Barack Obama's Character

@AtPhantom said:

Well, some countries are obviously more conservative or liberal due to their policies, some are more communist, others socialist etc. But I'm saying at the end of the day, they're a different countries that's different from America. Ok, so if I may why did you bring up the whole immigrant factor then if I may? For the left vs. right aspect alone?

lol dude, I live in NYC you can't get more liberal then here...I've met and meet lots of people between offline and online, and nobody has felt this way that Obama is a righty to any degree despite their political affiliation. K, since we covered the abortion, immigrant thing but the rest weren't really covered. We killed Bin Laden while Obama was in, but if not for Bush we never would have gotten him this year. Clinton had a few chances to nail him but passed...but concerning dealing and how to treat Terror cells, Bush and Obama are very different. Bush believed in treating them like terrorists guilty as such, Obama on the other hand feels they should be treated as common criminals...

Like the pro abortion, free universal healthcare, negotiating with terrorists. Obviously the healthcare is the biggest issue with Obama, agreed? I mean it's the one thing he's going to leave regardless if this is his last term or not. I mean most people are either against it or for it, it's 50/50 really.

@AtPhantom said:

enormously broad spectrum of left to the left of what you think is left

I want to say something witty about this particular part... but I can't think of anything.

@Vaeternus: Almost every non 3rd world country on Earth aside from America and very few others have some form of socialized healthcare. Several of these nations with Socialized healthcare actually rate higher than the US in quality. I'm not saying Obamacare is the way to go but maybe we could take a look at some of these nations that are doing better than us instead of ignoring the issue altogether as the right wingers want to do may actually help. But we absolutely should not trust Republicans or Democrats with the decision because these people couldn't be trusted to make soup.

@joshmightbe, like you said though ...almost, not all. ;) Some have no form of healthcare at all which usually suffer from poverty issues. I suppose socialized healthcare is better then nothing at all but personally, I'm not for socialized healthcare in America, I'm all for healthcare reform but I would prefer to keep my choices of doctors, all I'm saying know what I mean? I have to see certain docs for certain things yearly or every other year, I'd prefer to keep my doctors instead of having the government choose for me. That's all. I hear ya, politics in general are corrupt. Sometimes it really is the lesser of two evils..

@Vaeternus said:

Ron or Mitt would be billion times better then what we have no lol he curious where you are is it red or blue state? I forgot where you're from, no need to say where if you don't want to. For some reason I was thinking Florida lol but I don't think you're there.

I grew up in NYC, but have lived in Georgia (arguably the Reddest state other than Texas) since 1980.

@isaac_clarke said:

"It doesn't matter what Romney does - President Obama must lose."

EXACTLY!!! If he is re-elected the US will definitely turn into Greece. If Mitt wins, at least it will give the appearance to businessmen that it is finally saver to grow or create businesses again.

If Obama wins, successful people will just stop making a living, so they won't be bled dry by taxes and unemployment will reach as much as 30% or more...like Greece.

@joshmightbe said:

Not saying Obama is any better I just like to point out that they're both hypocrites and voting for either of them is pointless.

Ron Paul would be my first choice, but most Americans are dumb as dirt...so Paul would never stand a chance of being elected. Romney is ALMOST as much of a socialist as Obama is...but at least he's not Obama.

Obama is the living, breathing manifestation of failure...and he's also a thug...not a gentleman like Mitt.

@Roxanne Starr: Mitt Romney is a worthless moron, granted Obama is equally worthless. Neither should be president and we shouldn't have to only choose between Republican or Democrat and as long as those are the only viable options our country will continue to go down hill until only politicians and huge corporations will have any say in the running of this country and the dipshits will still be arguing over whose is bigger.

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Vaeternus said:

Ron or Mitt would be billion times better then what we have no lol he curious where you are is it red or blue state? I forgot where you're from, no need to say where if you don't want to. For some reason I was thinking Florida lol but I don't think you're there.

I grew up in NYC, but have lived in Georgia (arguably the Reddest state other than Texas) since 1980.

@isaac_clarke said:

"It doesn't matter what Romney does - President Obama must lose."

EXACTLY!!! If he is re-elected the US will definitely turn into Greece. If Mitt wins, at least it will give the appearance to businessmen that it is finally saver to grow or create businesses again.

If Obama wins, successful people will just stop making a living, so they won't be bled dry by taxes and unemployment will reach as much as 30% or more...like Greece.

You realize Romney is good with Businesses out sourcing labor to other countries which is great for the corporations but doesn't do crap for the American people in general

@joshmightbe said:

@_Black said:

@Roxanne Starr said:

@_Black said:

Ah, I don't care for either candidate. I'll probably vote for Ron Paul again.

I LOVE Ron Paul! But I'm voting for Mitt.

The important thing is sending that jerk Obama back to Chicago, where he belongs.

Then we can fumigate the White House and put a REAL president in there.

Lol me too. He doesn't seem like your typical, sneaky politician.

If I had to make a choice today I would side with Romney. I just disagree with Obama's energy plan and (from what I know) I don't agree with Obamacare.

Obamacare is actually based on the Healthcare plan Romney put in place in Mass. So technically Romney invented Obamacare and is now talking about how bad an idea he came up with in the first place is. Not saying Obama is any better I just like to point out that they're both hypocrites and voting for either of them is pointless.

That's interesting. Like you, I don't care for either. They're typical politicians.

@Owie said:

@_Black said:

@_Black said:

Lol me too. He doesn't seem like your typical, sneaky politician.

If I had to make a choice today I would side with Romney. I just disagree with Obama's energy plan and (from what I know) I don't agree with Obamacare.

What exactly don't you like about Obama's energy plan and Obamacare? His energy plan is essentially to use all forms of energy, from gas to oil to wind to solar. While Romney's is to use only carbon-based fuels. Which, considering climate change, is really, really scary. Obamacare is really 2 things: it creates pools out of the existing private insurance plans, so it's easier to buy the best plan for the cheapest amount of money. This is capitalism at it's purest, and was originally written by the Republicans in the 90s. And, it creates numerous consumer protection rules so that insurance companies can't screw you as easily as they used to. That's it in a nutshell. What's wrong with that?

Obama's energy plan considers basically all forms of energy production but obviously has an affinity for renewable types. I don't have a problem with that in itself, but giving incentives to industries that should be thriving on their own and making it tougher on industries like coal which is already in a tough spot, that I have problems with. Technology is available for clean coal production and the only reason it hasn't seen widespread use is its cost. I don't see why money incentives are sent that way. China and India are burning through dirty coal like it's the Industrial Revolution again and their consumption rate is only going to increase. America has the largest reserve of coal in the world; I don't see why we can't get good use out of it, especially in this recession. We obviously need to diversify our energy portfolio, but coal still generates half of our country's energy. That's just something that's literally impossible to replace at the moment. I thought both Obama and Romney desired to use all available energy types. I know I've heard both say they would.

I'd veto Obamacare just to stop my mom from griping about it. In all seriousness though, it's another thing that hard-working middle class people are going to have to pick up other people's slack, reminiscent of welfare. The thought is good of course, to have health insurance for all, but it's punishing people who actually have a decent job with insurance. That's my take on it so far.

OK, I appreciate your reasonable argument. I think there are a few main reasons we should give incentives to renewable energy. One is, new technology almost always needs incentives before it is ready to go. The government has supported all kinds of infrastructure in the past, as a way of helping it along until it was ready to work on its own. This goes for trains, roads, telephones, and internet technology. And in this case, a lot of the most proressive tech (purely technologically, and ignoring the social factor) is in the renewable sector. By not putting U.S. money in it, this country will fall behind other countries, which are putting huge money into it. Eventually, whether it's 10 years from now or 50 years from now, renewable energy is going to be the main energy source in the world. If we don't own the patents, etc., someone else will, and they'll have the money and the power (literally) over us. It's closer than many realize--Germany, for instance, gets 20% of its energy from renewable sources right now. They're pumping all kinds of money into it, and we get farther and farther behind the tech of the future. Also, in terms of not giving money to industries that can't stand on their own, it seems to me that those are exactly the industries that need it. Oil, for instance, gets huge subsidies, yet they are some of the most profitable companies on earth. Why not take their subsidies and give them to renewables? This is something that the Democrats have tried to do, and the Republicans consistently block. Clean coal, as I understand it, is not really all that clean; its cleanliness is somewhat of a false front by its proponents. But I'm fine with putting money into it to improve it more. When it comes to why we should give incentives to renewables and take it away from coal, first I don't know if it's a zero sum equation. We could give incentives to both. But if I was going to give it to one, I would go with renewables. Any jobs that coal lost would be jobs gained by renewables, so that's not really a problem, statistically. For the people who lose their jobs, of course it is a real problem, and there should be money given for retraining, as there has been in other fields. In the end, though, Obama's plan isn't going to ignore fossil fuels. In fact, he gets a lot of heat from Democrats because he's opened huge amounts of gas and oil reserves that more-liberal Democrats are against. He just wants to make sure we have a serious renewable initiative in place as we continue to use the available fossil fuels. Romney has in the past used the Republicans' "all of the above" energy strategy, a phrase they took from the Democrats after the 2008 election. This strategy at least putatively said they wanted some renewables, although the vast majority of their plan was fossil fuels. But what made Romney's recent energy plan (the one I linked to earlier) so shocking was that he broke away from that, and is now only, singularly, planning to use fossil fuels. This is a definite change from his past statements, so you are correct when you've heard him be in favor of renewables in the past. Now he's changed his mind. When it comes to Obamacare, it won't actually punish people with existing job insurance. It will help them, by lowering their premiums. The only people it will monetarily effect in a negative way are young people who currently have no insurance. Under Obamacare, they will have to get insurance, thereby costing them money they were not previously paying. But, because there will be so many more people in the insurance system, the overall premiums for everyone else, who were already paying for insurance, will be lowered. So there's no drag by the poor on the middle class. There is an expansion of Medicaid, but that's an existing program, and it really just makes the most skinflint states live up to the standards of more normal states. Basically, each state can decide what amount of money you can make in order to be covered by Medicaid. They decide it by a percentage of the offical federal definition of the poverty level. So some states say that if you make even just $5000, you make too much to get Medicaid. Other states say you can make up to, say, $20,000. The new law just makes the money level uniform, instead of state by state. It would increase the amount of poor people getting insurance, but again it is actually a cost cutter. Right now, the poor go to emergency rooms for medical care, instead of using insurance. Emergency rooms are legally required to help. And emergency rooms are also super expensive. So by getting all those people to stop going to emergency rooms, and start getting normal health care, including preventative care, it ends up saving a lot of money.

Insightful post. I agree with you in that incentives should be given to renewable and coal companies. I'm not really sure why they would be given to oil companies. We send too much oil overseas anyways. There are ways to capture basically all of the carbon released from coal emissions, but of course, it costs a lot more. Renewable energy is not completely without pollution either. America honestly needs all the energy it can in the years to come; we can't afford to let any industry lag behind. The coal industry is tough right now obviously, wind has its inherent problems, nuclear has a bad reputation, and I'm worried about our solar industry. My professor and I were talking a month or two ago about this. I'm majoring in mining engineering at the moment and he was excited about how rare earth metals were being found and how the demand for them was increasing drastically. One such reason, however, is that China is now buying the metals from America. They do this because they now get the metals from us and then build whatever it is they need, instead of buying the more expensive finished product from us. One of these products is solar panels. Hopefully competition will bring out the best in us though.

Like I said, I don't know much about Obamacare. My opinion stems from my mom complaining about having to pay more money. I still don't understand why or how. But from what you've stated, it sounds like a good plan.

@Vaeternus said:

@AtPhantom said:

Well, some countries are obviously more conservative or liberal due to their policies, some are more communist, others socialist etc. But I'm saying at the end of the day, they're a different countries that's different from America. Ok, so if I may why did you bring up the whole immigrant factor then if I may? For the left vs. right aspect alone?

You're not really saying anything here. You're just going on a vague tangent how everyone is different to ignore the point that people are clearly proposing and enacting far more leftist policies than Obama. Yes, our entire discussion here is left vs right. Pay attention.

@Vaeternus said:

lol dude, I live in NYC you can't get more liberal then here...I've met and meet lots of people between offline and online, and nobody has felt this way that Obama is a righty to any degree despite their political affiliation. K, since we covered the abortion, immigrant thing but the rest weren't really covered. We killed Bin Laden while Obama was in, but if not for Bush we never would have gotten him this year. Clinton had a few chances to nail him but passed...but concerning dealing and how to treat Terror cells, Bush and Obama are very different. Bush believed in treating them like terrorists guilty as such, Obama on the other hand feels they should be treated as common criminals...

Yeah, remember when Obama had Bin Laden taken before a court and tried in a legislative process like a proper criminal? Because I don't. Or hell, remember when he closed down Guantanamo?

NYC is far, far, far from the most liberal place you can visit. And until you're able to buy weed in any coffee shop or see gay couples get married without questioning (A bit less than half your state is still opposed to it), you don't get to claim that.

As for people online, Isuggestgoogling.

@Vaeternus said:

Like the pro abortion, free universal healthcare, negotiating with terrorists. Obviously the healthcare is the biggest issue with Obama, agreed? I mean it's the one thing he's going to leave regardless if this is his last term or not. I mean most people are either against it or for it, it's 50/50 really.

Obamacare is still a compromise due to outsourcing parts of it to private insurance policies rather than keeping it entirely in the public sector. So even there Obama isn't left enough.

@MrDirector786 said:

@AtPhantom said:

enormously broad spectrum of left to the left of what you think is left

I want to say something witty about this particular part... but I can't think of anything.

Ha ha, my witty language knows no bounds!

@Roxanne Starr said:

@isaac_clarke said:

"It doesn't matter what Romney does - President Obama must lose."

EXACTLY!!! If he is re-elected the US will definitely turn into Greece. If Mitt wins, at least it will give the appearance to businessmen that it is finally saver to grow or create businesses again.

Explain to me how America will turn into Greece if the President is re-elected - because that is an incredibly leap from point of view.

In what shape or form have business 'men'(apparently women aren't included in this) stopped trying to make more money?

If Obama wins, successful people will just stop making a living, so they won't be bled dry by taxes and unemployment will reach as much as 30% or more...like Greece.

Successful Businessman: "Oh my, looks like President Obama has been re-elected. Time to shut down my factories / hotels / car-dealerships / my flower-shop / whatever business I'm running that provides me income!"

Stay Home Kitchen Wife: "Why would you do that honey?"

Successful Businessman: "Because this President Obama fellow is going to bleed me dry with taxes! - I was really banking on Mitt Romney to win - how can I keep my employees employed without massive tax cuts to my personal income?!"

Successful Businessman: "I mean sure, tax rates are lower than they've been during President Reagan's years or President Clinton's - but that's because he's just biding his time to tax me!"

Stay Home Kitchen Wife: "Oh dear, what can we do?!"

Successful Businessman: "Move out of the country - someone where were there isn't any of that Obamacare or taxes on job creators such as myself! Maybe Costa Rica?! You know that place that large man on the radio said he would go once Obamacare was implemented! Gosh dang that socialized medicine!"

Stay Home Kitchen Wife: "But honey I read in a magazine that Costa Rica have universal healthcare?"

Successful Businessman: "What did I tell you about reading?!"

People that can make money - shocker - will continue to make money. The idea that they are going to shut down their businesses, lay off their workers and what have you in the event that President Obama is re-elected is nonsensical. Much like this notion that unemployment will suddenly skyrocket past the unemployment levels of the Great Depression. Might be time to turn of the radio and look up into the sky, then take a collective breath - look around and see - nothing major will actually change in the world around you in the event that President Obama is re-elected.

Hypocrasy is a non-sectarian concept. This is America. You do not have to be a Liberal to be a hypocrite. You don't need to be conservative to be dumb either. These things know no party. Everybody is a hypocrite in the long run.

@Roxanne Starr said:

@joshmightbe said:

Not saying Obama is any better I just like to point out that they're both hypocrites and voting for either of them is pointless.

Ron Paul would be my first choice, but most Americans are dumb as dirt...so Paul would never stand a chance of being elected. Romney is ALMOST as much of a socialist as Obama is...but at least he's not Obama.

Obama is the living, breathing manifestation of failure...and he's also a thug...not a gentleman like Mitt.

Mitt a gentleman? Because Gentlemen are known for running campaign ads that take his "jerk" opponent completely out of context or have his campaign dispatching two dozen hecklers to disrupt their appearances - all when questioned using his favorite expression: "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"

Hell I heard when he went out of the states over-seas that everyone simply adored his gentlemanly manner! Everyone that works with him is similarly a gentleman - especially to reporters at a Polish Holy-site.

@isaac_clarke said:

@Roxanne Starr said:

@isaac_clarke said:

"It doesn't matter what Romney does - President Obama must lose."

EXACTLY!!! If he is re-elected the US will definitely turn into Greece. If Mitt wins, at least it will give the appearance to businessmen that it is finally saver to grow or create businesses again.

Explain to me how America will turn into Greece if the President is re-elected - because that is an incredibly leap from point of view.

In what shape or form have business 'men'(apparently women aren't included in this) stopped trying to make more money?

If Obama wins, successful people will just stop making a living, so they won't be bled dry by taxes and unemployment will reach as much as 30% or more...like Greece.

Successful Businessman: "Oh my, looks like President Obama has been re-elected. Time to shut down my factories / hotels / car-dealerships / my flower-shop / whatever business I'm running that provides me income!"

Stay Home Kitchen Wife: "Why would you do that honey?"

Successful Businessman: "Because this President Obama fellow is going to bleed me dry with taxes! - I was really banking on Mitt Romney to win - how can I keep my employees employed without massive tax cuts to my personal income?!"

Successful Businessman: "I mean sure, tax rates are lower than they've been during President Reagan's years or President Clinton's - but that's because he's just biding his time to tax me!"

Stay Home Kitchen Wife: "Oh dear, what can we do?!"

Successful Businessman: "Move out of the country - someone where were there isn't any of that Obamacare or taxes on job creators such as myself! Maybe Costa Rica?! You know that place that large man on the radio said he would go once Obamacare was implemented! Gosh dang that socialized medicine!"

Stay Home Kitchen Wife: "But honey I read in a magazine that Costa Rica have universal healthcare?"

Successful Businessman: "What did I tell you about reading?!"

People that can make money - shocker - will continue to make money. The idea that they are going to shut down their businesses, lay off their workers and what have you in the event that President Obama is re-elected is nonsensical. Much like this notion that unemployment will suddenly skyrocket past the unemployment levels of the Great Depression. Might be time to turn of the radio and look up into the sky, then take a collective breath - look around and see - nothing major will actually change in the world around you in the event that President Obama is re-elected.

Most business people are men. But most new businesses formed in the US in the last 10 years have been started by women. Hell, when I had my own business, I used to be a woman TOO!

But, I'll tell you this about the differences between men and women, when I WAS a businesswoman, my accountant was a man. I would never have a woman handling my books. In a business, too much estrogen is a recipe for disaster.

@Roxanne Starr said:

Most business people are men. But most new businesses formed in the US in the last 10 years have been started by women. Hell, when I had my own business, I used to be a woman TOO!
But, I'll tell you this about the differences between men and women, when I WAS a businesswoman, my accountant was a man. I would never have a woman handling my books. In a business, too much estrogen is a recipe for disaster.

Just about as bad as testosterone in my book. I mean, look at the wonders of a world dominated in every sense of the word by men.

@isaac_clarke said:

@Roxanne Starr said:

Most business people are men. But most new businesses formed in the US in the last 10 years have been started by women. Hell, when I had my own business, I used to be a woman TOO!
But, I'll tell you this about the differences between men and women, when I WAS a businesswoman, my accountant was a man. I would never have a woman handling my books. In a business, too much estrogen is a recipe for disaster.

Just about as bad as testosterone in my book. I mean, look at the wonders of a world dominated in every sense of the word by men.

Sigh...you continue to theorize about issues that you have absolutely no real world experience in, Isaac.

Business people do not start or expand their businesses in a financial environment that is seen to be Anti-Free-Enterprise.

You are over 21, right? Open a business of your own. If you don't have the money, borrow it from a bank (if you can find a bank anymore that will lend you money to start a small business). If you will just do that...I'll talk to you in a year...and ask you how your business is doing.

If you are not willing to take that risk...that is my proof that you are as afraid of what Obama has done to America as every other person out there who has a clue as to how business works.

And if you tell me that you don't WANT to start a business, that's fine. Then you can just stop talking about business, period, since the mere concept of a Free Market economy is lost on you.

Well, gotta agree there Rox ;) Obama's charisma was rather "charming" making people faint at speeches in 08 if you remember, so I guess being a gentleman or having good charisma means little and still still be a horrible President ;)

twenty, obviously both parties have been both dumb and hypocritical at times.

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Vaeternus said:

Ron or Mitt would be billion times better then what we have no lol he curious where you are is it red or blue state? I forgot where you're from, no need to say where if you don't want to. For some reason I was thinking Florida lol but I don't think you're there.

I grew up in NYC, but have lived in Georgia (arguably the Reddest state other than Texas) since 1980.

@isaac_clarke said:

"It doesn't matter what Romney does - President Obama must lose."

EXACTLY!!! If he is re-elected the US will definitely turn into Greece. If Mitt wins, at least it will give the appearance to businessmen that it is finally saver to grow or create businesses again.

If Obama wins, successful people will just stop making a living, so they won't be bled dry by taxes and unemployment will reach as much as 30% or more...like Greece.

Right, right your bio states such too. My fault, I just forgot where your current location is/was. Really? Good, at least you're not surrounded by radicals like me then. lol I hear people are more friendly down south in general too.

@AtPhantom said:

Yeah, I'm saying each country is different and in this case especially from the USA....so I'm not so sure why you're using Europe per-se as a base point for an argument. I'm not saying you're putting up a flawed or bad one, just saying to me it doesn't quite mix with a USA debate since they're very different overall then we are. They're more socialist liberal, we aren't. I see us as very mixed especially right now. I never said it wasn't about left or right, when did I say this?

Yeah, Bin Laden was an OBVIOUS choice to kill which we were hunting thanks to Bush(Clinton as I said had his chance but passed for questionable reasons) Obviously is Obama didn't kill Bin Laden he would have been questioned, while his quick dismiss of his Body pulling a "Megatron" on Bin Laden still raises some question with some people, but that's another story lol. But I was talking about mass terrorists we had under Bush with Guantanamo Bay...not so much "Bin Laden"

Oh, NYC is definitely one of the most liberal places...I've lived here my whole life, I think I'd know. 9 out of 10 people outside of my particual borough love Obama and are often liberal, clearly you've never lived here. Uh, perhaps you're behind on the facts. Gay Marriage is LEGAL and passed here in NY. So, yes to answer your question. I do and have seen gay sex marriage couples...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html?pagewanted=all

You may want to google info yourself and do more research next time. Who cares about weed? You can't buy weed legally in most places in the USA...random to bring that up.

Yes, Obamacare is a compromise but mostly at the people's behalf and medical professionals. That's very debatable as some insurance companies are cutting back because of Obamacare, not good...Obama is very left as far as I'm concerned so we may as well agree to disagree. Which I'm fine with.

@Vaeternus:

See, I told you I'd have time to hang in Off-Topic for awhile, Pete. :D

Since my new project thread is kinda stuck on that image of the bird and the dog...I had to find something to do with myself. LOL!

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Vaeternus:

See, I told you I'd have time to hang in Off-Topic for awhile, Pete. :D

Since my new project thread is kinda stuck on that image of the bird and the dog...I had to find something to do with myself. LOL!

Haha, awesome! Yeah I hear ya. I'm awaiting patiently for that vid going up tomorrow at 3AM, since he puts them up at that time due to views being most high at that time eastern time.

But yeah, this thread is rather amusing I'd say.;)

@Vaeternus said:

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Vaeternus:

See, I told you I'd have time to hang in Off-Topic for awhile, Pete. :D

Since my new project thread is kinda stuck on that image of the bird and the dog...I had to find something to do with myself. LOL!

Haha, awesome! Yeah I hear ya. I'm awaiting patiently for that vid going up tomorrow at 3AM, since he puts them up at that time due to views being most high at that time eastern time.

But yeah, this thread is rather amusing I'd say.;)

It's amusing and kinda sad at the same time. There are those who will stick up for Obama no matter how pathetically inept he is. I think those who have been doing that on this thread are just regurgitating what their professors have told them...professors who have no idea what the real world is all about.

@Vaeternus said:

Yeah, I'm saying each country is different and in this case especially from the USA....so I'm not so sure why you're using Europe per-se as a base point for an argument. I'm not saying you're putting up a flawed or bad one, just saying to me it doesn't quite mix with a USA debate since they're very different overall then we are. They're more socialist liberal, we aren't. I see us as very mixed especially right now. I never said it wasn't about left or right, when did I say this?

I'm trying to show you that what you consider radical socialist and liberal isn't radical socialist and liberal by global standards. Or even left at all. Why is this eluding you? That's basically been the theme since the beginning. I mean if you want to I could compare US politics with that of pinky space martians, but sadly there aren't any so Europe is the only other thing I have to go on for comparison.

@Vaeternus said:

Yeah, Bin Laden was an OBVIOUS choice to kill which we were hunting thanks to Bush(Clinton as I said had his chance but passed for questionable reasons) Obviously is Obama didn't kill Bin Laden he would have been questioned, while his quick dismiss of his Body pulling a "Megatron" on Bin Laden still raises some question with some people, but that's another story lol. But I was talking about mass terrorists we had under Bush with Guantanamo Bay...not so much "Bin Laden"

Guantanamo bay is still open If there aren't any terrorists what are they keeping there? Unicorns? Cobra Commander?

@Vaeternus said:

Oh, NYC is definitely one of the most liberal places...I've lived here my whole life, I think I'd know. 9 out of 10 people outside of my particual borough love Obama and are often liberal, clearly you've never lived here. Uh, perhaps you're behind on the facts. Gay Marriage is LEGAL and passed here in NY. So, yes to answer your question. I do and have seen gay sex marriage couples...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/nyregion/gay-marriage-approved-by-new-york-senate.html?pagewanted=all

You may want to google info yourself and do more research next time. Who cares about weed? You can't buy weed legally in most places in the USA...random to bring that up.

39% of NY state is opposed to gay marriage (Which is what I said, I mean seriously, do you actually read my posts?). This percentage is far far less in Northern Europe, meaning Northern Europe is far more liberal than NY.

@Vaeternus said:

You may want to google info yourself and do more research next time. Who cares about weed? You can't buy weed legally in most places in the USA...random to bring that up.

Legalization of drugs is a liberal policy. There are countries where drugs are legal. Drugs aren't legal in NY. Therefore there are countries more liberal than NY. Therefore NY isn't as liberal as it gets. Why do I need to spell this out for you?

@Vaeternus said:

Yes, Obamacare is a compromise but mostly at the people's behalf and medical professionals. That's very debatable as some insurance companies are cutting back because of Obamacare, not good...Obama is very left as far as I'm concerned so we may as well agree to disagree. Which I'm fine with.

You're not disagreeing with me. You're just ignoring everything I say and then act like you rebutted my arguments. This isn't how debating works.

@atphantom,

So, are you just like completely ignoring the fact that NY State has again officially PASSED Gay Marriage? BEcause that seemed to just fly right over your hear yet you're telling me I ignore things? Right..Depends on your definition of "radical or socialist", I'm well aware of what both are as well as what Obama is, and I see haunting similarities. And a Righty he is not...I don't understand why again you're using foreign countries as a base for your argument, when we're talking about USA issues. Let Europe be Europe, and USA be the USA.

Yeah, and how many Terrorists are in G. Bay currently? Exactly...

No, I'm disagreeing with you. I'm well aware of how debating works, disagreement and debating go hand in hand. Do you not know this? Thus why it's a DEBATE. When Obama and Romney go at it, are they NOT disagreeing with one another? I don't think you quite understand that some of us don't agree nor see everything the same way Obama supporters do though. Why do liberals just not see or respect another person's views different then your own? I've always been amazed by this honestly.

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Vaeternus said:

@Roxanne Starr said:

@Vaeternus:

See, I told you I'd have time to hang in Off-Topic for awhile, Pete. :D

Since my new project thread is kinda stuck on that image of the bird and the dog...I had to find something to do with myself. LOL!

Haha, awesome! Yeah I hear ya. I'm awaiting patiently for that vid going up tomorrow at 3AM, since he puts them up at that time due to views being most high at that time eastern time.

But yeah, this thread is rather amusing I'd say.;)

It's amusing and kinda sad at the same time. There are those who will stick up for Obama no matter how pathetically inept he is. I think those who have been doing that on this thread are just regurgitating what their professors have told them...professors who have no idea what the real world is all about.

Indeed. Well, it's like the old phrase. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it". Some people sadly keep drinking the mainstream kool-aid, flavored "Obama-aid" in this case lol. They feel it tastes good, but just don't care if it's good for them much less read into the ingredients. They like it and that's all that matters to them, they don't care about what's best for the country as you've stated.. With luck, this will be Obama's first and only term.

@ZombieBigfoot said:

Still not a bigger idiot than Romney.

Yeah, I'd say Obama is a bigger one...

Yeah, I'd say Obama is a bigger one...

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/31/157637454/controversy-followed-romney-on-overseas-trip - In the matter of days he has England and Palestine both angry and offended by his comments.

Thank you for the links. I have a lot of respect for someone who takes the time to give good backup to their positions.

I read the NPR article, and out of the two points, I only .5 as a valid criticism. Regarding the Palestenian comments, I agree with Romney completely. I do not see how it can be considered racist to say that a nation’s lack of success is due to its attitudes and actions. Also, the Palestinians take any support of Israel as an affront to them. It is nearly impossible not to offend them.

The England situation is a bit different. I could not readily find a good original quote from Romney. If he just randomly offered his view that England might not be ready for the games, then that is a blunder, but on the other hand, if he was asked his opinion, he should be allowed to answer honestly. It is not as if he had no reason for the comment for he later elaborated that though he did believe England had done a great deal of preparation for the work, “"There are a few things that were disconcerting, the stories about the private security firm not having enough people, supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.” That seems perfectly reasonable to me, but again, it depends how it came up originally.

The complete reversal in stances on issues part of what I was referring to. The Romney of 1994 is more or less fighting his future counterpart.

The bit about the blind trust is interesting and hypocritical on Romney’s part.

The bit about Obama’s “You didn’t build that!” versus Romeny’s comments doesn’t hold any water for me. First of all, Romney’s comments were so spliced together that you could not get the gist of what he was saying. Second, nobody denies that the government provides necessary services. The part that riled up conservatives was that President Obama basically said that the government was responsible for individual’s successes. There is a big difference in saying, “government services help people” and “the government is responsible for what you as an individual accomplish.

I'm not a Romney fan myself. I don't know if I will even vote for him, but I do think Obama is by far the worse to the two evils.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Sorry this has what to do with comics?

Sorry this has what to do with comics?

@Vaeternus said:

So, are you just like completely ignoring the fact that NY State has again officially PASSED Gay Marriage? BEcause that seemed to just fly right over your hear yet you're telling me I ignore things? Right..Depends on your definition of "radical or socialist", I'm well aware of what both are as well as what Obama is, and I see haunting similarities. And a Righty he is not...I don't understand why again you're using foreign countries as a base for your argument, when we're talking about USA issues. Let Europe be Europe, and USA be the USA.

You really are ingenious. My point is that left by American standards isn't left by world standards. How do you suppose I prove that without comparing it to the rest of the world?

@Vaeternus said:

Yeah, and how many Terrorists are in G. Bay currently? Exactly...

168 from 24 different countries as of August 2012.

@Vaeternus said:

No, I'm disagreeing with you. I'm well aware of how debating works, disagreement and debating go hand in hand. Do you not know this? Thus why it's a DEBATE. When Obama and Romney go at it, are they NOT disagreeing with one another? I don't think you quite understand that some of us don't agree nor see everything the same way Obama supporters do though. Why do liberals just not see or respect another person's views different then your own? I've always been amazed by this honestly.

Spare me your polite persecution complex. A debate is when you actually respond to your opponent's arguments. I've presented you with examples and examples of leftist policies Obama would never do, and all you're giving back is "Nope, still left. Still radical."

@AtPhantom:

Anti-Colonialism basically means you oppose the west's further exploitation of their world countries (Which has its roots in the European colonialism in the 16th century). Colonialism isn't strictly empire building because you're not necessarily building an empire, you're just siphoning resources. Invasion of Iraq is a textbook example of neo-colonialism, a country invaded solely for the purpose of easier control and exploitation of its oil.

Thanks for the info. As long as the country is okay with us taking their resources, I have absolutely no problem with that. Does that make me colonialist or anti-colonialist.

Anti-colonialism is a great ideal to have but is often unworkable in practice because, well, no country wants to actually give up any advantage it has, even if that advantage comes by keeping other countries in the dirt.

I don’t buy into the idea that trading for other nations’ resources makes other nations poor.

In that sense Obama is by means anti-colonial. Yes, he pulled out of Iraq, but he didn't do it out of some grand ideal, he did it because Iraw was costing money and lives, because it went pass the point US troops could do any meaningful work there, and it was the sensible thing to do. Any other reasonable president would have done the same.

I’m not going to get into whether or not Obama is an anti-colonialist because it is still a new concept to me, and I am not yet sure it is even a worthwhile concept. It seems to buy into the Marxist assumption that rich make the poor. I’m a Libertarian. I say if another country wants to do business with us, let’s do business. If they do not, then we mind our own business.

And? You remember I said presidents, not Republicans as a whole.

Yes, and if you look at the majority of Republican Presidents, they still do not agree with Obama’s policies. You were trying to say that Obama was not liberal because of these few examples you could summon where conservative Presidents supported typically liberal positions. I have clearly demonstrated that these are the exceptions and you are being either vastly misinformed or intentionally intellectually dishonest by suggesting that Obama is not liberal because of these few policy decisions made by Republicans.

Regardless of their party goals, past presidents were willing tocompromise(That oh so central skill in politics) and push for even liberal policies they recognized as being good ideas.

Many Presidents are willing to compromise. I would like a President who actually stands for something myself. Every compromise is going to move the ball (metaphor here) one way or another. The ball will either move further towards government control or further towards individual liberties. I don’t want any compromise on my freedom.

Sticking to your ideals,right or wrong, is one of the measures of how radical a political party is.

I disagree. I would say that is an indication of how much integrity a political party has.

Also, liberal apologist?Seriously?

You came up with an extremely convoluted argument to suggest that Obama was not liberal. That was either something you came up with yourself after thinking about these issues frequently or intensely, or it was something that you took from somebody else and copied and pasted here. If it is the formed, then you have spent a lot of time coming up with ways to spin information to look good for your party which I called a liberal apologist. If it was the latter, then you are a drone who repeats what others tell you. The use of the whole Nazi rule (I forget the term) seemed like the kind of thing that only someone who frequently gets into political debates would know, so, yes, apologist. In fairness, I could accurately be called a Libertarian apologist.

@PsychoKnights said:

Wow. If being anti-colonial means letting your power diminish, I would be proud to call myself colonial. Regardless, the amount of killing you are willing to do has nothing to do with conservatism.

I’m guessing full-fledged liberal apologist considering the Godwin reference.

Hey, you're the one who invoke Stalin for no reason whatsoever. The first reason you gave for Obama being a conservative is that “He’s killed as many people as anyone,” or something to that affect clearly linking killing to a right wing agenda. I mentioned Stalin because he was a leftist and he has the highest body count for the last century. That was my reasoning, and I think it was pretty clear.

You also missed my point that Obama isn't a high and mighty anti-colonial idealist, but rather pragmatical in his policies. He's also willing tocompromise.

I did not miss your point, I just disagree with it. Why don’t you show me all the times where he worked in a spirit of cooperation (not where he just said, we should have a spirit of cooperation) and willingly gave up some of his goals to appease conservatives. Not times the congress forced his hands, times he willingly compromised. I, in turn, will post times where he has demeaned those who have opposed him and done his best to force through legislation to his liking. We will see who runs out first.

I didn't say 'you' toyouthough. Apologies if it seemed that way.

No big. Simply misunderstanding.

Yes I'm talking about the anti-abortion stance. And yes I think the guy is evil. Even if he lived in a cave on Mars for the past four decades and so missed the 'latest' breakthroughs in biology that even elementary kids know, the very fact that he brought it up is insulting because it marginalizes the women thatdoget pregnant from rape. He's basically saying that that doesn't happen very often so we don't have to worry about those it happens to, which is still blatantly misogynist.

Before I respond to specifics, you have just said that it is evil to be misinformed. I would not hold that view if I were you, but obviously, you are not me, or I would be having this conversation in my head. (grins)

He never said that we do not have to worry about those that are raped, he was simply saying (incorrectly) that it was rare for this to even happen. It is not blatantly misogynistic to point out that a problem does not occur very often.

I took thecentral point of the articleand declared that it makes no sense. So if that's not true, I like to be critical and discover what else is true.

Nonsense. The central point of the article is that Obama lets his brother live in poverty. That is fact. The conservative’s opinion as to the reason is a minor concern in comparison, and it is just an opinion. Opinions are mixed in with factual articles all the time, and I think you know that.

And look, some moregoogle:

Now, the shy but bright Mr Obama said, "I want to work hard and get myself to somewhere more comfortable".

He will not be calling on his famous brother for help, however.

"We have only met twice, once when I was five or six, and again in 2006," he said. " I cannot say that we are close, he probably does not even think about me. I am not going to start pestering him, I don't want to look to him for help, I want to achieve things for myself.

"I don't even tell people that I am related to Barack Obama, I don't want people here to be harassing me because they think I have money or influence. I have nothing like that, I am a person who likes to live quietly.

Also:

But reports surfaced in the past few days, springing from an Italian Vanity Fair article saying George Obama is living in a shack and "earning less than a dollar a day."

The reports left him angry.

"I was brought up well. I live well even now," he said. "The magazines, they have exaggerated everything.

"I think I kind of like it here. There are some challenges, but maybe it is just like where you come from, there are the same challenges," Obama said.

George Obama may not have asked for help. The more important issue is whether Barack ever offered help. The fact is that Barack has a living brother living in poverty, and he has made no move to help him. Any man worth his salt would be embarrassed to ask a relative he hardly knows for help, and any man who actually believes in taking care of his brother would, oh, I don’t know, take care of his brother.

Also, even though George Obama was embarrassed to ask for help, he was willing to ask this conservative filmmaker. Do you really think he would refuse Barack if he had ever taken the time to check up on him? It is clear that George did not want Barack to do his work for him, but I he clearly would not refuse help in an emergency situation.

No, don't get me wrong, if it were true, it would be pretty inexcusable, but George Obama quite apparently doesn'twanthelp from his brother.

Just documentary filmmakers?

He says he does not want to let people know that Barack. And who can blame him, he met him twice in his life. He probably knows the guy who wrote the article far better than Obama, so it wouldn't be a surprise that he talked to him first.

Don’t you think that is a fault of Barack’s for not getting to know his brother?

EDIT:

@Vaeternus said:

Actually, it's not my "my standards" it's by actual fact. No righty or Republican for that matter agrees or supports what Obama is doing or his policies(hell even his fellow democrats don't agree)

Anyone who thinks Obama is really "right wing" is either off their horse or just not familiar with politics at heart. I don't even mean that as any kind of insult, just the truth. How is Obama right? lol. If anything, on the contrary Obama is so far left he makes JFK very conservative if anything.

There are no facts. Right and left wing are determined solely by popular consensus. So yeah, it is solely your standards.

@ZombieBigfoot:

You do realize that Obama has more than his fair share of gaffs which the media just does not cover, right? I'll provide such if it would be of interest to you.

I have no doubt the President Obama is intelligent, but I am equally sure that Romney is considerably intelligent. I do not believe you get to that level without an at least moderate amount of intelligence. So far, nobody has given me anything to indicate Romney is stupid. Someone just posted a couple of his gaffs, and they were mostly easily dismissed. The one which was not completely dismissed hardly proves stupidity for such a minor mistake.

I believe Obama is a very bad person, but I do not hold any high esteem for Romney's morality either. I do have slightly less dirt on him, but I would lift up neither as moral arbiters.

@pooty:

I agree...more or less. Both Romney and Obama are big government types who try to solve the world's problems by giving the government more power. Obama is just into making government bigger faster than Romney is. That will be the death of freedom, but you are right. Stop relying on government and rely on yourself. Take care of yourself and yours.

@Vance Astro said

Well, I don't like most politicians but yeah you probably know by now I dislike Obama's policies a lot....that is all.

@TheCrowbar said:

Sorry this has what to do with comics?

lol to be honest dude. I said the same thing when I discovered today there's an "Obama" forum on a comic site.

@PsychoKnights said:

Hey there, welcome back in the fold. lol Not sure I understand your post entirely, did you quote every post since last time you posted? Or if you were agreeing with the dude who said Obama is a righty, I don't agree with that. lol

@atphantom,

lol, and I suppose you're rather unique given your stance as well.

World standards? See, this is what I really don't understand why you're bringing up other countries. For one, their definitions of similar parties is different. Because we're talking about this country(USA) not what the rest of the world does. You know in some places illegal drugs are considered normal...because nothing is wrong with that right? Yet people complain about guns and tobacco here...

Yes, from various countries...what about US exclusively though? Regardless of exact number, Obama is and has trasferred them to less secure facilities. Why?

Oh I felt I was being really nice, but seriously just pointing the obvious out there. Yes, and every person in this topic (minus one person in here who felt the need to insult me and someon eelse due to different views) have responded in a relatively mature fashion. You've presented me with your opinion of what the "left" is based on foreign country policies...not the USA, which is what I'm referring gto being as how Obama is an American President. I've also supplied facts earlier concerning why Obama isn't a righty. I do give you props for not insulting others. This is why I just want you and I to agree to disagree...

@Roxanne Starr said:

Sigh...you continue to theorize about issues that you have absolutely no real world experience in, Isaac.

Business people do not start or expand their businesses in a financial environment that is seen to be Anti-Free-Enterprise.

You are over 21, right? Open a business of your own. If you don't have the money, borrow it from a bank (if you can find a bank anymore that will lend you money to start a small business). If you will just do that...I'll talk to you in a year...and ask you how your business is doing.

If you are not willing to take that risk...that is my proof that you are as afraid of what Obama has done to America as every other person out there who has a clue as to how business works.

And if you tell me that you don't WANT to start a business, that's fine. Then you can just stop talking about business, period, since the mere concept of a Free Market economy is lost on you.

I guess my previous posts that you selectively responded to struck a cord - given this response in it's entirety has very little to do with what is being responded to.

This is your 'evidence' for how the United States will become 'Greece' with 30% unemployment on the event of President Obama's re-election? Banks not being frivolous with loans? Why stop there?

It's clear on the events of President Obama's re-election the machines will rise and become our new overlords, those guys from hellraiser will be chaining and murdering at will and women will finally dominate the business men! Estrogen everywhere!!!

Here's the problem Rox, I'm living here in reality. I can't hop onto your little crazy train of conservative radio and cry out the sky is falling. You know what is going to happen if President Obama is re-elected? Nothing. The world will still be here and your life is going to stay much the same. Even in the event of Romney being elected - it again is going to be much the same - he isn't going to zap the regulation put in place to prevent another global financial crisis - he isn't going to snap his fingers to make Paul Ryan's ridiculous budget go through either.

Saying this President is against free-market is just as absurd as saying President Bush was because he signed off on a bank bailout (which your Prophet Beck signed off on - therefore it must be good!). Otherwise the Government would have swooped in and taken over the auto-industry and banking industries. Instead they gave them a lot of money to prevent a global collapse of the economy (if I recall Romney was even trying to take credit for the auto-bailout given how successful it was).

@Vaeternus said:

Well, gotta agree there Rox ;) Obama's charisma was rather "charming" making people faint at speeches in 08 if you remember, so I guess being a gentleman or having good charisma means little and still still be a horrible President ;)

twenty, obviously both parties have been both dumb and hypocritical at times.

Two things:

First, Politicians tend to have some measure of charisma - given politics is more or less a popularity context. That or a lot of money behind them to sell them to the public.

Second, President Obama is certainly not the only person to give a speech that has someone faint, it's not at all unique to this presidency.

@Roxanne Starr said:

It's amusing and kinda sad at the same time. There are those who will stick up for Obama no matter how pathetically inept he is. I think those who have been doing that on this thread are just regurgitating what their professors have told them...professors who have no idea what the real world is all about.

About as amusing as any of the threads you pop up in - more or less MKF30 trolling to his hearts content and you chiming in to say something ridiculous with nothing factual to support it. More or less more opinion about a President you've been bitter towards for winning for over three years. Having so much unwarranted hate and fear in your heart is a heavy burden indeed.

I'll accept your pity when this post apocalyptic great depression actually materializes into reality - but for now I'm quite content with disagreeing with your doom predictions(even Harry Dent isn't this doom and gloom and people have been mocking his predictions of the future for quite a while) of reality. Much less any further justifications for your own xenophobia and hope you simply can grow as a person past it. The world is a lot bigger than the roof above your head.

Anyone who actually believes that either Democrats or Republicans have the best interests of the people in mind is clearly deluded

@Vaeternus said:

Yes, from various countries...what about US exclusively though? Regardless of exact number, Obama is and has trasferred them to less secure facilities. Why?

So they can have basic rights? To perhaps one day close the moral blight that is Gitmo? Throwing people in a cell to be forgotten - without trial - isn't something any American should support.

Oh I felt I was being really nice, but seriously just pointing the obvious out there. Yes, and every person in this topic (minus one person in here who felt the need to insult me and someon eelse due to different views) have responded in a relatively mature fashion. You've presented me with your opinion of what the "left" is based on foreign country policies...not the USA, which is what I'm referring gto being as how Obama is an American President. I've also supplied facts earlier concerning why Obama isn't a righty. I do give you props for not insulting others. This is why I just want you and I to agree to disagree...

Someone's got a crush? What facts? You want to agree to disagree because he's just going to keep tearing at your holes in logic and any argument put forth that isn't entirely based on personal perception.

Namely why you were quick to offer the same olive branch to someone you continued to insist was insulting you.

@joshmightbe said:

Anyone who actually believes that either Democrats or Republicans have the best interests of the people in mind is clearly deluded

As much as I'd love to chastise the lot of politicians - I can't say with absolute certainty that either political party doesn't to an extent have some measure of belief in what they're actually doing. There are of course more apparent exceptions to this (Mitt for example has a different mask for every occasion) - but guys like Paul Ryan likely do believe wholeheartedly in what they work towards as something positive. Alan Greenspan would be another example of someone in power (former chairman of the Federal Reserve) who wholeheartedly believed in what he was doing - prior to his change of beliefs after the recession.

@PsychoKnights said:

Thanks for the info. As long as the country is okay with us taking their resources, I have absolutely no problem with that. Does that make me colonialist or anti-colonialist.

Well... no country is okay with anyone coming into their house and taking their stuff. That's the point. They'd rather spend it on their own, for their own people than just give it away. I can think of absolutely no example of colonialism where the natives ended up better off and actually liked having the colonial power around.

@PsychoKnights said:

I don’t buy into the idea that trading for other nations’ resources makes other nations poor.

See that's the problem. It's not trading. Exploitation by definition means using someone or something without compensating him fairly for it. If it was simple trading nobody would mind it.

@PsychoKnights said:

I’m not going to get into whether or not Obama is an anti-colonialist because it is still a new concept to me, and I am not yet sure it is even a worthwhile concept. It seems to buy into the Marxist assumption that rich make the poor. I’m a Libertarian. I say if another country wants to do business with us, let’s do business. If they do not, then we mind our own business.

What if the country doesn't want to do business with you but you really want to do business with them?

To give a textbook example of exploitation colonialism, in the mid 19th century, the British made massive amounts of money selling opium to the Chinese. The Chinese government was outraged at what the drug was doing to their people and how the British were profiting from it, so in 1839 they severed all trade relations with Britain. What did the British do? The started the Opium Wars, annihilated the Chinese fleet, captured Hong Kong and made the Chinese open trade again. The moral thing for the British to do would have been to back off and give on the drug revenue, letting their power diminish in that section of the world. Instead they started what many believed to be the most disgraceful war in British history, all for the sake of profit and territorial control.

Parallels to this can be made with many wars fought today, including Iraq, Libya, and the Suez Crisis, (Not to the same extent of course, the Opium wars were an extreme, but the underlying idea is the same).

@PsychoKnights said:

Yes, and if you look at the majority of Republican Presidents, they still do not agree with Obama’s policies. You were trying to say that Obama was not liberal because of these few examples you could summon where conservative Presidents supported typically liberal positions. I have clearly demonstrated that these are the exceptions and you are being either vastly misinformed or intentionally intellectually dishonest by suggesting that Obama is not liberal because of these few policy decisions made by Republicans.

Those few exceptions actually formed the basis of much of their careers though. Eisenhower, for example, didn't just cut the military (Nor was this justified by the end of the war. WW2 ended seven years before that and the Cold War was in full swing), he also continued Roosevelt's economic policy, worked to bring down McCarthy, raised gasoline taxes to pay for the US interstate, and quite unambiguously told Britain, France and Israel to piss off during the Suez Crisis in support of Egypt and its right to nationalize the channel (and yes, i googled a few of those). I can't really imagine modern Republicans or even Obama embracing all of these policies.

@PsychoKnights said:

Many Presidents are willing to compromise. I would like a President who actually stands for something myself. Every compromise is going to move the ball (metaphor here) one way or another. The ball will either move further towards government control or further towards individual liberties. I don’t want any compromise on my freedom.

I disagree with that, but that's not the issue here, so I'll leave it for another time.

@PsychoKnights said:

I disagree. I would say that is an indication of how much integrity a political party has.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Radicals are often the people with the most integrity.

@PsychoKnights said:

You came up with an extremely convoluted argument to suggest that Obama was not liberal. That was either something you came up with yourself after thinking about these issues frequently or intensely, or it was something that you took from somebody else and copied and pasted here. If it is the formed, then you have spent a lot of time coming up with ways to spin information to look good for your party which I called a liberal apologist. If it was the latter, then you are a drone who repeats what others tell you. The use of the whole Nazi rule (I forget the term) seemed like the kind of thing that only someone who frequently gets into political debates would know, so, yes, apologist. In fairness, I could accurately be called a Libertarian apologist.

Meh. Call it that if you will, but I just know what actual liberals push for, and Obama's actions in the past four years are leaving me unimpressed in that regard. I don't really see how I'm apologizing for anything. Well, maybe on the subject of Obama's brother, but that's more to the fact that the article is too disingenuous and biased for me to believe.

@PsychoKnights said:

The first reason you gave for Obama being a conservative is that “He’s killed as many people as anyone,” or something to that affect clearly linking killing to a right wing agenda. I mentioned Stalin because he was a leftist and he has the highest body count for the last century. That was my reasoning, and I think it was pretty clear.

Stalin was left wing only economically. Socially he was about as right as it can get.

Besides, as MKF has demonstrated on several occasions in this thread, Republicans apparently do want to see terrorists taken out the back and shot like dogs, rather than give them due process. So I think my initial assertions was on the money there.

@PsychoKnights said:

I did not miss your point, I just disagree with it. Why don’t you show me all the times where he worked in a spirit of cooperation (not where he just said, we should have a spirit of cooperation) and willingly gave up some of his goals to appease conservatives. Not times the congress forced his hands, times he willingly compromised. I, in turn, will post times where he has demeaned those who have opposed him and done his best to force through legislation to his liking. We will see who runs out first.

No, I can't hold up there. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Congress. To my knowledge though, Obama and the Democrates did have the majority in the Congress for the first two years of his term. He didn't do anything particularly liberal then either.

@PsychoKnights said:

Before I respond to specifics, you have just said that it is evil to be misinformed. I would not hold that view if I were you, but obviously, you are not me, or I would be having this conversation in my head. (grins)

He never said that we do not have to worry about those that are raped, he was simply saying (incorrectly) that it was rare for this to even happen. It is not blatantly misogynistic to point out that a problem does not occur very often.

Then he shouldn't have mentioned it at all. The only reason why you'd bring that up in an argument is to imply that it's not a big deal. Which it is.

@PsychoKnights said:

Nonsense. The central point of the article is that Obama lets his brother live in poverty. That is fact. The conservative’s opinion as to the reason is a minor concern in comparison, and it is just an opinion. Opinions are mixed in with factual articles all the time, and I think you know that.

The central point is why Obama's brother is living in poverty, and I find the reasons he lists completely unbelievable and quite at odds with everything else I've read about the guy. That's my problem.

@PsychoKnights said:

George Obama may not have asked for help. The more important issue is whether Barack ever offered help. The fact is that Barack has a living brother living in poverty, and he has made no move to help him. Any man worth his salt would be embarrassed to ask a relative he hardly knows for help, and any man who actually believes in taking care of his brother would, oh, I don’t know, take care of his brother.

Would you have forced it on him? Because he seems to have actively denied any help from anyone. He didn't say 'I'm okay.' He said 'I don't want his help and I'm gonna make in on my own.' There is a loot of leeway here.

My point is not to say that Barack should be excused for not paying for his brother's medical bills, my point is that there's a ton of things we don't know her, and D'souza is spinning his story out of it because clearly he has an agenda against Obama (And I don't really have any investment in Obama to keep defending him against an onslaught or anything. D'Souza views fall apart under the tiniest scrutiny). So I'm inclined not to trust the guy until I see some clarification of the situation.

@Vance Astro said

Well, I don't like most politicians but yeah you probably know by now I dislike Obama's policies a lot....that is all.

@JonSmith:

Are you quite all right? Hope you didn't hurt yourself there.

@PowerHerc:

We have more options. Sadly, most people will not consider anyone outside the two main parties. I went for the Libertarian candidate last time, and I may do so again. I am certainly not going to vote for someone I think will do more harm than good.

@Necrotic_Lycanthrope:

I've always considered Catholicism a religion where you can basically do whatever you want and then just repent of it and get a clean slate. This very well might be a distorted view of the religion, but it is the impression I have always garnered from its practitioners.

@Vaeternus:

Based upon the church he attended, I would say Obama's religion is Marxism.

@joshmightbe:

Sadly true, but I would like people to see that he does not live up to the standards he preaches. Some people are still worshiping at the cult of Obama, and there is really no reason to see this man as a moral leader. Like most leftists, he preaches generosity but does not practice it. (grins)

@Eternal19:

Yet...you stopped by just to say that.

@BiteMe-Fanboy:

D*** straight! Nothing is as sexy as guys debating about who is the bigger scum ball. (grins)

@_Black:

I'm with you on hating the two candidates, but why not vote for someone who is still in the race? I respect Ron Paul, but you may as well throw your support behind the Libertarian candidate. That's what I did in '08.

@Owie:

Hey Owie,

When I first saw Obama back in '07, I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy too, but I've followed politics closer than most since then, and I've got to say that President Obama is not an ethical man. I've already demonstrated that he does not live up to one of his most frequently touted values, being his brother's keeper. I can also show you where he palled around with domestic terrorists, voted to support legislation which would allow infants, not fetuses but infants, to be killed, and legislation that he has pushed through congress without so much as taking the time to read it. I will find sources on all these and post them if you are actually willing to investigate whether Obama is as honorable as you think he is.

Oh, and regarding Obama's energy plans, he admitted that his plans would cause the price of energy to skyrocket. That is one problem people have with his energy plans.

@gravitypress:

First of all, who is my guy? I do think Romney is the lesser of two evils, but I have not yet decided whether I will vote for him or the Libertarian candidate.

Second, it is easy to say we need reform, but how do you propose we do that? The only way I can see is for people to start actually paying attention to politics, learn their history, and vote on what is morally right not what helps their pocket books.

@RazzaTazz:

My OP was pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama' it made no mention of Romney or his intelligence. In subsequent posts, other people stated that Romney was an idiot and I asked them to back up their charge. For the most part, nobody has. At no point did I compare Obama's morals to Romney's intelligence unless it was as a response to somebody else who mentioned the two.

As far as I am concerned, both politicians are intelligent. I don't believe you reach that level of success without a considerable intellect. I also believe both are immoral.

I am not trying to tear down one side of the aisle while lifting up the other. I am just trying to reveal the truth and let it stand for itself.

Oh, and regarding the tax receipts, it is my understanding that Romney has done what the law requires. You can certainly say it would be better if he revealed it, but there is nothing immoral in refusing to share personal information.

@Twentyfive:

If you mean that everybody will eventually end up violating their own code of conduct, then yes, I suppose everybody is a hypocrite, but I think that is a poor use of the term. I would not call somebody who objects to pornography, but once clicked on a pornographic website a hypocrite if he realized and admitted he had made a mistake and stopped doing it. On the other hand, if someone were to talk about how pornography objectifies women while looking up pornography on a regular basis, that, to me, would be a hypocrite. In the same way, I do not hold that a politician who messes up and then repents is a hypocrite, but a politician who consistently fails to live up to his own ideals is indeed a hypocrite.

Personally, I think both Romney and Obama are hypocrites.

@MadeinBangladesh:

I've asked people to explain how Romney is an idiot, and the best example I have received so far is that he speculated that London might not be ready for the games while visiting England. He gave good reasons for his view, but certainly, that was not the most tactful thing to say, so I will grant that as a misstep, but it hardly qualifies as a major fubar, and it certainly does not make him an idiot. Can you give a better story which indicates his stupidity?

@TheCrowbar:

Nothing. That is why I posted it in Off-Topic.

@Vaeternus:

Yeah, I was responding to everybody who had commented on OP or one of my other posts. The big section of the above comments is directed towards Phantom, but there is a section directed towards you as well. Just read underneath the @Vaternus.

@joshmightbe:

I think there are a few worthwhile politicians out there, but for the most part, I agree with you.

@AtPhantom:

Well... no country isokaywith anyone coming into their house and taking their stuff. That's the point. They'd rather spend it on their own, for their own people than just give it away. I can think of absolutely no example of colonialism where the natives ended up better off and actually liked having the colonial power around.

I’m talking about doing business with nations. You seem to be talking about stealing resources. As far as I know, we are not currently taking resources from any nation against their will. Please give me the list of countries which have asked us to leave and stop paying for their resources because if this is actually happening, I am vastly uninformed. If there are no such countries, then the idea of America acting as a colonial power is a myth.

See that's the problem. It's nottrading. Exploitation by definition means using someone or something without compensating him fairly for it. If it was simple trading nobody would mind it.

Again, what nations are we currently robbing? I’m guessing you can come up with a whopping zero examples.

What if the country doesn't want to do business with you but you really want to do business with them?

Then we don’t do business. We can continue to send ambassadors over to talk about it, but we don’t force it on them.

To give a textbook example of exploitation colonialism, in the mid 19th century, the British made massive amounts of money selling opium to the Chinese. The Chinese government was outraged at what the drug was doing to their people and how the British were profiting from it, so in 1839 they severed all trade relations with Britain. What did the British do? The started the Opium Wars, annihilated the Chinese fleet, captured Hong Kong andmadethe Chinese open trade again. The moral thing for the British to do would have been to back off and give on the drug revenue,letting their power diminishin that section of the world. Instead they started what many believed to be the most disgraceful war in British history, all for the sake of profit and territorial control.

I admit ignorance on the Opium Wars. Let me do some quick googling. Yeah, your summary looks about right. That was very bad of Britain. Thanks for the history lesson. (sincerely)

Parallels to this can be made with many wars fought today, including Iraq, Libya, and the Suez Crisis, (Not to the same extent of course, the Opium wars were an extreme, but the underlying idea is the same).

If you want to draw out the example of how those cases are the same, then I will listen, but I am not going to respond to them until then. I have a bad habit of getting ahead of myself and trying to make people’s cases for them which inevitably ends up wasting my time and confusing the issue.

Those few exceptions actually formed the basis of much of their careers though. Eisenhower, for example, didn't just cut the military (Nor was this justified by the end of the war. WW2 ended seven years before that and the Cold War was in full swing), he also continued Roosevelt's economic policy, worked to bring down McCarthy, raised gasoline taxes to pay for the US interstate, and quite unambiguously told Britain, France and Israel to piss off during the Suez Crisis in support of Egypt and its right to nationalize the channel (and yes, i googled a few of those). I can't really imagine modern Republicans or even Obama embracing all of these policies.

I don’t particularly disagree on any points, but it still stands that none of this makes Obama a conservative either by today or any other day’s definition of the term. Conservative and liberal are such flexible terms that trying to historically define them is a troublesome anyway. The only real way to prove that Obama is a conservative is to look at the modern concept of conservatism (the Republican platform would be my personal choice) and demonstrate that Obama supports those policies. He does not, of course, and is therefore not a conservative, but I’ve proven this point well enough, and I don’t intend to beat this horse any more. If I respond any more on this topic, it will be brief.

I disagree with that, but that's not the issue here, so I'll leave it for another time.

Fair enough.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Radicals are often the people with the most integrity.

On a few occasions, there are compromises which are necessary, but in most cases, compromise only ends up making things worse. As I said before, the ball will either move towards or away from freedom. I don’t want compromise on freedom unless it is absolutely necessary.

Meh. Call it that if you will, but I just know what actual liberals push for, and Obama's actions in the past four years are leaving me unimpressed in that regard. I don't really see how I'mapologizing for anything. Well, maybe on the subject of Obama's brother, but that's more to the fact that the article is too disingenuous and biased for me to believe.

Well, apologist does not literally mean that you apologize for something though it certainly has that connotation which is why I used the term since it does seem as if you are making excuses for President Obama.

Stalin was left wing only economically. Socially he was about as right as it can get.

Not so. He was a mixed bag when it came to social issues. For example, he did make abortion illegal, but he was also an atheist who killed clerics. Regardless, he was extremely left on economics which is the real heart of Marxism.

Besides, as MKF has demonstrated on several occasions in this thread, Republicans apparentlydo want to see terrorists taken out the back and shot like dogs, rather than give them due process. So I think my initial assertions was on the money there.

This is true. Unless a terrorist is a U.S. citizen, they should not have a trial. Shooting them down like dogs is exactly what I and most conservatives want. However, you are again ignoring the many liberal murderers. We will just keep it at Stalin to avoid opening another can of worms.

No, I can't hold up there. I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Congress. To my knowledge though, Obama and the Democrates did have the majority in the Congress for the first two years of his term. He didn't do anything particularly liberal then either.

The first thing that comes to mind is that he passed the stimulus package which is a typical big government solution. I’m sure I could find many other things, but if you are not willing to invest in this point, I will not either.

Then he shouldn't have mentioned it at all. The only reason why you'd bring that up in an argument is to imply that it's not a big deal. Which it is.

He was asked about it. He immediately brought up information he thought would indicate that it is rare that it would be an issue. That is perfectly reasonable.

The central point iswhyObama's brother is living in poverty, and I find the reasons he lists completely unbelievable and quite at odds with everything else I've read about the guy. That's my problem.

The why is not relevant. What is known is that Obama could have easily helped, and he did not. At bare minimum, this should cause the media to pursue the issue to get a response from Obama, but instead, they bury it.

Would you have forced it on him? Because he seems to have actively denied any help from anyone. He didn't say 'I'm okay.' He said 'I don't want his help and I'm gonna make in on my own.' There is a loot of leeway here.

He did not deny help when offered. There is a big difference between his brother providing all his needs and his brother helping him in a crisis situation.

My point is not to say that Barack should be excused for not paying for his brother's medical bills, my point is that there's a ton of thingswe don't knowher, and D'souza is spinning his story out of it because clearly he has an agenda against Obama (And I don't really have any investment in Obama to keep defending him against an onslaught or anything. D'Souza views fall apart under the tiniest scrutiny). So I'm inclined not to trust the guy until I see some clarification of the situation.

Here is D’souza explaining why he thinks Obama is anti-colonialist. http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/08/25/a_conversation_with_dinesh_dsouza_barack_obamas_anticolonialism/page/full/ I don’t know why I didn’t think to look that up earlier.

At bare minimum, the media should be investigating the apparent hypocricy, but they have not which just shows the liberal bent to most media outlets.

@Vance Astro said:

Quite an assumption considering the election hasn't taken place yet, Assuming Obama wins...or hoping I should say? Last time I checked it was a dead heat between both candidates...

@PsychoKnights said:

@Vaeternus:

Based upon the church he attended, I would say Obama's religion is Marxism.

Seems that way. I hear ya. Also to correct Atphantom's assumption about my stance with the "I've demonstrated shooting terror cells like dogs" (which is wrong and off base) because I never said that for one(gotta love how people put words in your mouths huh?) I said we never should have transferred them out of G. bay and treat them like "common criminals" because we all know blowing up thousands of people is equivalent to stealing some apples... But you know the drill by now, people tend to take what you say and translate it into something you never said if they disagree with you. lol. Clearly something you yourself has pointed out.

@Isaac_clarke, actually when did I ever say "throw people in a cell to be forgotton without trial?" Please quote me saying this addressing Atphantom's post because I never said this. You make false assumptions, I said WHY transfer them out of G. Bay...being as how it's a security wing for uhh terror cells? BTW, apparently you're Atphantom as you're responding directly to me addressing "his" posts ... yet his last post didn't address me but yours...hmmm. I've already been thru this. Yeah, have a terrorist be involved in blowing up your family or friends and then tell me "we should treat them like common petty criminals or like "normal human beings" .Afterall stealing food is a crime, even if some do it to survive so apparently to you we should treat terrorists the same way right? So, by your definition of "Justice" I'd wager you'd feel anyone from a petty thief to mass murderer killing half the world let's say "equally"? pfft

BTW, from before yeah you just telling Roxy "I'm trolling" when we all know that's not true, merely chiming in on the topic as everyone else is. You're just disagreeing and displeased with my posts. I see what you're doing though(not biting) but it's ok. I can understand why someone would do that if they were desperate. On the charisma topic, yes but not for a while prior to Obama's speeches and the media was making it out to be something of a big deal...either way, who cares that much about a political speech?

@PsychoKnights said:

Based upon the church he attended, I would say Obama's religion is Marxism.

I'm sure that your fully aware Marxism isn't a religious faith. But at least you admit that President Obama went to church.

Some people are still worshiping at the cult of Obama, and there is really no reason to see this man as a moral leader. Like most leftists, he preaches generosity but does not practice it. (grins)

How does that separate him from his counter parts on the 'right'(given he's a lefty in your context).

My OP was pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama' it made no mention of Romney or his intelligence. In subsequent posts, other people stated that Romney was an idiot and I asked them to back up their charge. For the most part, nobody has. At no point did I compare Obama's morals to Romney's intelligence unless it was as a response to somebody else who mentioned the two.
As far as I am concerned, both politicians are intelligent. I don't believe you reach that level of success without a considerable intellect. I also believe both are immoral.
I am not trying to tear down one side of the aisle while lifting up the other. I am just trying to reveal the truth and let it stand for itself.
Oh, and regarding the tax receipts, it is my understanding that Romney has done what the law requires. You can certainly say it would be better if he revealed it, but there is nothing immoral in refusing to share personal information.

The entire thread's point of being is simply to bait the same people into the arguments they have every thread. If you had any measure of intent to create something of a thread that creates positive discussion - it would be far more generalized to all politicians - not simply President. It's troll bait.

I suppose everybody is a hypocrite, but I think that is a poor use of the term.

There is no doubt everyone on this planet will at one time or another reveal themselves a hypocrite.

I've asked people to explain how Romney is an idiot, and the best example I have received so far is that he speculated that London might not be ready for the games while visiting England. He gave good reasons for his view, but certainly, that was not the most tactful thing to say, so I will grant that as a misstep, but it hardly qualifies as a major fubar, and it certainly does not make him an idiot. Can you give a better story which indicates his stupidity?

Not just London.

As well as the slew of contradicting view points on camera - in particular his opinion of Blind Trust when he was Governor to now as a Presidential candidate. Happily gunning his opponent for saying the exact same thing he did not even a year ago or doing things like putting his dog on top of his vehicle in a crate (having so much fun apparently it urinated) - knowing full well he will be scrutinized for everything he does during this campaign. Doesn't help his campaign adds often under any scrutiny also reveal themselves to not be truthful - as a testament to how little his campaign thinks of the media's / voter intelligence.

@Vaeternus said:

@Vance Astro said:

Quite an assumption considering the election hasn't taken place yet, Assuming Obama wins...or hoping I should say?

One of the rare times I'll be in agreement - minus that last part of your sentence that doesn't even make sense in the context your using it in.

Seems that way. I hear ya. Also to correct Atphantom's assumption about my stance with the "I've demonstrated shooting terror cells like dogs" (which is wrong and off base) because I never said that for one(gotta love how people put words in your mouths huh?)

You should be the last person to be complaining about any suggestions that people put words in your mouth; in the truest sense it's the pot calling the kettle black.

I said we never should have transferred them out of G. bay and treat them like "common criminals" because we all know blowing up thousands of people is equivalent to stealing some apples... But you know the drill by now, people tend to take what you say and translate it into something you never said if they disagree with you. lol. Clearly something you yourself has pointed out.

Because everyone in Gitmo has blown up "thousands" of people and the justice system is only good for punishing the common theft of apples. Considering your quick to claim how clearly evil everyone there is - with apparently for some hefty death-tolls - it's hilarious how little faith you have in any court to find them guilty and punish them accordingly - under some notion that justice system hasn't dealt with cases exactly like these before.

@Isaac, actually when did I ever say "throw people in a cell to be forgotton without trial? Please quote me saying this addressing Atphantom's post because I never said this. You make false assumptions, I said WHY transfer them out of G. Bay...being as how it's a security wing for uhh terror cells?

Fun fact - that wasn't a quote from any of your posts to begin with - much-less is it being argued as such. Your posts suggest a few things actually - letting terrorists go, negotiating with terrorists and frustration for prisoners at Gitmo being transferred to less "secure" facilities where they actually have some basic rights. Your preference, as repeated over and over, is to have them remain there - without trial and without rights. These individuals aren't going be tried in Cuba. Without question that is exactly what you keep saying - you trying to turn around and say that isn't the case is ridiculous. It's a place that never should have been constructed to begin as it's a direct contradiction of what we as Americans stand for. The men there can just as easily be held in a facility here without issue.

Irrational fear is the only reason that moral blight exists - fear created by these men and propagated our dependence on it.

BTW, apparently you're Atphantom as you're responding directly to me addressing "his" posts hmm... I've already been thru this already.

Is this going to be one of your moronic non-factual insinuations? I scrolled down, read your post and responded accordingly to these concepts you continue to post here.

Yeah, have a terrorist be involved in blowing up your family and then tell me "we should treat them like common petty criminals" afterall stealing food is a crime, even if some do it to survive so apparently to you we should treat terrorists the same way right?

A few things:

• Never said that at all.
• Your family has been blown up by terrorists?
• They shouldn't have any special treatment - instead they should be tried just as anyone else would be for those accused crimes and punished accordingly in a court of law - because that's the American way as far as I'm concerned.
• Because the Justice System can only deal with the petty theft of apples - it doesn't deal with rape, murder, individuals that massacre dozens of people with guns, domestic terrorism or anyone that may be crazy enough to send a vehicle rigged to explode into federal buildings - killing children on a field trip there - nope the Justice System doesn't deal with criminals or terrorists - just people that steal apples, how foolish can I be for suggesting otherwise.

Seriously, don't try pushing your moronic argument on me. With any measure of scrutiny it falls apart easily.

BTW, from before yeah you just telling Roxy "I'm trolling" when we all know that's not true, merely chiming in on the topic as everyone else is. I see what you're doing though( not biting) but it's ok. I can understand why someone would do that if they were desperate. On the charisma topic, yes but not for a while prior to Obama's speeches and the media was making it out to be something of a big deal...either way, who cares?

Generally when people willfully ignore what the person they're arguing with is even saying, as the continue to make baseless insinuations or insist on twisting what the other person does say - they're trolling.

Uhh, no because unlike you I don't put words in people's mouths, I just have my own opinion and views on things and that's that. Agree or disagree at your own discretion. I won't fault you, it's something a lot of liberals tend to do and not even realize it so I've noticed. Example, I made a comment on a YT video saying I didn't agree with Obama's healthcare plan personally. Next guy who was clearly an Obama supporter just came at me with "what? You racist righty yo" Because that's such a credible argument right there. Yes, pretty sure my statement makes sense. Obviously, Vance doesn't know nor do I or anyone what will happen but it's obvious he's for Obama.

Yeah, Gitmo is for nice people and those who have committed "minor crimes" right? I think it's hilarious yet sad how MUCH faith you have in a system when they treat petty criminals the same way they treat radical terror cells...kind of like the dumb 93 FIRST attempt at badly harming the WTC, you know the terrorists that were treated as a criminal case...I'm all for giving everyone a fair trial, what I'm NOT for is anyone treating terror cells who have killed large amounts of people like they're mother theres who just stole a peach to give to the poor. I'm sooo sure you'd agree with that mentality if it was your family who they killed or good friends. Are you even aware that in some states, people get 2-3 years for Raping and MURDERING someone, yet in others like Texas, you get executed depending on how severe it is...go figure. Yeah, real consistent system right there. To quote Batman "your system is broken" Especially when people with money and power can "make things happen" regardless of their crimes. Need I bring up Ted Kennedy again?

Ah ha, as I thought. So in other words you admit I never actually said that and that you just assumed that's what I meant...*clicks tongue* so fun fact- I was right to begin with, I never stated such. You did, or should I say you said that I said that.

Well while I was being witty I see you just have a problem minding your own business then. I see, I'm sure atphantom is more then capable of debating by himself without you "fighting" for him. That's twice I've noticed you've done that, once I addressed Roxy, then atphantom. So you're just trying to bait me I see. I'll discuss but I'm not going to flame you so you may as well just stop.

You see except it's NOT moronic, only those of which who don't understand a simple concept would fall under that category.

Few things,

• I'll take a page out of your book now, no you only implied at it with your "we must treat terrorists fairly, trial blah, blah, blah"
• No, just my friend's family and my mother's ex boss...
• Ok then, so why stress if they're treated a little worse then a normal criminal? I'm not saying to "torture" them or something(unless it means saving tons of lives of vital info they possess then go all Jack Bauer on them for all I care)
• And when exactly did I confirm or say that the Justice system DOESN'T consist of rape, murder etc? Again, putting words in my mouth....Oh I'm not going to try to force facts or push anything on you, I already realize you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.
• Ah, I see so that would make you an expert then as well as "baiting" others who don't even address you.

@PsychoKnights said:

I’m talking about doing business with nations. You seem to be talking about stealing resources. As far as I know, we are not currently taking resources from any nation against their will. Please give me the list of countries which have asked us to leave and stop paying for their resources because if this is actually happening, I am vastly uninformed. If there are no such countries, then the idea of America acting as a colonial power is a myth.

Neocolonialism is an established fact by now. Havesomeexamples.

This isn't anything new or out of the ordinary. A nation's power is roughly correlated with its influence and ability to boss other nations around. Every nation naturally seeks to exert influence on other nations and reduce their own power.

@PsychoKnights said:

Then we don’t do business. We can continue to send ambassadors over to talk about it, but we don’t force it on them.

Well that's great new for Saddam, guess you'll leave him alone no-Oh wait.

@PsychoKnights said:

If you want to draw out the example of how those cases are the same, then I will listen, but I am not going to respond to them until then. I have a bad habit of getting ahead of myself and trying to make people’s cases for them which inevitably ends up wasting my time and confusing the issue.

All of those cases involved western powers attacking a country to acquire something the defending nation wouldn't give them. In Iraq and Libya's case it was oil (In Libya's case it was more that Europe had racked a collosal debt with Libya they wanted erased). In Egypt's it was control of the Suez Canal which Egypt had nationalized previously.

Havesomemorelinks.

@PsychoKnights said:

I admit ignorance on the Opium Wars. Let me do some quick googling. Yeah, your summary looks about right. That was very bad of Britain. Thanks for the history lesson. (sincerely)

Sure, no prob.

@PsychoKnights said:

I don’t particularly disagree on any points, but it still stands that none of this makes Obama a conservative either by today or any other day’s definition of the term. Conservative and liberal are such flexible terms that trying to historically define them is a troublesome anyway. The only real way to prove that Obama is a conservative is to look at the modern concept of conservatism (the Republican platform would be my personal choice) and demonstrate that Obama supports those policies. He does not, of course, and is therefore not a conservative, but I’ve proven this point well enough, and I don’t intend to beat this horse any more. If I respond any more on this topic, it will be brief.

But that's contorting my point. I never claimed Obama is supporting policies of the current Republican party. Obviously he's not. But, as demonstrated, he is rather close to some previous, moderate republican presidents.

@PsychoKnights said:

On a few occasions, there are compromises which are necessary, but in most cases, compromise only ends up making things worse. As I said before, the ball will either move towards or away from freedom. I don’t want compromise on freedom unless it is absolutely necessary.

This is, again, not my point. Whether you feel compromises are justified (and for the record I think they are not only justified but mandatory) or not doesn't change the fact that willingness (Or unwillingness, to be more precise) to compromise is a measure of radicalism. Radicalism by itself isn't good or bad. It's just there.

@PsychoKnights said:

Not so. He was a mixed bag when it came to social issues. For example, he did make abortion illegal, but he was also an atheist who killed clerics. Regardless, he was extremely left on economics which is the real heart of Marxism.

Atheism and abortions are not the measure of social right wing. Social right wing is entirely defined by authoritarianism and desire to regulate the social lives of citizens. Stalin was as authoritarian as it gets. (And for the record, so are conservatives. Making abortions and gay marriage illegal, favoring stricter punishments, enforcing moral options, favoring one religion, all basically mean greater government involvement in people's lives. Right wing wants the government out of their businesses and in their houses. Left with, Ironically, wants the opposite).

@PsychoKnights said:

This is true. Unless a terrorist is a U.S. citizen, they should not have a trial. Shooting them down like dogs is exactly what I and most conservatives want. However, you are again ignoring the many liberal murderers. We will just keep it at Stalin to avoid opening another can of worms.

Great, so Obama's willingness to order executions of America's enemies is a reflection of his right wing tendencies. Glad we sorted that out.

@PsychoKnights said:

The first thing that comes to mind is that he passed the stimulus package which is a typical big government solution. I’m sure I could find many other things, but if you are not willing to invest in this point, I will not either.

I will note that this is still basically what Eisenhower did. But fair enough.

@PsychoKnights said:

He was asked about it. He immediately brought up information he thought would indicate that it is rare that it would be an issue. That is perfectly reasonable

I think you lost something in translation there because that sentence really makes no sense.

@PsychoKnights said:

The why is not relevant. What is known is that Obama could have easily helped, and he did not. At bare minimum, this should cause the media to pursue the issue to get a response from Obama, but instead, they bury it.

The why is everything. I've seen and listed several sources that clearly indicate his brother chooses to live like he does. Hell, the dude lived in South Korea for years, and I doubt anything made him return to Kenya. And if that's true, then the whole issue of Obama's morality is moot.

@PsychoKnights said:

He did not deny help when offered. There is a big difference between his brother providing all his needs and his brother helping him in a crisis situation.

There still isn't evidence that he actually called him for help. Perhaps he didn't want to call him for help, specifically, because he's the president and all. Humans are strange like that. I don't know, but I see plenty of clues that what D'Souza is saying isn't the whole truth.

Though I do find it strange that the only links on the subject I can find are all from conservative sites. I too would expect someone else to report on the damn thing.

@PsychoKnights said:

Here is D’souza explaining why he thinks Obama is anti-colonialist. http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2012/08/25/a_conversation_with_dinesh_dsouza_barack_obamas_anticolonialism/page/full/ I don’t know why I didn’t think to look that up earlier.

I've read it already. It's a nice conspiracy theory (Become president to destroy the country from the inside! Lex Luthor would be proud), but it is clearly in opposition to Obama's actions in the past four years. He also gets some historic facts wrong (Free market is anti-colonial? Lolno).

@Vaeternus said:

World standards? See, this is what I really don't understand why you're bringing up other countries. For one, their definitions of similar parties is different. Because we're talking about this country(USA) not what the rest of the world does. You know in some places illegal drugs are considered normal...because nothing is wrong with that right? Yet people complain about guns and tobacco here...

Me: Let me prove a point how the US politics are skewered to the right compared to the rest of the world.

You: Why are you mentioning the world while proving the point how the US politics are skewered to the right compared to the rest of the world?

What part of this do you not understand?

@Vaeternus said:

Yes, from various countries...what about US exclusively though? Regardless of exact number, Obama is and has trasferred them to less secure facilities. Why?

Dunno. Why did Bush do it? He released far more prisoners from Guantanamo than Obama.

@Vaeternus said:

Oh I felt I was being really nice, but seriously just pointing the obvious out there. Yes, and every person in this topic (minus one person in here who felt the need to insult me and someon eelse due to different views) have responded in a relatively mature fashion. You've presented me with your opinion of what the "left" is based on foreign country policies...not the USA, which is what I'm referring gto being as how Obama is an American President. I've also supplied facts earlier concerning why Obama isn't a righty. I do give you props for not insulting others. This is why I just want you and I to agree to disagree...

We're not disagreeing on anything though. You're just constantly sidestepping my argument and going off on your own trail.

You-The entire USA is right and Obama is a righty

Me-I beg to differ, I don't feel the same way

You- Europe is extremely liberal, so therefore Obama isn't

Me-You're using other countries and the world as a rule of thumb for a USA President debate?

You-Yes

Me-Why?

You-Because I said so and Obama is a righty

Me-......ok, so I think we should just agree to disagree because I don't se Obama as a righty...not even close

You-We're not disagreeing, you're just sidestepping my argument.

Reality is, no I'm not I just don't agree with you views on Obama or USA whole for that matter "being a bunch of righties" when that's simply not true, half the country is liberal, the other half conservative for the majority factor. The rest are libertarians, independents etc, etc What don't you understand about this? As for Obama, I've yet to see any evidence showing why he's a righty and how...

Uh, no Bush didn't release more terrorists from G. Bay then Obama.

It's obvious you have your own views of what's right and left, I don't see anyone else in here supporting your argument of "Obama is a righty, not liberal"

 Last time I checked it was a dead heat between both candidates...

@Vance Astro said:

@Vaeternus said:

Last time I checked it was a dead heat between both candidates...

Then you NEVER checked.

Sure I did, I just prefer unbiased sources online.

@Vaeternus said:

Uhh, no because unlike you I don't put words in people's mouths, I just have my own opinion and views on things and that's that. Agree or disagree at your own discretion. I won't fault you, it's something a lot of liberals tend to do and not even realize it so I've noticed. Example, I made a comment on a YT video saying I didn't agree with Obama's healthcare plan personally. Next guy who was clearly an Obama supporter just came at me with"what? You racist righty yo" Because that's such a credible argument right there. Yes, pretty sure my statement makes sense. Obviously, Vance doesn't know nor do I or anyone what will happen but it's obvious he's for Obama.

And the post starts out with a lie and continues on with this hypocrisy that is MKF30.

Yeah, Gitmo is for nice people and those who have committed "minor crimes" right?

I'm absolutely dumbfounded by how moronic your argument is. Terrorism isn't something anyone here is comparing to a minor crime and instead I'm saying treat it like any other serious crime. Instead you choose to propagate this nonsense that isn't at all reflective of what is being told you - in the truest sense of the world - trolling to your heart's content.

I think it's hilarious yet sad how MUCH faith you have in a system when they treat petty criminals the same way they treat radical terror cells...kind of like the dumb 93 FIRST attempt at badly harming the WTC, you know the terrorists that were treated as a criminal case...I'm all for giving everyone a fair trial, what I'm NOT for is anyone treating terror cells who have killed large amounts of people like they're mother theres who just stole a peach to give to the poor. I'm sooo sure you'd agree with that mentality if it was your family who they killed or good friends. Are you even aware that in some states, people get 2-3 years for Raping and MURDERING someone, yet in others like Texas, you get executed depending on how severe it is...go figure. Yeah, real consistent system right there. To quote Batman "your system is broken" Especially when people with money and power can "make things happen" regardless of their crimes. Need I bring up Ted Kennedy again?

And now you establish yourself has happily throwing away the key to anyone accused of the crime of terrorism (At least outside the states) and holding them indefinitely without trial. Because trying them is the equivalent to bringing someone to court for stealing a peach. People get two-three years for raping then murdering someone in some states? Any specific examples you'd like to bring up?

You can bring up Ted Kennedy all you want - I'm not going to give a damn without anything more substantial than the accusations of murder they were throwing at President Clinton's feat when he was on the opposing end of conservative rhetoric. Apparently there isn't enough evidence to convict the mass murders in Gitmo on any sort of crime - at least how your arguing it to boot.

Ah, as I thought. So in other words you admit I never actually said that and that you just assumed that's what I meant...*clicks tongue* so fun fact- I was right to begin with, I never stated such. You did, or should I say you said that I said that.

I made absolutely no attempt to say that was a quotation from you - but that is the exact context of what your arguing. Terrorism = stealing apples in the court of law - and again it's a pretty bad argument.

Ahh, well while I was being witty I see you just have a problem minding your own business then. I see, I'm sure atphantom is more then capable of debating by himself without you "fighting" for him. That's twice I've noticed you've done that, once I addressed Roxy, then atphantom. So you're just trying to bait me I see. I'll discuss but I'm not going to flame you so you may as well just stop.

He's been tearing you apart so far, so I agree he is fully capable of 'debating' with you. The problem is, why shouldn't I jump into to tear at the stupid you call fact?

Ah, you see except it's NOT moronic, only those of which who don't understand a simple concept would fall under that category.

Then your a moron if you honestly buy any comparison between the theft of apples and terrorism.

Few things,

• I'll take a page out of your book now,

Okay lets see how far you get.

• no you only implied at it with your "we must treat terrorists fairly, trial blah, blah, blah"

Not far apparently. Here is another stunning display of someone not only making a quote up - but entirely misrepresenting what was said.

Treat them like any other criminal - don't build them a special prison on foreign lands to negate prevent them from having any rights and hold people there indefinitely without trial.

If your wondering why I or other people call you a troll - it's this.

• No, just my friend's family and my mother's ex boss...

So your friend's family has been annihilated by terrorists as-well as your mothers boss?

• Ok then, so why stress if they're treated a little worse then a normal criminal? I'm not saying to "torture" them or something(unless it means saving tons of lives of vital info they possess then go all Jack Bauer on them for all I care)

You missing the point. Treat them like anyone else accused of their crimes - why any sort of 'special treatment', as I would call it, is rationally necessary is beyond me.

• And when exactly did I confirm or say that the Justice system DOESN'T consist of rape, murder etc? Again, putting words in my mouth....Oh I'm not going to try to force facts or push anything on you, I already realize you obviously don't understand what I'm saying.

Here's your argument:

• I said we never should have transferred them out of G. bay and treat them like "common criminals" because we all know blowing up thousands of people is equivalent to stealing some apples...
• "we should treat them like common petty criminals" afterall stealing food is a crime, even if some do it to survive so apparently to you we should treat terrorists the same way right?

Nonchalantly your defining the type of crime the Justice System deals with as the theft of apples or food. That's apparently how you define a criminal; ignoring the existence of rapists, murderers, mass-murders (anyone totting a gun blowing away anyone in a movie theater or bombing buildings in the states) and other undesirables of society. It's ridiculous.

• Ah, I see so that would make you an expert then as well as "baiting" others who don't even address you.

Stop posting nonsense; as in ridiculous accusations, happily twisting what others say, completely ignoring the point or generally idiotic arguments - and you will never see a peep out of me.

Sure I did, I just prefer unbiased sources online.

@Vaeternus: Aaaand you just did it again.

Also, can we get this moved back to off-topic? It's not a comic book thread, it has no place on the fictional Obama's page.