| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
lizzard_warish
589 Posts
On October 22 2011 10:59 Euronyme wrote: Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about.Jesus Christ, way to be negative. Lighten up, buddy  | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:00 lizzard_warish wrote: Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about. When lizzard_warish says he pays "consistent" attention to the news he actually means right-leaning news. Also thanks for generalizing that no one else in this thread follows current events/knows their history/has valid opinions. On October 14 2011 13:25 lizzard_warish wrote: I really cant stand the news, or for that matter, the left. It boggles my mind that anyone votes for them. They consistently call republicans racist and then when we- without any fanfare unlike the democrats a couple years ago- seem to genuinely like a black candidate, they respond to it by shitting on him and calling him an uncle tom. I honestly do view the democrats as an extremely racist party. They're so god damn condescending. How can you not stand the news but also pay constant (I think this is the word you're looking for instead of consistent) attention to it? | ||
|
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:00 lizzard_warish wrote: Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about. Wow, you follow the news? No wonder you're so qualified to pin the blame so squarely on one man. I completely forgot that Obama's running a dictatorship and has complete control of the US government. Oh wait...I guess internal US politics and international diplomacy can be kind of complex. | ||
|
TheLaw
United States172 Posts
On October 22 2011 02:01 Josri wrote: Fucking finally, you had no business there Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D | ||
|
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:00 lizzard_warish wrote: Sorry, but unlike virtually everyone in this thread I pay consistent attention to the news. Obama is a terrible president, theres not much to be positive about. Fox News? On October 22 2011 11:06 TheLaw wrote: Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D You did? Because it was actually a war crime and a huge violation of international law, and as icing on the cake condemned by the UN. See if any other country would've done something like this, they'd be under blockade by the rest of the world and there'd be intensive debates whether there was a global intervention needed. Aggression wars in general are illegal, and when it comes to aggression wars without motive, apart from shady, and ultimately false information about nuclear weapons.. It's no better than Hitler's invasion of Poland basically. Yes I know I just Godwinned myself, I'm just saying, because there seems to be people who think the war in Iraq actually can be justified. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On October 22 2011 08:39 Candadar wrote: Yeah, I'm pretty sure no one would hold their breath if we wiped Iran off the face of the Earth. I'm pretty sure the 75,000,000 people living there would care. The country has been around for thousands of years; how about you don't think about "wiping out" one of the most influential nations to have ever existed because you currently dislike the leadership, which is only in place because the previous leadership, a US puppet regime replacing the democratically elected, far more moderate legitimate government, was finally ousted. Iran has been treated far, far worse by the West over history than the West has by Iran. Don't pretend we're somehow the "good guys" and they're the baddies. That's stupid and shows zero understanding of the history of the the world. Anyway, good that it's finally over for America. Hopefully Iraq can somehow stabilise, though I really doubt it. Poor ordinary Iraqis is all I can say. On October 22 2011 11:06 TheLaw wrote: Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D Sorry, what business precisely? Unless you think it's the business of the US to remove any evil regime, which means it's the US's business to invade about 50 countries right about now. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
masterbreti
Korea (South)2711 Posts
On October 22 2011 10:49 ImFromPortugal wrote: ofc.. the Iranians will be glad to know that.. yeah. also say that to people who hav family and friends who live in Iran. I think if iran were to be nuked or something. I would cry for days. I have to many friends there to imagine losing them is heartbreaking | ||
|
TheLaw
United States172 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:06 TheLaw wrote: Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D Sorry, what business precisely? Unless you think it's the business of the US to remove any evil regime, which means it's the US's business to invade about 50 countries right about now. Dood..... they were invading an allied country and threatening our oil supply. herp. | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
| ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
| ||
|
John Madden
American Samoa894 Posts
| ||
|
TrainSamurai
339 Posts
I am shocked and confused! | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:17 TheLaw wrote: Uuhhhhhh yes we did..... but yes it is good that we are pulling out :D Saddam Hussein was brought to power by the US government in order to fight a pointless war against the Iranians who after being terrorized by another Dictator (aka the Shah of Persia), who was also brought to power by the US, finally got rid of him. the US are not the "good" guys here. The US government is trying to clean up 50 years of failed middle eastern foreign policies. But in the end it's just getting worse | ||
|
chaoser
United States5541 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:14 Kickstart wrote: You do realize in terms of changing general policy the president has little power compared to congress. The president can say whatever he/she wants or try and accomplish whatever s/he wants but if congress isn't backing him/her then good luck. That's one of the reasons things aren't getting done now. It is also funny that in every campaign a presidential nominee promises that they will do x,y, and z when they get elected, when they don't have the power to change anything, congress does. Off Topic: Actually, not to take away from the fact that Congress has been severely hampering Obama from putting in place a lot of good policies, a savvy President is able to work around an antagonistic Congress. Look no further than Bill Clinton's first and second terms. In many ways Obama's presidency's first term has been very similar to Clinton's presidency (Passed a bill pertaining to healthcare, got low approval ratings (40%), Repubs take over not only the house but also senate, was given a shitty economy, ran/running a hard re-election campaign) And yet Clinton was able to figure out how to use his bully pulpit efficiently and in his second term "made everyone rich" as well as push a lot of his policies to be passed. He ended up leaving office with a 68%+ approval rating. Let's hope Obama can pull this transformation off as well. | ||
|
RageBot
Israel1530 Posts
Iraq will probably really collapse now, sad for the innocents there. | ||
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:17 TheLaw wrote: Dood..... they were invading an allied country and threatening our oil supply. herp. Seriously? I can't tell if you're trolling or genuinely just know nothing about the world or history or really anything. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:24 chaoser wrote: Off Topic: Actually, not to take away from the fact that Congress has been severely hampering Obama from putting in place a lot of good policies, a savvy President is able to work around an antagonistic Congress. Look no further than Bill Clinton's first and second terms. In many ways Obama's presidency's first term has been very similar to Clinton's presidency (Passed a bill pertaining to healthcare, got low approval ratings (40%), Repubs take over not only the house but also senate, was given a shitty economy, ran/running a hard re-election campaign) And yet Clinton was able to figure out how to use his bully pulpit efficiently and in his second term "made everyone rich" as well as push a lot of his policies to be passed. He ended up leaving office with a 68%+ approval rating. Let's hope Obama can pull this transformation off as well. True, but I don't think being savvy should be a trait that our elected officials need in order to get things done. Point is that the president doesn't have the power to simply push through policies that they all too often promise, they must rely on a congress that agrees with him/her or try and persuade them. And I would say the republican party looks a lot different now than it did when Clinton was president, they aren't too keen on working with Obama at all. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On October 22 2011 11:31 docvoc wrote: I like how all the people from other nations on here are commenting about how wrong we were to be there when most were in complete agreeance after 9/11. its interesting to see how fast public opinion changes after a war. Its good news, but until they say, "mission accomplished" i don't believe it. well the german government was against the Iraq war. So can I keep writing now sir? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
IntoTheTV X SOOP
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Kung Fu Cup
IntoTheTV X SOOP
FEL
FEL
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Replay Cast
|
|
|
EPT
