On October 25 2012 03:29 Zaqwert wrote: Obama was the least vetted and most mysterious candidate ever in 2008. That's a large portion of why he won. He was a Rorschach blotch, he ran on "Hope and Change" and people saw in him whatever they wanted to see, that combined with the fact he was the first black to be a nominee made people believe he was somehow different. Obviously all the minorities were excited, but a ton of whites were too.
That's actually one reason he's having so much difficulty this time around. People are majorly disappointed in the idiotic expectations they built up for him. They had no idea he was just another random politician, a product of the Chicago political machine, every bit as corrupt and soul-less as any other politician.
Point to Obama's corruption for me? Point to where he's soulless?
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
Your sources are fantastic. Oh wait... they're non-existent. I expect nothing more from you, though, so keep on disappointing, bud.
Edit: And the fucking audacity you have to go around spouting citation needed after making this post I quoted. What a fool.
On October 25 2012 04:32 Slaughter wrote: I don't like the assertion that Obama has abandoned our allies. He has dialed down our bromance with Israel and that's a good thing. We don't need to be rushing blindly to defend Israel every god damn time something comes up and they are pretty secure with just the promise of the US defending them if attacked. Thats the part of the problem in the middle east we favor one country then say fuck off to the rest. The UK? Uh pretty much the same as we ever had with them. Weak on the international stage? You do realize that most of the american people are getting as sick of being all up in the worlds business as the rest of the world has been for the past 2-3 decades. Also he has nothing really to do with expanding or contracting the "entitlement culture" that has come into being. Plus the Economy IS recovering slowly but surely, and while he probably can't take much credit it is going in the right direction but it takes a while to recover from things like that.
As much as I despise Mitt Romney, I think he made a valid point in the third debate. The rest of the world has taken notice to Obama's lack of support for Israel. Iran and Middle Eastern countries are watching closely and after all of the anti-Israel statements and policies that have come from this administration, they are foaming at the mouth.
America has always supported Britain, who is our closest ally (special relationship). When Argentina invaded the Falklands, we were more than happy to aid our British allies. Now Obama has completely changed that and supported Argentina, even though Britain is our closest ally. Also, Obama went against the wishes of the Falklander people, who have said time and time again that they are proud to be British and do not want to join Argentina.
I'm not advocating for invading other countries, I am advocating for maintaining a strong international presence, without useless wars like Libya and Iraq. Obama has sided against our allies, he has apologized time and time again on behalf of America, and he has cut military spending. Regardless of whether or not you support these things, you have to admit that they don't make us look strong.
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president.
Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore.
On October 25 2012 01:32 Swazi Spring wrote: Here's the video:
It sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars?
Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball.
Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
I like how you reposted when no one responded to you.
Anyway, I don't understand how there isn't more discussion to these emails from Reuters.
That the White House was informed of a responsibility claim from the militants two hours after the attacks on Facebook and Twitter but continued exploring all possible options?
Only your partisan feelings will decide how you interpret that.
Love how someone questioning the administration's handling of the situation automatically makes someone partisan. For the record I voted for Obama in 08 but intend to write in a candidate because both of these men are unable to do the job.
Coming out and saying that the attack was in response to a video is not exploring all options when there is evidence, small but some, to the contrary is negligent at best.
I'm not saying that you're "partisan." I'm saying that if you like Obama you'll spin the story entirely differently than if you don't like him, especially given the surplus of contradictory evidence around the events. There's nothing meaningful to discuss; I mean, there are members of the state department now saying that the attacks were opportunistic in response to the video after thorough investigation. Does that fit with saying the attack was in response to the video? To me it does. To someone else it doesn't. It's entirely personal perspective and mostly based on what you already believe, rather than new evidence.
I mean, hell, I found out from government and news reports it was an opportunistic response 8 hours after the attacks.
Edit: I do find it bizarre that having partisan feelings is now somehow a bad thing. A vitriolic political environment is worse, but one in which you're ashamed to side with any party is pretty bad.
I see your point now. I assumed you were saying I was questioning only because I dislike the president. I apologize for that.
To me the video story doesn't add up. I don't find it believable and probably won't unless there is some hard proof out there.
I really do not enjoy the political environment that we live in. People are too concerned with one side or the other. So on that I would say we disagree on how ba partisanship is.
I can see arguments for and against the administration's story, and would 100% agree that they didn't execute the situation perfectly (that being Obama's fault directly is hard to stomach in the same sense that "Bush invaded Iraq" is also pretty excessive). But some of the allegations are getting a little excessive for my taste (like xDaunt earlier saying that there's now evidence that they knew the attack was coming and didn't help? still haven't found that hitting airwaves). I dunno, from my personal readings about Al Qaeda and turmoil in the middle east-as well as the surrounding protests-I can 100% see a militant group trying to take advantage of potential riots to storm an embassy after biding their time.
I'm not sure partisanship in the sense of identifying with a group of people with similar beliefs is really bad; letting that identification turn you into a mob is, though, and that kind of partisanship is definitely screwing up the political environment.
is this a legit representation of intrades odds right now? Its showing that it thinks romney is going to win the election now.
Intrade odds are actually higher for Obama right now than they were this morning (pre-Trump "bombshell"). Romney winning is just vacillation on Ohio, as near as I can tell, and people trying to cash in.
Edit: I suspect a few people just jumped the gun on a Rasmussen Ohio poll showing a tie.
Stuff like this doesn't seem overly conservative. The links that are posted are pretty strongly biased in the same way that /r/politics is but the comments are largely rational
Mainly just conservative stances with logic backing them up. I'm not seeing the blind adherence to every word of o'reilly and limbaugh that's spouted. It looks to upvote anything that could potentially be scandalous and then in the comments section refute most claims. Pretty decent place to start I guess since it's essentially /r/politics from the other side.
Uh, I wasn't really commentating on the reliability of /r/conservative, mostly the intrade odds. I don't do reddit, so I have no idea which is worse regarding facts.
On October 25 2012 04:37 Swazi Spring wrote: "Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves - even in public places - and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed."
Second paragraph of the Reuters article: "However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces."
And your point? Private businesses should have the right to put up "no concealed carry on premises" signs. And of course, gun owners should have the right to ignore those signs (which they do in Missouri). If the owner doesn't like it, he can ask you to leave, and if you refuse, then he can have you arrested; but the charge would be for trespassing, not for carrying in a store that put up a sign that says otherwise.
On October 25 2012 04:32 Slaughter wrote: I don't like the assertion that Obama has abandoned our allies. He has dialed down our bromance with Israel and that's a good thing. We don't need to be rushing blindly to defend Israel every god damn time something comes up and they are pretty secure with just the promise of the US defending them if attacked. Thats the part of the problem in the middle east we favor one country then say fuck off to the rest. The UK? Uh pretty much the same as we ever had with them. Weak on the international stage? You do realize that most of the american people are getting as sick of being all up in the worlds business as the rest of the world has been for the past 2-3 decades. Also he has nothing really to do with expanding or contracting the "entitlement culture" that has come into being. Plus the Economy IS recovering slowly but surely, and while he probably can't take much credit it is going in the right direction but it takes a while to recover from things like that.
As much as I despise Mitt Romney, I think he made a valid point in the third debate. The rest of the world has taken notice to Obama's lack of support for Israel. Iran and Middle Eastern countries are watching closely and after all of the anti-Israel statements and policies that have come from this administration, they are foaming at the mouth.
America has always supported Britain, who is our closest ally (special relationship). When Argentina invaded the Falklands, we were more than happy to aid our British allies. Now Obama has completely changed that and supported Argentina, even though Britain is our closest ally. Also, Obama went against the wishes of the Falklander people, who have said time and time again that they are proud to be British and do not want to join Argentina.
I'm not advocating for invading other countries, I am advocating for maintaining a strong international presence, without useless wars like Libya and Iraq. Obama has sided against our allies, he has apologized time and time again on behalf of America, and he has cut military spending. Regardless of whether or not you support these things, you have to admit that they don't make us look strong.
I'd argue that we should stop putting emphasis on having to "look strong" militarily. Everyone knows the capabilities of the US and the fact that the US might start to waver and just blindly following Israel opens up talks with other countries in the region for peace. You can't favor Israel blindly. There are two sides and opening the door allows for people to talk instead of sword rattling. This does not open the door for people to attack Israel because even if the US starts to tell Israel when they are acting like assholes it doesn't mean they won't support them when the chips are down and they are threatened. Just like with the Iran situation and how Israel seems like they are foaming at the mouth to bomb the shit out of their facilities and the US is like "seriously stop and think for a moment". The military already has a huge budget it doesn't need ANY increased funding and cutting it and having funds put elsewhere wouldn't be the worst thing in the world by a mile.
On October 25 2012 04:07 jdsowa wrote: His private position on guns might be a complete ban, but his public position is to ban semi-autos but keep handguns and rifles legal to preserve the 2nd amendment. I think that's probably pretty much a reflection of mainstream thought. Most people don't see the value of semi-autos.
He admitted that he supports a complete ban on handguns and semi-autos. Since when is banning semi-automatic weapons "mainstream?" Most liberals don't even want to do that, all of the evidence and the polls show that Americans are moving further and further IN FAVOR of looser gun laws, not the other way around.
Again, citation needed.
Just google 'assault ban' or whatever.. there's plenty of results
"A ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47"
57% favor, 42% oppose
That seems a little high to me. I see other charts that show a semi-auto ban had greater than 50% public support in this country for a very long time, until 2007 or so when it went below 50%. Even a handgun ban had over 50% support in the 1950s. So gun bans have become less popular over time it seems, but it's still far from a 'batshit' position to take. I think this move parallels the gradual support to legalize marijuana. The issues are similar in that, it's a question of getting govt out of our lives when the matter doesn't concern social supports. Also, I think it may have to do with the fact that urban violence has decreased or otherwise been contained within certain communities. People are also carrying less cash.
I don't see anything on an Obama handgun ban. I see reference to an old Chicago handgun ban that he apparently signed but now denies. So regardless of whether he agreed with it, he is now appearing as though he does not.
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president.
Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore.
That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges? And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history.
By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008.
Edit: Nice try. Still waiting. Just 1 bill or piece of legislation that Obama has suggested that would limit gun rights.
George W. Bush * Son of president George H. W. Bush. * Governor of Texas. * Military veteran.
Bill Clinton * Governor of Arkansas. * Attorney General of Arkansas.
George H. W. Bush * Vice President of the United States. * Director of the CIA. * Chairman of the Republican National Committee. * United States Ambassador to the United Nations. * United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Ronald Reagan * Governor of California. * Campaign assistant to Barry Goldwater. * Military veteran. * Famous actor.
Jimmy Carter * Governor of Georgia. * Member of the Georgia Senate. * Military veteran.
Gerald Ford * Vice President of the United States. * US House of Representatives Minority Leader * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Now lets look at Barack Obama... * 1 incomplete term as US Senator. * Member of the Illinois Senate.
Really? Is it really so hard to say sorry, I was uninformed?
Never said Clinton or G.H.B.
G.W.B - Being son of a president does not give you experience. He was governor for 5 years. Military does not equal political experience. Plus, he was national guard, never served overseas. (Maybe if you had said Eisenhower, but G Dubs? Come on now..)
Reagan - Governor for 8 years. Acting, campaigning and military service (never sent overseas due to nearsightedness) is not political experience.
Carter - Governor for 4 years. Part of Georgia senate for 4 years. Military see above.
Obama - Illinois senator for 8 years. US Senator for 3 years. Was apart of multiple committees during this time.
Add up the years. Something tells me basic math might be a tough one for you, but as you can see, he was in no way less qualified then the people I mentioned.
On October 25 2012 04:32 Slaughter wrote: I don't like the assertion that Obama has abandoned our allies. He has dialed down our bromance with Israel and that's a good thing. We don't need to be rushing blindly to defend Israel every god damn time something comes up and they are pretty secure with just the promise of the US defending them if attacked. Thats the part of the problem in the middle east we favor one country then say fuck off to the rest. The UK? Uh pretty much the same as we ever had with them. Weak on the international stage? You do realize that most of the american people are getting as sick of being all up in the worlds business as the rest of the world has been for the past 2-3 decades. Also he has nothing really to do with expanding or contracting the "entitlement culture" that has come into being. Plus the Economy IS recovering slowly but surely, and while he probably can't take much credit it is going in the right direction but it takes a while to recover from things like that.
There's a reason why almost every non-US poster in this thread is rooting for Obama. Americans seem to have no memory or concept of the incredible amount of credibility and respect the US lost during the Bush Administration. The nonsensical invasion of Iraq, the conditions at Abu Gharib, water-boarding, the bungled response to Katrina -- all these incidents contributed to an image of a America with terrible, asshole-leadership.
It's astonishing to think there are Americans that buy into all this nonsense that Obama has somehow hurt America's image abroad. If anything, he restored its image to pre-Bush levels.
On October 25 2012 04:32 Slaughter wrote: I don't like the assertion that Obama has abandoned our allies. He has dialed down our bromance with Israel and that's a good thing. We don't need to be rushing blindly to defend Israel every god damn time something comes up and they are pretty secure with just the promise of the US defending them if attacked. Thats the part of the problem in the middle east we favor one country then say fuck off to the rest. The UK? Uh pretty much the same as we ever had with them. Weak on the international stage? You do realize that most of the american people are getting as sick of being all up in the worlds business as the rest of the world has been for the past 2-3 decades. Also he has nothing really to do with expanding or contracting the "entitlement culture" that has come into being. Plus the Economy IS recovering slowly but surely, and while he probably can't take much credit it is going in the right direction but it takes a while to recover from things like that.
There's a reason why almost every non-US poster in this thread is rooting for Obama. Americans seem to have no memory or concept of the incredible amount of credibility and respect the US lost during the Bush Administration. The nonsensical invasion of Iraq, the conditions at Abu Gharib, water-boarding, the bungled response to Katrina -- all these incidents contributed to an image of a America with terrible, terrible leadership.
It's astonishing to think there are Americans that buy into all this nonsense that Obama has somehow hurt America's image abroad. If anything, he restored its image to pre-Bush levels.
Good post.
It's more than just "Europe is liberal so of course they like Obama more".
It sounds like a reasonable offer to me. I only hope that Obama releases all of the papers he claims to have written in college.
Obama should just respond to Trump with: As President of the United States, I do not negotiate with terrorists.
Seriously. If Trump wants to donate to a charity, he can do that without trying to pull on political strings and jerk our fucking president around. What's next? First Lady pics in a thong for ten million dollars?
Trump's a jackass and an ignoramus when it comes to not letting go of stupid situations. He just wants the limelight, and thinking that someone has something to hide just because he won't entertain stupid and manipulative requests is missing the point. Trump's not being charitable; he's trying to blackmail Obama with non-existent bullshit by providing a lose-lose situation for him. Either Obama has to continue to show credibility on every single thing he's ever done (which takes away from campaign focus- not to mention the fact that he's still leading our country- and who said that our president has to check in with Trump?), or he looks like he's hiding something? Bullshit. Just don't play ball.
Also... Trump says "to my satisfaction"... = impossible anyway. Loophole -.-' And then Trump would just blame Obama for half-assing it.
I like how you reposted when no one responded to you.
Anyway, I don't understand how there isn't more discussion to these emails from Reuters.
That the White House was informed of a responsibility claim from the militants two hours after the attacks on Facebook and Twitter but continued exploring all possible options?
Only your partisan feelings will decide how you interpret that.
Love how someone questioning the administration's handling of the situation automatically makes someone partisan. For the record I voted for Obama in 08 but intend to write in a candidate because both of these men are unable to do the job.
Coming out and saying that the attack was in response to a video is not exploring all options when there is evidence, small but some, to the contrary is negligent at best.
I'm not saying that you're "partisan." I'm saying that if you like Obama you'll spin the story entirely differently than if you don't like him, especially given the surplus of contradictory evidence around the events. There's nothing meaningful to discuss; I mean, there are members of the state department now saying that the attacks were opportunistic in response to the video after thorough investigation. Does that fit with saying the attack was in response to the video? To me it does. To someone else it doesn't. It's entirely personal perspective and mostly based on what you already believe, rather than new evidence.
I mean, hell, I found out from government and news reports it was an opportunistic response 8 hours after the attacks.
Edit: I do find it bizarre that having partisan feelings is now somehow a bad thing. A vitriolic political environment is worse, but one in which you're ashamed to side with any party is pretty bad.
I see your point now. I assumed you were saying I was questioning only because I dislike the president. I apologize for that.
To me the video story doesn't add up. I don't find it believable and probably won't unless there is some hard proof out there.
I really do not enjoy the political environment that we live in. People are too concerned with one side or the other. So on that I would say we disagree on how ba partisanship is.
I can see arguments for and against the administration's story, and would 100% agree that they didn't execute the situation perfectly (that being Obama's fault directly is hard to stomach in the same sense that "Bush invaded Iraq" is also pretty excessive). But some of the allegations are getting a little excessive for my taste (like xDaunt earlier saying that there's now evidence that they knew the attack was coming and didn't help? still haven't found that hitting airwaves). I dunno, from my personal readings about Al Qaeda and turmoil in the middle east-as well as the surrounding protests-I can 100% see a militant group trying to take advantage of potential riots to storm an embassy after biding their time.
I'm not sure partisanship in the sense of identifying with a group of people with similar beliefs is really bad; letting that identification turn you into a mob is, though, and that kind of partisanship is definitely screwing up the political environment.
For sure. I don't put all the blame on Obama, but as with Bush it is his administration and should take the brunt. I haven't seen anything that shows they knew /before/ the attack, but with intelligence these days it is hard to imagine no one knew what was coming even if it was a short period before.
I agree that identifying yourself with a group is not inherently a bad thing. It's the extremes of those groups that make things worse.
is this a legit representation of intrades odds right now? Its showing that it thinks romney is going to win the election now.
Intrade odds are actually higher for Obama right now than they were this morning (pre-Trump "bombshell"). Romney winning is just vacillation on Ohio, as near as I can tell, and people trying to cash in.
Edit: I suspect a few people just jumped the gun on a Rasmussen Ohio poll showing a tie.
Stuff like this doesn't seem overly conservative. The links that are posted are pretty strongly biased in the same way that /r/politics is but the comments are largely rational
Mainly just conservative stances with logic backing them up. I'm not seeing the blind adherence to every word of o'reilly and limbaugh that's spouted. It looks to upvote anything that could potentially be scandalous and then in the comments section refute most claims. Pretty decent place to start I guess since it's essentially /r/politics from the other side.
Uh, I wasn't really commentating on the reliability of /r/conservative, mostly the intrade odds. I don't do reddit, so I have no idea which is worse regarding facts.
On October 25 2012 04:37 Swazi Spring wrote: "Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves - even in public places - and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association, the main gun-lobby group, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed."
Second paragraph of the Reuters article: "However, there was also strong support from respondents for background checks as well as limiting the sale of automatic weapons and keeping guns out of churches, stores and workplaces."
And your point? Private businesses should have the right to put up "no concealed carry on premises" signs. And of course, gun owners should have the right to ignore those signs (which they do in Missouri). If the owner doesn't like it, he can ask you to leave, and if you refuse, then he can have you arrested; but the charge would be for trespassing, not for carrying in a store that put up a sign that says otherwise.
I'm saying that you shouldn't use an article to show that "most Americans disagree with Obama on gun ownership" when the exact positions he and Romney articulated in the debate are encapsulated in the second paragraph of your article, INCLUDING limiting the sale of automatic weapons.
On October 25 2012 04:32 Slaughter wrote: I don't like the assertion that Obama has abandoned our allies. He has dialed down our bromance with Israel and that's a good thing. We don't need to be rushing blindly to defend Israel every god damn time something comes up and they are pretty secure with just the promise of the US defending them if attacked. Thats the part of the problem in the middle east we favor one country then say fuck off to the rest. The UK? Uh pretty much the same as we ever had with them. Weak on the international stage? You do realize that most of the american people are getting as sick of being all up in the worlds business as the rest of the world has been for the past 2-3 decades. Also he has nothing really to do with expanding or contracting the "entitlement culture" that has come into being. Plus the Economy IS recovering slowly but surely, and while he probably can't take much credit it is going in the right direction but it takes a while to recover from things like that.
There's a reason why almost every non-US poster in this thread is rooting for Obama. Americans seem to have no memory or concept of the incredible amount of credibility and respect the US lost during the Bush Administration. The nonsensical invasion of Iraq, the conditions at Abu Gharib, water-boarding, the bungled response to Katrina -- all these incidents contributed to an image of a America with terrible, terrible leadership.
It's astonishing to think there are Americans that buy into all this nonsense that Obama has somehow hurt America's image abroad. If anything, he restored its image to pre-Bush levels.
Democrats want the rest of the world to "love" the US. Republicans want the rest of the world to "respect" the US. The idea is that rogue countries won't respect the US if they don't take its military stance seriously. And that could put the US in danger. I don't think Republicans believe it's important that the French or Dutch love America, because their larger agenda is to spread capitalist democracy across the world.
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president.
Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore.
That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history.
By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008.
Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open.
Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well.
Is there a company in Solyndra's place that should have gotten that money?
From the article you linked on the autoworkers union. "To avoid a bankruptcy of Chrysler LLC at the end of the week, the Obama administration is trying to push through a deal that gives the automaker’s unions majority ownership" All I see is him trying to save the company. Am I missing something?
Presidents use executive privilege like that all the time. It's classified just like a ton of other things are classified. Also from your link. "Well, first of all, I think it’s important to understand that the Fast and Furious program was a field-initiated program, begun under the previous administration. When Eric Holder found out about it, he discontinued it. " Where's the problem?
And the White House was told of claims, but didn't have any proof of said claims according to that final article.
Do you actually back up anything you say, or do you just go based on how you're feeling at any point in time? You're what's wrong with my party. I wish everyone like you were given a course in how to not be misleading fucks. A man can dream...
On October 25 2012 03:42 jdsowa wrote: The American people are naturally conservative. Conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the status quo.
The average voter is a middle-aged person who just wants to go to and from work, take their kids to soccer practice and come home and fall alseep in front of the TV without any hassles along the way. They don't want government supports taken away, they don't want the concept of marriage as they know it to change overnight, and they don't want to worry that other countries might attack us.
If a politician proposes any policies that would even possibly suggest to threaten that lifestyle with even a very slight hiccup, then the average voter will simply reject that politician.
The two party system completely covers the spectrum of acceptable mainstream politics, and exceeds it in many cases. The fact that it exceeds it at all--that there are Democrats and Republicans that have views that lie far outside of the mainstream--is evidence that a national 3rd party candidate can never truly be viable. You can buy TV time and generate temporary amusement, but a majority will never cast their vote for you.
Since a national politician can't afford to express too many views outside of the status quo, they have to spend a great deal of their time pretending. And since each guy does an equal share of pretending, and because their policies can't diverge too far from the mainstream, the American people make their decision based on which guy is more charismatic while still being adequately presidential. Ultimately, Barack Obama is that guy.
That was a pretty interesting and mostly accurate post, but Obama has been pretty radical for someone who "represents the status quo" as you suggested. Universal healthcare, banning guns, amnesty for illegals, and abandoning our long-time allies are pretty radical ideas that are far-removed from the mainstream political discourse.
You are so uninformed it hurts my eyes. Obama has been very pro-guns.
Name one single thing that Obama has done to restrict access to guns while president.
Here let me answer this one for you: You're going to ignore this post because you have nothing. Just like every other time you've been shown to be completely wrong you just deflect and ignore.
That's it? A draft policy from the Bureau of Land Management that no one has ever heard of and was amended a day later to clarify that they just don't want people going hiking or dog walking to get shot? And that their purpose isn't to ban weapon use on public land but keep it to hunting areas/shooting ranges?n And that this Bureau was created by legislation Bush signed in 2007? Man that Obama is really the most anti-gun president in the history.
By the way I think you got your false talking points messed up. There's no mention of concealed carry in that article. You were probably thinking of something you got from a FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:FW:OBAMA BAN CONCEALED CARRY e-mail from 2008.
Banning the right to carry a gun on public property IS a ban on the right to carry on public property; both concealed and open.
Obama already said that he wants to ban concealed carry. He hasn't spoken out against open carry to my knowledge, but he must likely wants to ban that as well.
Oh hey look, more inane bullshit. You're a perfect representative of fact that people should listen to. Oh wait...
EPT
