would admit that?) and was a major component of the drive to convince the world of the necessity of war.

[Perseus]

The way to get out of an economic slum is to slash spending and taxes. Not find more things to spend money on.



Spending money is how to get out of an economic crisis. It puts money afloat. If people just stop spending, then more people will lose their job and it would be a down spiral from there into an even worse economic crisis.

[RisaLeigh16]

i think hes ruining america we need better politics

[Sith Lord 13]

Spending money is how to get out of an economic crisis. It puts money afloat. If people just stop spending, then more people will lose their job and it would be a down spiral from there into an even worse economic crisis.

People need to spend. That means taxes need to be cut to give people money to spend. Which means government spending needs to be cut to facilitate it.

Yes, some economic theories disagree. However, some espouse exactly what I'm saying.

[Raptor22]

People need to spend. That means taxes need to be cut to give people money to spend. Which means government spending needs to be cut to facilitate it.

Yes, some economic theories disagree. However, some espouse exactly what I'm saying.

I agree with the essence of what you are saying. Making it work is alot more intricate than that though, government just giving handouts is not the way out of the recession though. Giving unemployed joe blow some money is great, until he spends it on beer and weed and he is still poor again afterwards. Or that same money could make an environment conducive to job growth (like 1983 or 2003) and as a result, Joe Blow would have money to spend every week on sensible things. Not Obama stash money to drown his sorrows...

[drew.]

American politics are messed up anyway. It's all about an annual salary and not about providing for and ensuring the tranquility of the American people. Our politicians have failed us time and time again if not morally then economically. They are all idiots in my opinion; undeserving, unqualified blithering idiots.

[SoFlaDude]

American politics are messed up anyway. It's all about an annual salary and not about providing for and ensuring the tranquility of the American people. Our politicians have failed us time and time again if not morally then economically. They are all idiots in my opinion; undeserving, unqualified blithering idiots.

To be completely honest, I agree with you 110%. I have yet to find one person in MODERN American politics that is worthy of praise due to the fact that they actually did something that benefitted the common good of the nation. I'm convinced that Interest Groups are running the country, not the individuals that we've elected into power.

[The Dark Lord]

i think hes ruining america we need better politics

This insightful and compassionate post has completely changed my view on Obama.

[nickw_2013]

Barrack Obama is a retard. Enough said. Out of all the things he said on campaign he only managed to make the opposite of one happen. Hes raised taxes a created a larger amount of debt. BUT he did save wild stallions in the western U.S -__-

[The Dark Lord]

Barrack Obama is a retard. Enough said. Out of all the things he said on campaign he only managed to make the opposite of one happen. Hes raised taxes a created a larger amount of debt. BUT he did save wild stallions in the western U.S -__-

You are aware that he attended Harvard? So either Harvard isn't what it used to be or you are the retard.

[nickw_2013]

You are aware that he attended Harvard? So either Harvard isn't what it used to be or you are the retard.
I didn't mean retard in the most literal way possible. -_-
How about "his current actions as president are retarded. "
Stupid ass. being all technical.

[The Dark Lord]

I didn't mean retard in the most literal way possible. -_-
How about "his current actions as president are retarded.
Stupid ass. being all technical.

Yes I think in this case I am the ass. You didn't actually mean he was literally retarded? Really?

What current actions are "retarded"?

[nickw_2013]

Yes I think in this case I am the ass. You didn't actually mean he was literally retarded? Really?

What current actions are "retarded"?
I didn't mean he was literally retarded. really.

Current actions that are retarded:

Some of the healthcare bill, not all of it but some of it
Giving money to save wild mustangs and field mice
after saying he won't keep secrets..the almost exclusively closed door meetings

Those actions are retarded.

[The Dark Lord]

I didn't mean he was literally retarded. really.

Current actions that are retarded:

Some of the healthcare bill, not all of it but some of it
Giving money to save wild mustangs and field mice
after saying he won't keep secrets..the almost exclusively closed door meetings

Those actions are retarded.

You expect the President of the United States of America, the most powerful man in the world, to have public discussions regarding national security and other sensative issues. Every political leader has private discussion, that is normal, not Obama being retarded. What is wrong with preserving wildlife?

btw I was being severely sarcastic, which you clearly failed to pick up on

[nickw_2013]

You expect the President of the United States of America, the most powerful man in the world, to have public discussions regarding national security and other sensative issues. Every political leader has private discussion, that is normal, not Obama being retarded. What is wrong with preserving wildlife?

btw I was being severely sarcastic, which you clearly failed to pick up on
Whats secretive about the health care plan that he had so many closed door meetings about?
Theres nothing wrong with it, but look at it from a personal point of view. If you were severely in debt (as the US government is) would you spent a lot of money donating to an animal shelter? and by a lot I mean he gave $10,000,000+ to the wild mustang fund.

[sCa45]

I'm just going to say I don't think he's brought about any kind of positive "change". I'm a pretty staunch republican though.

[Raptor22]

Also, the UN certainly didn't recommend to Bush that the intelligence was correct, that's quite the opposite of what happened. America presented alleged intelligence to the UN, not the other way around. This presentation occurred even in spite of there being significant doubt up and down the chain of command as to the veracity of the informant (of course, everyone high enough in the chain to be near Bush denies having had any doubts beforehand, but who would admit that?) and was a major component of the drive to convince the world of the necessity of war.

True, however the UN was convinced that Saddam was holding something. What other reason would he have not allowed the UN weapons into his nation. At the core, the entire clusterfuck would not have happened if it wasnt for Saddam kicking the inspectors out of his country, just to make his international dick look bigger...

[CaptainObvious]

I agree with the essence of what you are saying. Making it work is alot more intricate than that though, government just giving handouts is not the way out of the recession though. Giving unemployed joe blow some money is great, until he spends it on beer and weed and he is still poor again afterwards. Or that same money could make an environment conducive to job growth (like 1983 or 2003) and as a result, Joe Blow would have money to spend every week on sensible things. Not Obama stash money to drown his sorrows...

So basically your point of view is that when Republican Presidents give out social assistance it's automatically conducive to job growth whereas handouts under Obama are obviously going directly to drugs and alcohol? Gee, that's not a terrible argument at all.

True, however the UN was convinced that Saddam was holding something.

That is not true. The UN was not convinced that Saddam had chemical or biological weapons: the UN was convinced by America upon the basis of intelligence that later turned out to be lies that Saddam had weapons. That's a massive difference.

What other reason would he have not allowed the UN weapons into his nation. At the core, the entire clusterfuck would not have happened if it wasnt for Saddam kicking the inspectors out of his country, just to make his international dick look bigger...

That's true. But the fact that Saddam loved swinging his dick around doesn't justify America taking that provocation.

[Raptor22]

So basically your point of view is that when Republican Presidents give out social assistance it's automatically conducive to job growth whereas handouts under Obama are obviously going directly to drugs and alcohol? Gee, that's not a terrible argument at all.



That is not true. The UN was not convinced that Saddam had chemical or biological weapons: the UN was convinced by America upon the basis of intelligence that later turned out to be lies that Saddam had weapons. That's a massive difference.



That's true. But the fact that Saddam loved swinging his dick around doesn't justify America taking that provocation.

Completely agreed. However you also have to put yourself in the 2002 frame of mind, 9/11 just happened, Afghanistan was invaded, politicians and journalists were receiving anthrax letters, SARS, Richard Reid tried blowing up his shoe on an airplane, and then Saddam with WMDs... With all that paranoia I can see why so many failed to think clearly...