Basically, what do think about Obama? Do you think he sucks (like I do), or do you think he's a glorious black saint who should be venerated and praised above all other US Presidents?

Personally, I think that Obama both completely screwed up the US Healthcare system (speaking as someone who has a nurse for a mother and a Doctor uncle who are very outspoken of how crappy its gotten since ObamaCare), and screwed the pooch even more with Iraq. You might be saying," no! He saved US soldiers' lives and finally got the US to stop screwing up over there. But, the issue is, by pulling us out, he left an already screwed-up situation and just let it fester. If we had stayed deployed, we could have maintained our hold on the region (and its valuable resources), while keeping it [relatively] stable, and slowly improving the situation over time. Instead of actually trying to correct the massive shitstorm Bush raised over there, he basically just said,"feth it, all, as President of the United States, I can guarantee to you that it would be so much better if we didn't clean up our own mess. You all do it for us." I'm probably alone in this opinion, as it seems like people think he can do no wrong and could walk on water, but what does Dakka think about the guy who only got elected because he's black?

Sort of neutral? He wasn't anything spectacular, and certainly not what he marketed himself to be. He's done both good an ill, but overall I don't think his lasting impact will be a truley negative one. Most of the real "bad" he has done is up to the person in question's political alignment. Although the same could be said of the "good". It's hard to tell at this point.

He's a mediocre president who hasn't impressed me with his leadership abilities. Yeah, the republicans have taken obstruction for the sake of obstruction to an art form, but why haven't we been able to do better than this? On the other hand, he's certainly done a better job than whatever republican alternative we could have elected instead, so that has to count for something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dusara217 wrote:
but what does Dakka think about the guy who only got elected because he's black?

Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. Obama was elected for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with his race.

 Peregrine wrote:
He's a mediocre president who hasn't impressed me with his leadership abilities. Yeah, the republicans have taken obstruction for the sake of obstruction to an art form, but why haven't we been able to do better than this? On the other hand, he's certainly done a better job than whatever republican alternative we could have elected instead, so that has to count for something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dusara217 wrote:
but what does Dakka think about the guy who only got elected because he's black?

Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. Obama was elected for a lot of reasons that had nothing to do with his race.

I'll agree that he was mediocre, but disagree about the rest of your post.

I think he would be suited to be a better advisor, than a actual leader. He seemed to care more about smaller local issues than larger ones. His foreign policy has been a joke and domestically, he has been idealistic, but not very cooperative or transparent.

On the black topic I'm not so sure. I don't know how many people told me they were voting for him just because he is black (including my mother).

And I definitely don't believe he did better than any republican would have. Now a days I agree with what my dad has said. There isn't any good politicians anymore. Your just voting for what you believe is the lesser of 2 evils.

I'd say it helped him get elected, but it certainly wasn't why. He is an excellent campaigner and speech-giver. Although, honestly, the D's could have run pretty much anybody and they would have been elected, considering the past 8 years of bush ,and Palin being an idiot all over the place.

I've disagreed with some of his decisions.

I cast an honest vote in the poll, but I'd prefer not to make negative remarks about a sitting president. Regardless of my personal opinion about some of the decisions he's made, he remains the Commander-in-Chief, and I'll continue to give him my support until his last day in office. At which point a candid assessment of his successes and failures can be tabulated.


Apropos of nothing, have you ever read The Eyes of the Dragon? Of a ruler in that novel, the narrator said, "he tried very hard not to do anyone great evil, and mostly succeeded. He also tried very hard to do great works, but, unfortunately, didn't succeed so well at that."

yellowfever wrote:
On the black topic I'm not so sure. I don't know how many people told me they were voting for him just because he is black (including my mother).

I seriously doubt that people who sincerely voted for Obama based only on his race are anywhere near a majority of the people who voted for him. Remember, this is the election following an incredibly unpopular president from the republican party. Virtually any democrat would have won that election simply by saying "I'm not Bush".

And I definitely don't believe he did better than any republican would have.

Have you seen the republican party platform these days? Tax cuts for the wealthy, ignore the debt problem entirely, cut infrastructure spending (including roads, education, etc) as much as possible, and make stopping gay marriage the top priority. Obama probably would have been better than the republican alternative even if he'd showed up on day 1, put a "gone golfing" sign on his desk, and never come back.

I love the changes to health care. Because of the changes, my mom pays less for her medecine. Rather than Paying 1200$ a quarter, i get 850$ a back a quarter.
Alot of lower income people I know now have to pay less for their care, meaning they now have more money.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I love the changes to health care. Because of the changes, my mom pays less for her medecine. Rather than Paying 1200$ a quarter, i get 850$ a back a quarter.
Alot of lower income people I know now have to pay less for their care, meaning they now have more money.

Very few people are in that boat though. Way more people, including small businesses, are paying more for healthcare. I know many small businesses were forced to cut back employee hours because they couldn't afford the new mandated health care if they worked certain hours. On top of the whole online system setting new standards in failure for government entities.

 Peregrine wrote:

Have you seen the republican party platform these days? Tax cuts for the wealthy, ignore the debt problem entirely, cut infrastructure spending (including roads, education, etc) as much as possible, and make stopping gay marriage the top priority. Obama probably would have been better than the republican alternative even if he'd showed up on day 1, put a "gone golfing" sign on his desk, and never come back.

Romney would have been far superior. He wouldn't have embarrassed us on the national stage like Obama has.

Neutral overall I guess?

I like some of what he's done. I don't like some other things he has done.

I think he gets a lot of hate from a lot of people for things that are not something he can do something about, or is being actively prevented from doing something about by political opponents, or that are carryovers from the previous administration, or that simply aren't what people think they are to begin with/don't actually exist.

I do believe he has been unfairly stymied by the Republican opposition who appear to simply oppose anything he's for just because he's for it (and in some cases have pretty much openly stated that as a core policy), though he's not the only one and the recent issue with the House Speaker hilarity and their autocannibalism is preventing *anyone* from doing anything.

On the other hand, I don't think he gets enough heat for a lot of other things that he *SHOULD* get heat for, and has had his share of rather stupid moments.

Not the greatest president we've had, not the worst, thoroughly mediocre, but ultimately I think, better than his campaign opponents, though I wouldn't take that as high praise, particularly given the low bar of his 2012 opposition.

I like him. He seems like a really friendly guy with good intentions and ideas.

yellowfever wrote:
There isn't any good politicians anymore. Your just voting for what you believe is the lesser of 2 evils.

This, to an extent.

I'd say there are good politicians but they don't make it to the main Presidential race, instead being looked over in favor of "more electable" people who are more gimmicky/popular rather than being better suited for the Presidency. By that stage, yes, we're stuck voting for who is less gak.

As for Obama, meh, I think he's been a gak President, but the other choices weren't exactly great either.

 Alex C wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
There isn't any good politicians anymore. Your just voting for what you believe is the lesser of 2 evils.

This, to an extent.

I'd say there are good politicians but they don't make it to the main Presidential race, instead being looked over in favor of "more electable" people who are more gimmicky/popular rather than being better suited for the Presidency. By that stage, yes, we're stuck voting for who is less gak.

As for Obama, meh, I think he's been a gak President, but the other choices weren't exactly great either.

This is my take of it all perfectly.

To comment as an outsider, I think Obama has done a good job. Free healthcare is something that I would argue is a staple for any nation that wants to call itself modern and civilised, and I'm frankly amazed at how much opposition there was to it. He does seem to be a politician that genuinely has a belief and and a set of ideals, especially compared to a lot of politicians over here (although I recognise that impression may come from just seeing less of him than I do of our lot). But he certainly seems to have done his best to be progressive and effective, though was hampered a lot by a ridiculous level of opposition.

I don't think he's been as bad as I would have thought. I don't think he gets enough flak for not fulfilling the lofty dreams of his campaign speeches. I think he truly wants to do good Ned shows great compassion at times.

I also think he opens his yap way too soon and manages to make things worse instead of letting a situation develope before making a statement. If he hadn't crowed about his red line (which they almost immediately crossed) in Syria and started his negotiations with "Assad has to go..." We wouldn't have the clusterfeth that is the ME right now. Just because he didn't want to be like Bush he didn't solve a situation when it could have been solved. Now we have a proxy war with Russia and all but allied with Iran. Not to mention the wave of refugees crashing into Europe.


Para, it isn't "free healthcare" it's "government mandated healthcare with subsidies for the poor". I pay way more than I was before Obamacare was instated.

 Paradigm wrote:
To comment as an outsider, I think Obama has done a good job. Free healthcare is something that I would argue is a staple for any nation that wants to call itself modern and civilised, and I'm frankly amazed at how much opposition there was to it. He does seem to be a politician that genuinely has a belief and and a set of ideals, especially compared to a lot of politicians over here (although I recognise that impression may come from just seeing less of him than I do of our lot). But he certainly seems to have done his best to be progressive and effective, though was hampered a lot by a ridiculous level of opposition.

Free health care? Where's m mine then? I HAVE to pay for mine and its pretty far from free

Ah, sorry about the healthcare mixup, like I say I don't follow US politics too closely so I was going off hazy memory. For the record I do support subsidizing healthcare for the poor, but I can see now why some would object.

I also get fewer hours at work due to Obamacare, and our healthcare costs went up several hundred dollars per paycheck.

I'd have no problem with an NHS-style system, but Obamacare is not it.

 dusara217 wrote:
Basically, what do think about Obama? Do you think he sucks (like I do), or do you think he's a glorious black saint who should be venerated and praised above all other US Presidents?

Personally, I think that Obama both completely screwed up the US Healthcare system (speaking as someone who has a nurse for a mother and a Doctor uncle who are very outspoken of how crappy its gotten since ObamaCare), and screwed the pooch even more with Iraq. You might be saying," no! He saved US soldiers' lives and finally got the US to stop screwing up over there. But, the issue is, by pulling us out, he left an already screwed-up situation and just let it fester. If we had stayed deployed, we could have maintained our hold on the region (and its valuable resources), while keeping it [relatively] stable, and slowly improving the situation over time. Instead of actually trying to correct the massive shitstorm Bush raised over there, he basically just said,"feth it, all, as President of the United States, I can guarantee to you that it would be so much better if we didn't clean up our own mess. You all do it for us." I'm probably alone in this opinion, as it seems like people think he can do no wrong and could walk on water, but what does Dakka think about the guy who only got elected because he's black?

Wow, teen angst much?

Perhaps look into a few of the issues you mention yourself (properly, not just reading Fox "news") and draw your own conclusions rather than just spewing out a bunch of regurgitated opinions of your immediate family.

Hell, I am not an Obama cheerleader but come on...

I think he's a man in a job far over his head.

Leading questions aside (ref. what does Dakka think about the peanut, which is only a popular food because George Washington Carver was black, and people are idiots?)

I like him, he seems like a good person. He did not accomplish many things he campaigned on. Specifically, universal health care, ending both of our major wars, and shutting down Gitmo. I'm not sure I know enough about Gitmo to know if closing it is a good idea. I don't know enough about the current situation in Afghanistan to question the judgment of our generals. But I do know, like our friend Bernie Sanders keeps pointing out, that we are one of the only First World countries that does not garuntee health care as a right, and that lets insurance compainies make obscene profits on our healthcare.

So in my view, he failed to accomplish the campaign goal that caused me to vote for him: universal helathcare. And while many of Obama's policy failures can legitimately be blamed on the governmental nihilists in Congress, universal healthcare cannot. He could have rammed this through when Democrats controlled Congress.

Short Story: Ran from the left, governed from the center.

 Paradigm wrote:
Ah, sorry about the healthcare mixup, like I say I don't follow US politics too closely so I was going off hazy memory. For the record I do support subsidizing healthcare for the poor, but I can see now why some would object.

The problem is that Healthcare in the US has become big business.

For them to follow our Universal Healthcare system, taxes across the board would have to up, (ie: everyone gets hit!), and the healthcare insurance industry as it exists would have to be abandoned entirely and re-built from the ground up to better support the government funded system.

It's entirely doable, but it would be massively painful and a shock to the system for a good bit.

When his tombstone gets made it should read this..


"At least he tried."

I don't follow politics, so my opinion might not be entirely factual, but I'm kind of, "meh," with Obama. He didn't destroy the country, but didn't do very much on it either.

I still think he's doing a better job than our current Prime Minister though.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I love the changes to health care. Because of the changes, my mom pays less for her medecine. Rather than Paying 1200$ a quarter, i get 850$ a back a quarter.
Alot of lower income people I know now have to pay less for their care, meaning they now have more money.

Very few people are in that boat though. Way more people, including small businesses, are paying more for healthcare. I know many small businesses were forced to cut back employee hours because they couldn't afford the new mandated health care if they worked certain hours. On top of the whole online system setting new standards in failure for government entities.

I do not know a single persone outside my cousin(Who, despite whining about how much it costs, he can buy a new racecar for himself easily) who it idnt improve medicine for. IF those that make more have to pay more, im fine by that. Share the wealth.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I love the changes to health care. Because of the changes, my mom pays less for her medecine. Rather than Paying 1200$ a quarter, i get 850$ a back a quarter.
Alot of lower income people I know now have to pay less for their care, meaning they now have more money.

Very few people are in that boat though. Way more people, including small businesses, are paying more for healthcare. I know many small businesses were forced to cut back employee hours because they couldn't afford the new mandated health care if they worked certain hours. On top of the whole online system setting new standards in failure for government entities.

I do not know a single persone outside my cousin(Who, despite whining about how much it costs, he can buy a new racecar for himself easily) who it idnt improve medicine for. IF those that make more have to pay more, im fine by that. Share the wealth.

We aren't talking about people who can afford racecars. We're talking about people with a house that they have a 30 year mortgage on and make 5 figures, or small business owners. Those people got shafted. And they make up a large majority of the country. It basically screwed the middle class over.

Especially those people who make enough to not qualify for the subsidies, but are still forced to purchase more expensive healthcare.

My cousin is what you will describe as "Middle Class"(As meaningless as that terms tends to actually be, in describing an actual class)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My cousin is what you will describe as "Middle Class"(As meaningless as that terms tends to actually be, in describing an actual class)

It doesn't matter what box you want to try and put him in, if he can "afford a racecar".

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My cousin is what you will describe as "Middle Class"(As meaningless as that terms tends to actually be, in describing an actual class)

How much does your cousin actually make? I suspect he's not actually middle class. I think you are conflating lifestyle with actual income. Lots of people who fall into the Upper Class live identically to the Middle Class. They live in the suburbs, eat at the same restaurants, wear the same clothes, etc... They might have some higher quality stuff, but they're not what many people think the Upper Class is. They're not drinking champagne and eating caviar while driving around in a Lamborghini.

From an outsider's perspective, Obama has come across as a good president (emphasised by using Bush as a contrast, who was impopular to say the least), and he is widely seen as entirely OK.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My cousin is what you will describe as "Middle Class"(As meaningless as that terms tends to actually be, in describing an actual class)

How much does your cousin actually make? I suspect he's not actually middle class. I think you are conflating lifestyle with actual income. Lots of people who fall into the Upper Class live identically to the Middle Class. They live in the suburbs, eat at the same restaurants, wear the same clothes, etc... They might have some higher quality stuff, but they're not what many people think the Upper Class is. They're not drinking champagne and eating caviar while driving around in a Lamborghini.

105K I think before he had his girls. now maybe 90?

That's above middle class imo.

Borderline. But its also not just a straight yes/no based on income. Expenses matter too.

It should be measured differently in America though because they pay privately (and therefore more) for many of their services, so that big take home pay packet gets eaten into by college loan repayments, healthcare costs and so on. American salaries are great for a young European who got their education for free and is unlikely to need much healthcare, but if you've come up through that system it's not quite as good. (Or so I've had it explained to me by American colleagues)

To the question in the thread, overall, meh. He's better than the alternative, but he is still allowing drone warfare to an uncomfortable degree, has not shut down Gitmo, and America is still involved in the Middle East quagmire. Add to that that Obamacare is a pretty watered down version of what real healthcare should be, and I'd say good intentions but not enough decisive victories.

But I think focusing on the President rather than all of the other factors involved is a pretty common mistake. He's not quite as powerful as people usually make out.

No, that's definitely solid middle class. And if you think that someone making 90,000 with kids (and a home?) can afford a new racecar, you're probably not very good with money. I mean, strictly speaking yes, he could go buy a new car if he wanted. That would be at the expense of sending his kids to college, paying his mortgage, etc. There's a good quote I found; " 'I'm broke' doesn't mean I don't have money. It means I have responsibilities that take priority over spending my money on stupid crap".

The problem, as with every president, is he gets blamed too much for things that aren't his fault, and not blamed enough for things that actually are. And even things that look like his fault, aren't, and things that don't look like his fault, are. Confusing, eh?

For example, almost every campaign promise a presidential candidate makes is actually impossible for them to fulfill. Presidents don't make laws, Congress does that. So, who do you blame when, say, a campaign promise to lower taxes fails? I say you blame the voters who were too stupid to realize Congress is in charge of taxes, not the President.

Anyway, I think Obama was largely in a lose/lose situation going in. He had a huge mess to clean up from the Bush years (and not all of that was Bush's fault, either). He had an entire party (Republicans) that decided their number one priority was to oppose everything he wanted to do (and that party can't even control itself, today). His signature project, the ACA, wasn't anywhere near as good as it could have been because the Republicans intentionally refused to work with the Democrats on it (if you actually believe the Rs were "kept out of it" by the Ds, you're deluding yourself. Any political strategist would tell you that it was in the Rs' best interest to stay out of it, to make sure the ACA came out badly, so they could use their opposition to it to win elections later on....and history has proven that plan worked. Remember, nobody gets elected because they helped accomplish something good, they get elected because they can get voters to hate the other side more).

But, it really doesn't matter. Like I said in the political junkie thread, our politics are so toxic these day that Bush and Obama could walk on water, hand in hand together, to heal a wounded swan, and people would still find something wrong to complain about.

Obama brought change i can believe in.

I think you couldn't find a whiter black guy.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
His signature project, the ACA, wasn't anywhere near as good as it could have been because the Republicans intentionally refused to work with the Democrats on it (if you actually believe the Rs were "kept out of it" by the Ds, you're deluding yourself. Any political strategist would tell you that it was in the Rs' best interest to stay out of it, to make sure the ACA came out badly, so they could use their opposition to it to win elections later on....and history has proven that plan worked. Remember, nobody gets elected because they helped accomplish something good, they get elected because they can get voters to hate the other side more).

I don't even know where to begin with you. Yes, the Republicans were kept out of it by the Democrats. The Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and refused to let anyone see the bill, even their own people. Nancy Pelosi herself said they had to pass to see what was in it. Implying the Republicans sabotaged the ACA somehow is pure sophistry. Hell, even after taking the House and the Senate, the Republicans still aren't able to affect the ACA because the Democrats have enough votes in the Senate to kill any legislation via filibuster or preventing an override of a Presidential veto. Causing the government shutdown last year not only didn't work, it blew up in the Republicans' faces.

 Ashiraya wrote:
From an outsider's perspective, Obama has come across as a good president (emphasised by using Bush as a contrast, who was impopular to say the least), and he is widely seen as entirely OK.

I share this view. It really should be stressed out though, that Bush jr. was his predecessor.

I'm not actually sure how good of a President Obama because I don't have a very good point of comparison. I was too young to really pay much attention to what Bush was like (though his cabinet was definitely gak), so Obama's more or less the only President I've been able to observe critically.

The vibe I've gotten is that he's a genuinely well-meaning guy who wants what's best for the country (as opposed to being a lobby-puppet), but can't hack it in this political climate. But frankly I don't know if [/i]anyone[/i] can hack it in this political climate- our system seems to be fundamentally broken atm.

Now that I understand the issues with Gitmo I'm no longer bothered by him not closing it, and I can forgive his inaction in the ME as well. My biggest issues with his performance as president lie in the ACA and supporting TPP.

 Da Boss wrote:
It should be measured differently in America though because they pay privately (and therefore more) for many of their services, so that big take home pay packet gets eaten into by college loan repayments, healthcare costs and so on. American salaries are great for a young European who got their education for free and is unlikely to need much healthcare, but if you've come up through that system it's not quite as good. (Or so I've had it explained to me by American colleagues)

True, I forgot about that.

 Ashiraya wrote:
From an outsider's perspective, Obama has come across as a good president (emphasised by using Bush as a contrast, who was impopular to say the least), and he is widely seen as entirely OK.

Agreed. Still better than François Hollande anyway

He seems pretty decent from my outsider's perspective. However, he's basically just on the right side. The idea that people even consider republican ideas, from what I can tell of them as said outsider, is absolutely nightmarish. Anyone opposing that looks good.

Yeah, the Democrats definitely have WAY more support outside the US from what I can see.

Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

I think inevitably it's hard if not impossible to really judge a presidency while it is ongoing. Jimmy Carter is a good example of a President who was lambasted while in office, but 30 years later opinions have generally shifted to "he was okayish." Meanwhile, Reagan who was beloved while in office, is over time becoming the butt end of the very sad joke that is Modern Republicanism. Clinton was very popular while in office, but today more and more people seem to find him off putting and/or a little creepy given his... proclivities...

Time offers perspective on what a figure like the President of the United States really meant, and that perspective is libel to change more than once as time goes on (Andrew Jackson's presidency went from beloved, to hated, to beloved again, to hated again all in the course of about 80 years).

 Orlanth wrote:
Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

I agree with this.

Given that American politics in general have a center point further right than most European states, inevitably means that the Republicans are gonna look a wee bit crazy compared to the Dems (that's okay though, plenty of Americans think they're crazy too )

Horrible president. His diplomacy is horrific. He gutted the command structure of the military replacing them with yes men, to the point where they change intell reports to make it look like sunshine when they read it to him for fear of losing their jobs. It has cost lives trying to keep his "success" in foreign policy on message despite reality. Every foreign political leader knows they can push him around. Internally his policies have been a joke, and a harmful one at that. His healthcare crap bill did nothing but raise the rates for all of us who had it before(and mine are going up again significantly next cycle) and no bill should be passed before seeing what's in it. He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies. He refuses to make decisive decisions(on that I am glad but still not a good trait). He is so owned by special interests it isn't funny. He defies law constantly and actually orders agencies not to enforce certain laws that go against his idealology. Looking forward to seeing him go.

 Paradigm wrote:
Ah, sorry about the healthcare mixup, like I say I don't follow US politics too closely so I was going off hazy memory. For the record I do support subsidizing healthcare for the poor, but I can see now why some would object.

I think you're thinking more of a government payer system correct? We don't really have that yet except for certain segments.

 Breotan wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
His signature project, the ACA, wasn't anywhere near as good as it could have been because the Republicans intentionally refused to work with the Democrats on it (if you actually believe the Rs were "kept out of it" by the Ds, you're deluding yourself. Any political strategist would tell you that it was in the Rs' best interest to stay out of it, to make sure the ACA came out badly, so they could use their opposition to it to win elections later on....and history has proven that plan worked. Remember, nobody gets elected because they helped accomplish something good, they get elected because they can get voters to hate the other side more).

I don't even know where to begin with you.

You can begin by considering this: There is a reason why the Rs have been coasting though lower elections by campaigning almost solely on opposition to the ACA, and that reason was planned out well in advance. Once you realize that, the smoke and mirrors that you've believed in will disappear and everything else will fall into place.

Either way, that's not the purpose of this thread.

 LordofHats wrote:
I think inevitably it's hard if not impossible to really judge a presidency while it is ongoing. Jimmy Carter is a good example of a President who was lambasted while in office, but 30 years later opinions have generally shifted to "he was okayish."

Revisionist nonsense. To those who actually lived through his Presidency, he was just plain BAD.

Obama: tried to do several things early on but left the heavy lifting and details to congress:

Obamacare: What a nightmare of special interests. Good thought gone horribly wrong. HOWEVER it was a step and efforts to fix it may in fact continue to shift to something better.
Cap and trade: Failed utterly and rightly so (the truth is theis was being put in place partially to pay for the above).
Libya non support of dissidents in Iran: horrific.
Using the SOF to get out of Iraq and unwavering desire to stay out of it: excellent.
Desire to get out of Afghanistan: excellent.
Immigration: open border now. Cartels are now fully in the border states.
Economy: nonexistent improvements. in his defense, the Republican concepts aren't better.
Actual management of government: really really bad.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I think you couldn't find a whiter black guy.

Well is IS half white...

Bad president. Like most people in elected office he is controlled by special interest groups. My Union pulls the stings on this guy like a puppet.
His failed foreign policies have caused problems through out the world, now look he is backpedaling in Afghanistan. One minute he claims he ended the war in Iraq the next minute he claims it wasn't his idea to leave Iraq. Obama is a complete joke.
At home he has divided the country more then he has United. Taking sides on domestic matters that the president has no business sticking his nose in.
Obama did take over a huge mess from Bush 2 but he has done nothing to correct the problems making much of them worse.

 Frazzled wrote:


Revisionist nonsense. To those who actually lived through his Presidency, he was just plain BAD.

Then it's a good thing we don't just stop forming opinions about stuff after they happen. Otherwise we'd still be stoning people, and then how we would self righteously declare our superiority to people who still stone people!

 Orlanth wrote:
Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

Romney was a clown?

That's strong.

IMO he'd be the single best candidate we'd have for the 2016 election from either side of that quagmire of gak.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Revisionist nonsense. To those who actually lived through his Presidency, he was just plain BAD.

Then it's a good thing we don't just stop forming opinions about stuff after they happen. Otherwise we'd still be stoning people, and then how we would self righteously declare our superiority to people who still stone people!

As a libertarian, I have no problem with people being stoned as long as they are in a safe place and harm no others.

the revisionists are interested in reforming his character. its difficult to find something he did right.

The 0% interest rates he has kept in place are going to cause us much pain. There are a lot of folks who have had their retirement fethed because of it (hard to make it when typical safe type investments yield only 1-2% on a 30 year treasury bond and being forced into riskier investments which will get slammed when the stock bubble bursts). This is also going to have a big effect on life insurance policies (where the insurer really needs a 5+% investment and again, has been forced into assuming much higher risk in an attempt to achieve it). At this point the Fed must either do another QE or risk that bubble bursting even earlier.

To think Obama has fixed the mess Bush II left is silly. He has overseen a slow/stagnant recovery and built massive debt just to sustain that. We're in a much weaker position over the long term as a result.

 cincydooley wrote:


Romney was a clown?

That's strong.

IMO he'd be the single best candidate we'd have for the 2016 election from either side of that quagmire of gak.

I wouldn't say Romney was a clown, but being forced to run against clowns in the Primaries certainly hurt him in the General. Had he been able to run as the same man he'd been as a Governor, I think he might have beaten Obama but winning the Primaries forced him into Clown shoes

 cincydooley wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

Romney was a clown?

That's strong.

IMO he'd be the single best candidate we'd have for the 2016 election from either side of that quagmire of gak.

Romney's problem is that he comes from governing a state that has left-leaning laws on healthcare and gun control. I think that a lot of Republican voters were put off by that.

The Primaries kill solid Republican candidates.

As for Obama I'm meh on it. I'm making less money per paycheck thanks to the ACA but overall I think he's middle of the road. Not great and not horrible.

I think he's a puppet.
He started off with high expectations and met none of them. He also seems to hold the Constitution in little regard.
I'm really not a fan at all.

Col. Dash wrote:
Horrible president. His diplomacy is horrific. He gutted the command structure of the military replacing them with yes men, to the point where they change intell reports to make it look like sunshine when they read it to him for fear of losing their jobs. It has cost lives trying to keep his "success" in foreign policy on message despite reality. Every foreign political leader knows they can push him around. Internally his policies have been a joke, and a harmful one at that. His healthcare crap bill did nothing but raise the rates for all of us who had it before(and mine are going up again significantly next cycle) and no bill should be passed before seeing what's in it. He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies. He refuses to make decisive decisions(on that I am glad but still not a good trait). He is so owned by special interests it isn't funny. He defies law constantly and actually orders agencies not to enforce certain laws that go against his idealology. Looking forward to seeing him go.

This I have to agree with. In my signature line is my absolute FAVORITE general of the last 30 years or so. He flat out told Obama how things were and because he did they kept him from becoming the commandant, instead we got fething combat conway, the worst commandant of the last 100 years or so. He can take his Chuck Fridays and shove them up his .... anyway back on point. You are right that Obama has basically fired any General who disagreed with him or his ideals. Far be it from a career military officer with 20-30 years experience to dare to instruct a political moron on how the military works. Clearly Obama is the best General ever and we forgot about his glorious military career in... the Kenyan national guard (Thats a joke calm down).

My favorite Obama moment was his speech about the ACA (Obama Care) and how it would lower insurance rates and you could keep the same doctor and blah blah blah. I just got a $900 bill in the mail from the Hospital where my son was born, apparently under Obama Tricare no longer covers testing new born babies for health problems.

Wanted this thread to "stew" a bit... now, let's the fisking begin!

Ya'll know my positions on Obama... right? No secret???

Bet your first guess at what I selected on the polls would be wrong...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
The problem, as with every president, is he gets blamed too much for things that aren't his fault, and not blamed enough for things that actually are. And even things that look like his fault, aren't, and things that don't look like his fault, are. Confusing, eh?

For example, almost every campaign promise a presidential candidate makes is actually impossible for them to fulfill. Presidents don't make laws, Congress does that. So, who do you blame when, say, a campaign promise to lower taxes fails? I say you blame the voters who were too stupid to realize Congress is in charge of taxes, not the President.

He's a poster boy. That's it. Terrible leadership, no authority, no achievements. He's "ethical" and appeals to the lower class(es), but that's about what he's going for him. Forgettable. Can't blame him for being part of the wrong party, though...well...guess you could..

As a president, you don't make laws, that's congress for ya. As a president, you're supposed to be strong or at least appear strong and speak in high favor of your party's changes while dooming the opposing party's ones. All he did was being a "I'm on the fence" president with Obamacare being the sad milestone of a wasteful presidency.

Col. Dash wrote:
Horrible president. His diplomacy is horrific. He gutted the command structure of the military replacing them with yes men, to the point where they change intell reports to make it look like sunshine when they read it to him for fear of losing their jobs. It has cost lives trying to keep his "success" in foreign policy on message despite reality. Every foreign political leader knows they can push him around. Internally his policies have been a joke, and a harmful one at that. His healthcare crap bill did nothing but raise the rates for all of us who had it before(and mine are going up again significantly next cycle) and no bill should be passed before seeing what's in it. He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies. He refuses to make decisive decisions(on that I am glad but still not a good trait). He is so owned by special interests it isn't funny. He defies law constantly and actually orders agencies not to enforce certain laws that go against his idealology. Looking forward to seeing him go.

Whoa...

Let the hate flow my young Jedi.

What he said ya'll.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Obama didn't 'win' any elections, the Republicans lost them by fielding clowns.

Romney was a clown?

That's strong.

IMO he'd be the single best candidate we'd have for the 2016 election from either side of that quagmire of gak.

You know what... I'd agree with that.

Romney is my 1a and Perry is my 1b candidate.

For 2016... I'm praying for Rubio to be the top ticket... anyone else? Ugh...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hulksmash wrote:
The Primaries kill solid Republican candidates.

There's truth in that... but, also, at least the Primary voters are voting for the General Election with in mind... (Romney not being the hard right candidate).

As for Obama I'm meh on it. I'm making less money per paycheck thanks to the ACA but overall I think he's middle of the road. Not great and not horrible.

Yeup.

My healthcare cost in the last 4 years has so far outstripped my pay raise. So, in reality, my take-home-pay is much less in each of my last 4 years.

Col. Dash wrote:
Horrible president. His diplomacy is horrific. He gutted the command structure of the military replacing them with yes men, to the point where they change intell reports to make it look like sunshine when they read it to him for fear of losing their jobs. It has cost lives trying to keep his "success" in foreign policy on message despite reality. Every foreign political leader knows they can push him around. Internally his policies have been a joke, and a harmful one at that. His healthcare crap bill did nothing but raise the rates for all of us who had it before(and mine are going up again significantly next cycle) and no bill should be passed before seeing what's in it. He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies. He refuses to make decisive decisions(on that I am glad but still not a good trait). He is so owned by special interests it isn't funny. He defies law constantly and actually orders agencies not to enforce certain laws that go against his idealology. Looking forward to seeing him go.

Let's not forget "making" everybody in the united states hate each other

 Sigvatr wrote:
He's a poster boy. That's it. Terrible leadership, no authority, no achievements. He's "ethical" and appeals to the lower class(es), but that's about what he's going for him. Forgettable. Can't blame him for being part of the wrong party, though...well...guess you could..

As a president, you don't make laws, that's congress for ya. As a president, you're supposed to be strong or at least appear strong and speak in high favor of your party's changes while dooming the opposing party's ones. All he did was being a "I'm on the fence" president with Obamacare being the sad milestone of a wasteful presidency.

That's your perspective from Germany?

He's the "I'm on the fence" president? I'd say he's the "What time is the 'Green Time' " President.... which is okay with me, he can golf as much as he can! (so that he can do anymore damage)

We're kind of a child of both countries. Living in Germany for most of the year, but mostly doing business in / with the US. By "on the fence" I meant that he rarely commits to anything and if he does, it just goes nowhere (good).

 Sigvatr wrote:
We're kind of a child of both countries. Living in Germany for most of the year, but mostly doing business in / with the US. By "on the fence" I meant that he rarely commits to anything and if he does, it just goes nowhere.

Ah... understood.

From a foreign policy perspective, yea I concur.

Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

It's what he has to do, poltically, from his point of view. He has nothing going or him but people thinking "Hey, that's MY president, y'all!". He must cater to the emotional side as he fully fails on the rational side of things. No achievements whatsoever and everything he touched turned to...he's an opposite Midas!

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

 whembly wrote:

Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

Wow.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

 whembly wrote:

Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

Wow.

What's so "Wow" about that? Do you have a point?

 whembly wrote:
Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

He was a community activist before running for office. Jumping into the fray as quickly as possible is in his job description.

I was wondering what the hell they were supposed to do...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I was wondering what the hell they were supposed to do...

I think the opposition aligns more with his "if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon" comment and his backing of the now debunked "hands up don't shoot" mantra.

 whembly wrote:
Yeah, that's whitewashing it a bit. If Bush was so horribad... then, it should be easy-peasy for Obama to *fix* things. Right?

No, because you can't just magically say "it's fixed now" and make the problems go away. Like, what could we do about Iraq? Bush started a war that never should have happened, but pulling everything out on the first day Obama was in office would have made an even bigger mess of the country. Similarly, there's no easy solution for our economic problems, once the damage is done it's too late to fix everything by simply changing the bad policies that got us into the mess.

And how is this different, than any other Presidency? I remember how the Democrats hated... HATED Reagan.

There's a difference between hate and obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Did the democrats push the country to the edge of bankruptcy (damaging our credit in the process) for the sole purpose of trying to make Reagan a one-term president? Because that's what the republicans have been doing. Anything Obama wants must be opposed because Obama is the Enemy, no matter how much it hurts the country.

You need to re-read what you wrote. The R's were largely locked out of the crafting of the PPACA. There was NO interest from Obama, Pelosi and Reid to negotiate ANYTHING with the Republicans. Hence the donkey-cave ish "I Won" statement from Obama...

I guess you missed the changes that happened as the democrats tried to appease right-leaning voters in congress? The republicans just declared that they weren't going to support ANY bill, even one that had a lot of similarities with Clinton-era republican proposals, because that would let the Enemy have a symbolic victory.

I'd argue Romney would've been a vastly superior President than Obama for all people as he'd been a very respectable "centrist" President.

So you think. Maybe center-right Romney would have been a decent president, or at least a "he kept the chair warm and the extremist lunatics out of office" president. But which Romney would we have seen? The center-right (by US standards) version who governed a blue state with decent approval ratings and would probably be willing to put successfully governing the country ahead of ideological opposition to the democrats? Or the version who promptly forgot about all those things when he needed to appeal to the far-right elements of the republican party? That weakness and lack of leadership is why he lost the election, he utterly failed to convince anyone that he was anything more than a generic old white guy with an R next to his name.

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

He was a community activist before running for office. Jumping into the fray as quickly as possible is in his job description.

Was in his job description. Now, he's supposed to lead the nation to an amiable solution, rather than just adding fuel to the fire.

Ok, what is an amiable solution? What could he have done?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, what is an amiable solution? What could he have done?

Not immediately "picking sides" in an ignorant, reactionary manner would be a start.

There's a reason "Black Lives Matter" is the new mantra and "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" isn't.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, what is an amiable solution? What could he have done?

with what? Which thing?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, what is an amiable solution? What could he have done?

Good question. Answering it is Obama's job. He didn't succeed.

I'm not saying everything is Obama's fault, but he hasn't taken any meaningful steps to address poverty and crime in minority groups, he laid the blame on the police even in instances where all the evidence backed up the police account, and generally didn't really do anything to help the situation.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah, that's whitewashing it a bit. If Bush was so horribad... then, it should be easy-peasy for Obama to *fix* things. Right?

No, because you can't just magically say "it's fixed now" and make the problems go away. Like, what could we do about Iraq? Bush started a war that never should have happened, but pulling everything out on the first day Obama was in office would have made an even bigger mess of the country. Similarly, there's no easy solution for our economic problems, once the damage is done it's too late to fix everything by simply changing the bad policies that got us into the mess.

The wasn't the argument... you've conveniently left out Tanner's "Obama is in a lose/lose situation".

My point was, Obama was elected that he'd be better than Bush in dealing with these issues... things are bad now, you just don't see it.

All you have is... yeah, but it's all Bush's fault.

fething own up to the fact that Obama's foreign policy is a downright disaster and things aren't much better domestically. gak man, the US Intel community are in an almost revolt against the Obama administration.

And how is this different, than any other Presidency? I remember how the Democrats hated... HATED Reagan.

There's a difference between hate and obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Did the democrats push the country to the edge of bankruptcy (damaging our credit in the process) for the sole purpose of trying to make Reagan a one-term president? Because that's what the republicans have been doing. Anything Obama wants must be opposed because Obama is the Enemy, no matter how much it hurts the country.

:sigh:

Unfortunately, that's standard practice in U.S. politics. The only real difference is that both parties are drifting further apart from each other.

You need to re-read what you wrote. The R's were largely locked out of the crafting of the PPACA. There was NO interest from Obama, Pelosi and Reid to negotiate ANYTHING with the Republicans. Hence the donkey-cave ish "I Won" statement from Obama...

I guess you missed the changes that happened as the democrats tried to appease right-leaning voters in congress? The republicans just declared that they weren't going to support ANY bill, even one that had a lot of similarities with Clinton-era republican proposals, because that would let the Enemy have a symbolic victory.

What, because the "basic idea" came from the Heritage Foundation paper written in the 80's somehow validates that this is a bipartisan idea?

Bull. Fething. Manure.

All this "republicans won't support any bill" is nothing more that insinuendoes that republicans are only doing that to make the first black President look bad... a backdoor attempt to pin the Republican party as a bunch of racists.

I'd argue Romney would've been a vastly superior President than Obama for all people as he'd been a very respectable "centrist" President.

So you think. Maybe center-right Romney would have been a decent president, or at least a "he kept the chair warm and the extremist lunatics out of office" president. But which Romney would we have seen? The center-right (by US standards) version who governed a blue state with decent approval ratings and would probably be willing to put successfully governing the country ahead of ideological opposition to the democrats? Or the version who promptly forgot about all those things when he needed to appeal to the far-right elements of the republican party? That weakness and lack of leadership is why he lost the election, he utterly failed to convince anyone that he was anything more than a generic old white guy with an R next to his name.

No, Romney lost because the Primary beat him to pulp, unfavorable media attention, being an uninspiring retail-politician and the fact that the Obama campaign was able to flex their grassroots muscle in the GOTV strategies.

Unfortunately for the US, candidate Romney was right in just about everything of what Obama has/will do...

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
He seems pretty decent from my outsider's perspective. However, he's basically just on the right side. The idea that people even consider republican ideas, from what I can tell of them as said outsider, is absolutely nightmarish. Anyone opposing that looks good.

what policies do you take issue with?

While im not necessarily a republican I am fairly conservative. Typically when I speak with a foreigner regarding our politics, they have the stereotypical views that all republicans are bible totting rednecks, which isn't always the case. Many conservatives, especially younger ones are market liberal, and fiscally conservative as far as spending goes, and social liberals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

 whembly wrote:

Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

Wow.

whats so "wow" about this?

He's a president, not a mayor, not a governor, a president. He has much bigger matters he should be addressing than some punk criminal kid who got shot trying to disarm a police officer. Worse still, he threw his opinion, as a president, into the fray before an investigation was completed (which...shockingly (sarcasm) showed the officer wasn't at fault).

Doing gak like that makes him seem incredibly petty, and polarizes the general public.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

He was a community activist before running for office. Jumping into the fray as quickly as possible is in his job description.

Which is another reason he shouldn't have been president. He is to quick to offer a knee jerk response to complicated issues.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
Horrible president. His diplomacy is horrific. He gutted the command structure of the military replacing them with yes men, to the point where they change intell reports to make it look like sunshine when they read it to him for fear of losing their jobs. It has cost lives trying to keep his "success" in foreign policy on message despite reality. Every foreign political leader knows they can push him around. Internally his policies have been a joke, and a harmful one at that. His healthcare crap bill did nothing but raise the rates for all of us who had it before(and mine are going up again significantly next cycle) and no bill should be passed before seeing what's in it. He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies. He refuses to make decisive decisions(on that I am glad but still not a good trait). He is so owned by special interests it isn't funny. He defies law constantly and actually orders agencies not to enforce certain laws that go against his idealology. Looking forward to seeing him go.

This I have to agree with. In my signature line is my absolute FAVORITE general of the last 30 years or so. He flat out told Obama how things were and because he did they kept him from becoming the commandant, instead we got fething combat conway, the worst commandant of the last 100 years or so. He can take his Chuck Fridays and shove them up his .... anyway back on point. You are right that Obama has basically fired any General who disagreed with him or his ideals. Far be it from a career military officer with 20-30 years experience to dare to instruct a political moron on how the military works. Clearly Obama is the best General ever and we forgot about his glorious military career in... the Kenyan national guard (Thats a joke calm down).

My favorite Obama moment was his speech about the ACA (Obama Care) and how it would lower insurance rates and you could keep the same doctor and blah blah blah. I just got a $900 bill in the mail from the Hospital where my son was born, apparently under Obama Tricare no longer covers testing new born babies for health problems.

I'll give my exalt to this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

 whembly wrote:

Domestically, he's "jumped into the fray" waaaay too early. See Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Sandy Hook Shooting, any school shooting for that matter.

Wow.

I agree. Wow, sending White House reps to funerals of criminals and making ill thought, pre mature statements about situations and adding fiel to the fire.

He's like John Cena, everybody hates him because he's a nice guy (or a good WWE puppet) . Looking forward to see Trump in office and see him invade Canada and Mexico!

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

What do you care? The Christians have God, right? Why do they need a president to prop them up when you have AN OMNIPOTENT BEING on your side?

The most significant failure of Obama is that near-peer world leaders such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin don't view him as a serious opponent nor an equal at the negotiation table. He also squandered enormous amounts of initial good will that could have gone towards attempting to rebuild some good relationships in the Arab world. His domestic policy has resulted in a more stratified society where tensions are brought closer to the surface and erosion of respect for the state has occurred.

Erosion of respect for the state is happening in nearly all western societies, imo.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The most significant failure of Obama is that near-peer world leaders such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin don't view him as a serious opponent nor an equal at the negotiation table.

Why would they? What incentive is there for any nation to negotiate in good faith with the US President when the opposing party is publicly proclaiming, and even campaigning on, undoing everything the President has done? While it's always been true that a new president can change things when entering office, and that treaties are ratified by the Senate, the past four years have been exceptionally bad due to the toxicity in our politics, and the fact that our Congress is now willing to play out their temper tantrums on the world stage for all to see.

Unfortunately, that's going to be the case from now on, regardless of who is in the White House. Why should any nation negotiate with the US if they can't trust us to keep faith beyond the next election?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The most significant failure of Obama is that near-peer world leaders such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin don't view him as a serious opponent nor an equal at the negotiation table.

Why would they? What incentive is there for any nation to negotiate in good faith with the US President when the opposing party is publicly proclaiming, and even campaigning on, undoing everything the President has done? While it's always been true that a new president can change things when entering office, and that treaties are ratified by the Senate, the past four years have been exceptionally bad due to the toxicity in our politics, and the fact that our Congress is now willing to play out their temper tantrums on the world stage for all to see.

Maybe if Pres Obama had gone the Senate approved Treaty route instead of attempting a run around congress he would not be in the position where the next POTUS can undo the run around?

I like Obama. He's not afraid to show he's as red-blooded American as the rest of us. I mean, he's a guy who goes and plays basketball in his backyard to unwind. Obamacare, in its current state, is a piece of crap. It's also been said multiple times that it isn't what he intended: this is an Obamacare that has been fought and adjusted by Republicans to get out the door, and what it was supposed to be was DOA, and thrown in a Pet Semetary (spelling on purpose to reflect Stephen King novel). It doesn't come back the same way it went in.

His team got Osama Bin Laden. No, not him personally. But the guys he sent in. Meanwhile George Bush's guys got the wrong fellow. A guy who hated the guy who attacked us. Which one was better? Well, okay, unfair. A slug that's been cooking on a hot patio is superior to Bush.

He has improved most of Europe's view of us. In fact, most of the world hated us for Bush. And who could blame them? Some countries have respect for Obama. Some think he's a pushover. Some honestly just don't care. But he isn't (and us as a whole aren't) hated.

I think the OP should remember the crap that came before Obama before making such vitriolic posting. I don't worship the ground Obama walks on. But he's a serious improvement. And I hope to get to vote for Hillary as his successor.

If Hillary doesn't make it to the presidential vote though, I'm voting for Batman.

 LethalShade wrote:
Erosion of respect for the state is happening in nearly all western societies, imo.

Meh. You think Obama has been a total disaster, just pull up your chair and wait until you see what Justin Trudurp is going to do!

 JimOnMars wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

What do you care? The Christians have God, right? Why do they need a president to prop them up when you have AN OMNIPOTENT BEING on your side?

Are you aware that that is a very flippant way to completely disregard the situation? Obama short hands Christians in almost every circumstance.

Oregon shooter deliberately shot Christians. What did Obama do? "We need gun control"

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

What do you care? The Christians have God, right? Why do they need a president to prop them up when you have AN OMNIPOTENT BEING on your side?

Are you aware that that is a very flippant way to completely disregard the situation? Obama short hands Christians in almost every circumstance.

Given that he is one, and the vast majority of the country professes to be, it's hard to see where he's doing so from his position as president at the federal level.

Oregon shooter deliberately shot Christians.

Yeah, there's a whole lot of unclear evidence on that and what outcome it had.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
The most significant failure of Obama is that near-peer world leaders such as Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin don't view him as a serious opponent nor an equal at the negotiation table.

Why would they? What incentive is there for any nation to negotiate in good faith with the US President

For one, the US military.

The fact that you can even ask that question is indicative of the serious erosion of global respect for US power. This is intrinsically linked with a weak POTUS who can use neither the carrot nor the stick, just vague appeals to "human rights" and "the community."



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 LethalShade wrote:
Erosion of respect for the state is happening in nearly all western societies, imo.

Meh. You think Obama has been a total disaster, just pull up your chair and wait until you see what Justin Trudurp is going to do!

Truth. He's already talking about withdrawing Canada from anti-ISIS operations in Syria/Iraq. Go team milquetoast!

Very neutral. However, he is an excellent orator.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
For one, the US military.

What reason is there to negotiate with the US if you're one the long list of countries that doesn't fear the US military at all?

The fact that you can even ask that question is indicative of the serious erosion of global respect for US power. This is intrinsically linked with a weak POTUS who can use neither the carrot nor the stick, just vague appeals to "human rights" and "the community."

You're missing the point entirely, which is hilarious because it was explicitly stated in the part of the post you omitted from your quote. The reason there's little incentive to negotiate with the US is not that people don't respect the US under Obama, it's that the republican party has based its platform on "oppose and undo everything Obama does". So negotiations that might be constructive if everyone could guarantee that the country would remain under the control of Obama and democrat successors with similar policies suddenly lose a lot of incentive when everyone knows that a republican win in the next presidential election would result in the new US leadership doing everything it can to undermine those negotiations. It doesn't matter how strong and respected the current president is when their term ends in a couple of years and you have no idea what the next guy is going to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Are you aware that that is a very flippant way to completely disregard the situation? Obama short hands Christians in almost every circumstance.

Citation needed. What exactly has Obama done that has been so horrible to Christians? When you answer this please remember that failing to give Christians special privileges is not the same thing as hurting them.

Oregon shooter deliberately shot Christians. What did Obama do? "We need gun control"

What exactly is Obama supposed to do in this case?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
Oregon shooter deliberately shot Christians. What did Obama do? "We need gun control"

No, he really didn't. Plus, that doesn't have feth all to do with Obama.

Also, he hasn't persecuted Christians in America.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

What do you care? The Christians have God, right? Why do they need a president to prop them up when you have AN OMNIPOTENT BEING on your side?

Are you aware that that is a very flippant way to completely disregard the situation? Obama short hands Christians in almost every circumstance.

Riiight... Christians are a massive majority in the US, both in the general public and in power. You may however be mistaking treating everyone equally with short changing Christians if you are used to Christians getting their way all the time as they have in the past...

I can't name a single thing I like about Obama. His foreign policy is a bad joke, he tried to take away people's right to own guns (or at least severely limit it), and he has royally screwed up healthcare in the U.S., possibly permanently. All these people who mentioned that the rich should have to "share the wealth" to help pay for healthcare should realize that there is a word for "share the wealth with those who haven't earned it": COMMUNISM. Seriously, so many of the so-called "entitlement" benefits programs (like food stamps and other such programs), rather than helping the people who legitimately need it, end up just empowering many people to just be lazy and ride the system rather than get off their lazy asses and earn a living like decent human beings. And the ones who ultimately pay for it are the hard-working people, in the form of taxes. Perhaps this is not actual hardcore communism, but it is definitely leaning that way. There is no such thing as a free lunch; ultimately someone pays for all these "free" services the government provides. And now Obama has added healthcare to the list of things that us working stiffs have to work extra hard for. America used to be a place where people cared about freedom; nowadays too many people care more about free stuff than freedom.

I work for Walmart. Because of Obamacare, Walmart had to cut benefits down to where only people who averaged 30 hours a week would qualify. I lost my company-provided health insurance because I didn't work that much last year (because I was still in college). Because of that, I have had to pay more to have insurance this year (even with a subsidy) than I ever did with the company-provided insurance, for a policy that is totally inferior. Thank you, Mister President!

Thank God I will once again qualify for benefits for next year, so the nightmare is over (for now).

In a nutshell, I think Obama is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had, but I don't wish he would die or anything stupid like that. I am looking forward to having a new POTUS (anybody but Hillary Clinton, but that is a discussion for another time...)

 ZergSmasher wrote:
he tried to take away people's right to own guns (or at least severely limit it),

No he didn't. He made some speeches about how nice gun control would be, and then promptly dropped the subject. He, like anyone else in a leadership position in his party, knows that gun control is a losing issue and has no interest in making a serious push for it. Saying a few words about it occasionally is nothing more than an attempt to keep people who do care about gun control voting democrat every election.

All these people who mentioned that the rich should have to "share the wealth" to help pay for healthcare should realize that there is a word for "share the wealth with those who haven't earned it": COMMUNISM.

I don't think you have any clue what "communism" means.

Seriously, so many of the so-called "entitlement" benefits programs (like food stamps and other such programs), rather than helping the people who legitimately need it, end up just empowering many people to just be lazy and ride the system rather than get off their lazy asses and earn a living like decent human beings.

This is a myth. Welfare is NOT a life of luxury, and there's still plenty of incentive to work for a better life. That incentive just doesn't consist of "work or you'll starve to death".

And the ones who ultimately pay for it are the hard-working people, in the form of taxes.

Yep, that's how the world works. We want to have a society where people don't starve to death, education is available to everyone, etc, and that is paid for by taxes. Understanding this is part of learning to be an adult.

Perhaps this is not actual hardcore communism, but it is definitely leaning that way.

No it isn't. It isn't even close. "Communism" has a very specific meaning and is not a synonym for "left-leaning economic or social policies".

There is no such thing as a free lunch; ultimately someone pays for all these "free" services the government provides.

Yep, welcome to life in a society that isn't an anarcho-capitaist hell. Most people understand why this is a good thing.

And now Obama has added healthcare to the list of things that us working stiffs have to work extra hard for.

So people should be allowed to suffer and die because they don't have enough money?

America used to be a place where people cared about freedom; nowadays too many people care more about free stuff than freedom.

Sorry, but this is just laughably wrong. Silly right-wing cliches are not the same as sensible domestic policy.

I work for Walmart. Because of Obamacare, Walmart had to cut benefits down to where only people who averaged 30 hours a week would qualify. I lost my company-provided health insurance because I didn't work that much last year (because I was still in college). Because of that, I have had to pay more to have insurance this year (even with a subsidy) than I ever did with the company-provided insurance, for a policy that is totally inferior. Thank you, Mister President!

Why are you blaming Obama instead of your employer's greed? Walmart didn't have to cut those benefits, they could have sacrificed profit to keep them. In fact, Obamacare's primary contribution was probably giving your employer an opportunity to slash benefits that they'd like to get rid of and direct your outrage at someone else.

I am looking forward to having a new POTUS (anybody but Hillary Clinton, but that is a discussion for another time...)

I see. Anybody but Hillary, huh?. I look forward to your explanation of how Obama is the worst president ever and bringing us to communism, while simultaneously looking forward to having Sanders, a self-identified socialist, as president.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I can't name a single thing I like about Obama. His foreign policy is a bad joke, he tried to take away people's right to own guns (or at least severely limit it), and he has royally screwed up healthcare in the U.S., possibly permanently. All these people who mentioned that the rich should have to "share the wealth" to help pay for healthcare should realize that there is a word for "share the wealth with those who haven't earned it": COMMUNISM. Seriously, so many of the so-called "entitlement" benefits programs (like food stamps and other such programs), rather than helping the people who legitimately need it, end up just empowering many people to just be lazy and ride the system rather than get off their lazy asses and earn a living like decent human beings. And the ones who ultimately pay for it are the hard-working people, in the form of taxes. Perhaps this is not actual hardcore communism, but it is definitely leaning that way. There is no such thing as a free lunch; ultimately someone pays for all these "free" services the government provides. And now Obama has added healthcare to the list of things that us working stiffs have to work extra hard for. America used to be a place where people cared about freedom; nowadays too many people care more about free stuff than freedom.

I work for Walmart. Because of Obamacare, Walmart had to cut benefits down to where only people who averaged 30 hours a week would qualify. I lost my company-provided health insurance because I didn't work that much last year (because I was still in college). Because of that, I have had to pay more to have insurance this year (even with a subsidy) than I ever did with the company-provided insurance, for a policy that is totally inferior. Thank you, Mister President!

Thank God I will once again qualify for benefits for next year, so the nightmare is over (for now).

In a nutshell, I think Obama is one of the worst presidents this country has ever had, but I don't wish he would die or anything stupid like that. I am looking forward to having a new POTUS (anybody but Hillary Clinton, but that is a discussion for another time...)

This entire rant can be boiled down by this sentence:

"My life isn't as great as I think it should be and Fox News told me I should be mad at Obama because of it."

 ZergSmasher wrote:
I can't name a single thing I like about Obama. His foreign policy is a bad joke,

With respect to some things, like Syria, sure, absolutely, but hardly in all cases.

he tried to take away people's right to own guns (or at least severely limit it),

Hrm, he voiced support for a new AWB (which yes, I would absolutely oppose) that went nowhere, aside from that, he hasn't attempted much of note, Obama's threat to 2A rights is far less than what many make it out to be, particularly next to individual state issues. As someone with enough firearms to be considered in the top 2% of gun ownership, Obama is the least of my worries on that count. I wouldn't consider him a 2A friendly president, but nowhere near the most anti-gun president ever either.

and he has royally screwed up healthcare in the U.S., possibly permanently.

Ok, lets be fair here, Healthcare was already screwed up big time. Where Obama can legitimately be faulted is in the completely brain-dead mistake turning his desire for health care reform over to Pelosi and Reid to manage through congress, with predictably bad results as neither of them can find their ass with both hands and the Republicans were determined to fight anything tooth and nail simply "because", and were never going to allow a functional single-payer system that was originally envisioned. That said, it's not all bad, and Obamacare was the only reason I had healthcare at certain times of my life, and it very much came in handy, and more have health coverage than they did before.

All these people who mentioned that the rich should have to "share the wealth" to help pay for healthcare should realize that there is a word for "share the wealth with those who haven't earned it": COMMUNISM.

Socialism actually, and yes, the United States, like every Western society, is a partially Socialist society. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You'll find that the author of the Wealth of Nations, the cornerstone of Capitalism and the originator of the concept of the "invisible hand", absolutely condones higher taxation of the wealthy to support society.

Seriously, so many of the so-called "entitlement" benefits programs (like food stamps and other such programs), rather than helping the people who legitimately need it, end up just empowering many people to just be lazy and ride the system rather than get off their lazy asses and earn a living like decent human beings.

You'll find there's pretty much zero economic data to support this idea. Most people on these programs are on them for relatively short periods of time, and many of them you can't be on perpetually. For a single adult with no income, you're looking at ~$200/month for food from Food Stamps, or about ~$6.50 a day to survive on. and if that's all you've got to live on to eat, you probably had an incentive to go out and, well, do something. The idea that millions of people just sit around doing nothing and live lives of plenty on government benefits is fantasy. Sure you can find some people that game the system or find loopholes, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of people don't get that much from these programs, aren't on them for years at a time, aren't lazy, and don't enjoy being on them.

And the ones who ultimately pay for it are the hard-working people, in the form of taxes.

who can then benefit from these services when they fall on hard times.

Perhaps this is not actual hardcore communism, but it is definitely leaning that way.

I would question your idea of Communism then.

There is no such thing as a free lunch; ultimately someone pays for all these "free" services the government provides. And now Obama has added healthcare to the list of things that us working stiffs have to work extra hard for. America used to be a place where people cared about freedom; nowadays too many people care more about free stuff than freedom.

People have always cared about stuff, don't kid yourself.

That said, government subsidized healthcare has lots of cost saving advantages. Sick & injured people either can't work or work less effectively, therefore producing less. They can also get other people sick (like you or I) which then further decreases productivity and/or can require others to cut back their productive work to care for them. If they get healthcare, then they spend less time being unproductive and have longer productive lifespans. More people paying into the system through taxes also means a lower share per person. In addition, part of the problem with outrageous costs is that providers negotiate individually with those paying the costs. This means that there's additional administrative overhead, and that different patients pay different rates, and the uninsured get stuck with the largest bills because they lack the market power to negotiate services. In a single-payer socialized system (like what most of the developed world uses), you have one entity negotiating costs with providers, which both smooths and drives down costs.

I work for Walmart. Because of Obamacare, Walmart had to cut benefits down to where only people who averaged 30 hours a week would qualify. I lost my company-provided health insurance because I didn't work that much last year (because I was still in college). Because of that, I have had to pay more to have insurance this year (even with a subsidy) than I ever did with the company-provided insurance, for a policy that is totally inferior. Thank you, Mister President!

Yeah, it has some crappy loopholes. But blaming Obama entirely for that is rather misguided. Look to congress on that one, and Walmart employment has it's own host of...special issues unfortunately. If your state however took advantage of the Medicaid expansion, you should be able to get healthcare about as good or better for about what you were paying in before (though if they refused the medicaid expansion, you're pooched, but that's something more to blame on your state government in that case).

I am looking forward to having a new POTUS (anybody but Hillary Clinton, but that is a discussion for another time...)

Unfortunately it's looking increasingly likely that it'll be Hillary's election

Ah the old, any socialist policy done by the democrats must be communism, "thing". Ignoring the fact of the existence of all our socialist policies, and the fact that we are a socialist-capitalist country (admittedly leaning more capitalist than most).

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
He caters to muslim groups while browbeating, ignoring or flat out targeting Christian groups and our foreign allies.

What do you care? The Christians have God, right? Why do they need a president to prop them up when you have AN OMNIPOTENT BEING on your side?

Are you aware that that is a very flippant way to completely disregard the situation? Obama short hands Christians in almost every circumstance.

Riiight... Christians are a massive majority in the US, both in the general public and in power. You may however be mistaking treating everyone equally with short changing Christians if you are used to Christians getting their way all the time as they have in the past...

It all boils down to what our perverted sense of equality is.

Ok, what is our Pervered sense in inequality?

Eh, Chirsitians aren't under attack more than any other religion, they are just being stopped from the unconstitutional act of making their religion into law. Besides, that mostly the courts, not Obama.

It wasn't the courts that added the contraceptive mandates in the ACA.

...
So that's the "Christians under attack"? Seriously.
Christians are under attack because they aren't allowed to force their religion onto their employees. And didn't the church in question win that case anyway?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
...
So that's the "Christians under attack"? Seriously.
Christians are under attack because they aren't allowed to force their religion onto their employees. And didn't the church in question win that case anyway?

Please cite where Christians are forcing their religion on their employees.

Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing religion on the employees. Its actually the other way around. The law is attempting to force people to participate in actions which are contrary to their belief system.

Are they the ones taking the contraceptive? No? then they are not violating their beliefs. They are a company, and a company should not be forcing its beliefs on its employees.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Its not an employer's responsiblity to pay for an employee's contraceptives. I've DAMN sure never had a job that gave me a "condom ration"....

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Are they the ones taking the contraceptive? No? then they are not violating their beliefs. They are a company, and a company should not be forcing its beliefs on its employees.

The law requires the company to give its employees X. X violates their beliefs. Therefor the government is forcing the company's owners to violate their beliefs.

Unless they are a church, not a company, then they should have to learn that not all their employees follow their beliefs and it is their responsibility to provide for employyes.

You are still ignoring that the law is requiring someone to violate their beliefs. Thats totally and 100% wrong.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are still ignoring that the law is requiring someone to violate their beliefs. Thats totally and 100% wrong.

Law requires people to violate or subjugate their beliefs or values in order to promote social stability and common fraternity. Thats the entire function of law. Its the entire function of property rights. Its the entire basis of our society.

I fail to see how we lose stability in this instance. Especially when religious freedom is one of the foundational rights and freedoms our country is founded on.

I know you have a raging hateboner for Christianity Peter, but do try and understand this.

I'm still confused as to how a single piece of a single law is "Christians under attack". I very much doubt that they were going "let's see if we can force churches to provide services against their religion", more that the thought didn't even cross their mind.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Give it up Frazzie...

The argument stems whether or not corporations/groups can have beliefs.

The SCOTUS ruled the one argument is correct. (see Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases).

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Except as said, the guy in hobby lobby is more than happy to have a stake in a company that does.
They are a company and should follow he law, if they dont like the law, they are more than welcome to close their doors.

Except it was held that they can indeed claim exemption in this case.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Except as said, the guy in hobby lobby is more than happy to have a stake in a company that does.
They are a company and should follow he law, if they dont like the law, they are more than welcome to close their doors.

The Government should also follow the law.

Hence why we have the courts.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

I do agree that Obama isn't "attacking" Christians... nor is he has done/advocated as much.

However, you cant ignore that in these last few years, Christians has taken a beating socially. Hence the "Christians under attack" memes...

So Christian students can't have religious clubs? By the way, student clubs are almost always entirely self-funded. And every religious club has been that way too. I've never been in a club that received any funding from the school.

So you rent the room that the club takes place in to you? Just because you aren't getting financial support, doesn't mean you aren't getting support.


edit: And, yes Christian students can have religious clubs, they just have to follow the same rules as everybody else.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So you rent the room that the club takes place in to you? Just because you aren't getting financial support, doesn't mean you aren't getting support.

So... wait, you pulling a "separation of church vs state" thing here?

How's this on-topic?

Must have missed something...

So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So you rent the room that the club takes place in to you? Just because you aren't getting financial support, doesn't mean you aren't getting support.

So... wait, you pulling a "separation of church vs state" thing here?

How's this on-topic?

Must have missed something...

Black Templar was coming about Christian school clubs (which is to say, school clubs about Christianity, not school clubs in a christian school) not being able to discriminate based on religion or sexual preference/identity. My response is, basically, "don't expect special treatment". If people want to make a private religious club (also called a church) they can discriminate all they want, but if you are making a club in a school, you have to follow their rules, no matter your religion. The only real ways is things that don't negatively effect other people, like Sikhs being allowed turbans, stuff like that. Not "you can't be part of this club because you are gay".

And it's not on-topic a all, it was a tangent based on the "Christians under attack" thing.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

I do agree that Obama isn't "attacking" Christians... nor is he has done/advocated as much.

However, you cant ignore that in these last few years, Christians has taken a beating socially. Hence the "Christians under attack" memes...

Probably because alot of what their doing is trying to regress us as a nation?

So why can Atheist clubs discriminate? Club leadership is required to espouse their club's constitution. Atheist clubs have a charter espousing non-belief in any deity. Christian clubs have charter's espousing belief in God and the divinity of Jesus christ.

Which the former ok and the latter not?

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. If you make a club in a school, you are bound by their rules. It was your choice to make/join the club. When the club started, it agreed to be bound by those rules. Don't like them? Make a club not in the school. It's a simple as that.


And if the Atheist club is doing that, complain, as they should not be allowed to do that any more than you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So why can Atheist clubs discriminate? Club leadership is required to espouse their club's constitution. Atheist clubs have a charter espousing non-belief in any deity. Christian clubs have charter's espousing belief in God and the divinity of Jesus christ.

Which the former ok and the latter not?

Both are Ok, but when one actively trys to discriminate, going against the schools missions statement, thats when it is bad.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So why can Atheist clubs discriminate? Club leadership is required to espouse their club's constitution. Atheist clubs have a charter espousing non-belief in any deity. Christian clubs have charter's espousing belief in God and the divinity of Jesus christ.

Which the former ok and the latter not?

I was still replying to whembly before I saw your post

Check up a bit to see my answer.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. If you make a club in a school, you are bound by their rules. It was your choice to make/join the club. When the club started, it agreed to be bound by those rules. Don't like them? Make a club not in the school. It's a simple as that.


And if the Atheist club is doing that, complain, as they should not be allowed to do that any more than you.

People have complained and pointed out the hypocrisy. Nothing is done.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Except as said, the guy in hobby lobby is more than happy to have a stake in a company that does.
They are a company and should follow he law, if they dont like the law, they are more than welcome to close their doors.

What if the law permits requires discrimination against Asians?

Having said that, we are seriously going down the rathole and probably should get back OT.

Agreed. this is going is circles.
That said, why is it people still ask for obamas birth certificate?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

I do agree that Obama isn't "attacking" Christians... nor is he has done/advocated as much.

However, you cant ignore that in these last few years, Christians has taken a beating socially. Hence the "Christians under attack" memes...

Probably because alot of what their doing is trying to regress us as a nation?

What does this even mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

That said, why is it people still ask for obamas birth certificate?

You mean, why are people taking a Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign birther question to heart?

You mean now? Like Trump?

I got nuthin.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. If you make a club in a school, you are bound by their rules. It was your choice to make/join the club. When the club started, it agreed to be bound by those rules. Don't like them? Make a club not in the school. It's a simple as that.


And if the Atheist club is doing that, complain, as they should not be allowed to do that any more than you.

People have complained and pointed out the hypocrisy. Nothing is done.

Which is wrong. If I were in that school, I would have given an earful to whoever is in charge. That is wrong, and should not be tolerated (besides the fact that I think a club for being atheist is incredibly stupid, it's just not believing in something, not something that needs a club).

I have nothing against religious clubs vs any other club, they should all be treated equally. Same for people, plenty of people I know believe in some religion or other. I don't care. The only time I care about something like that is when people use it to harm others, force their view one others, or get special treatment which is a burden or harmful to others (so a Sikh's turban [not burdensome or harmful], as opposed to an atheist club discrimination against religious people [harmful]).

So how is a Christian club only wanting its leadership to be Christian harming anyone?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Agreed. this is going is circles.
That said, why is it people still ask for obamas birth certificate?

Why do people still think the moon landings were fake?

Why do people think 9/11 was an inside government job?

Why has the US not put up a 50 tall wall around New Mexico to protect us from the radzone muties?

Because people are stupid.

Discrimination, probably. I assume that's what the schools rule is. I personally think that part is a bit silly, I'm more concerned with the sexual identity/preference thing. Besides, aren't most clubs leadership position decided by a mini-election or something in the club? That's how we did it at out school, although we had a pretty small population (graduating class of less than 200, woo!) so it mostly came down to "alright we have 6 positions we have to fill, and 5 of us, who wants to do all the actual work?".

Although I thought you were talking about letting people into the club. Bit of crossed wires there (i.e. I'm an idiot ).

 Grey Templar wrote:
Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities

Such as?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities

Such as?

Promotion of their beliefs on campus, requiring their leadership to conform to their beliefs, etc...

Basically, they can require their leadership to be professing Atheists. The Basketball club can require their leadership to be active on the Basketball team. But the Christian club cannot require their leadership to be professing Christians.

Do note that there are no membership requirements. Only requirements for running in the election for club leadership.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are still ignoring that the law is requiring someone to violate their beliefs. Thats totally and 100% wrong.

This is not an absolute. For example, a closely held company with Christian Scientist beliefs, that does not believe in anything but prayer for the provision of healthcare, cannot simply decide that it will not provide any healthcare at all. A Hindu owned company could not refuse to provide benefits to a Dalit-caste descended employeee.

Additionally, there are non-contraceptive uses for contraceptive pills, particularly in management of menstruation and a number of associated conditions. LIkewise, Hobby Lobby would cover things like Viagra and Vasectomies for men...

True, but this example isn't even close to something that extreme.

As for the pills, I'm not sure if you could discriminate based on the prescription type. If thats possible then that seems like an ok compromise. IE: You'll cover prescriptions for the non-contraceptive uses, but will not cover contraceptive prescriptions.

Do we need to move this "Chruch vs State" into a new thread?

Actually HL had already agreed to all but three of the contraceptive options out of the 20 something the law was trying to force so they were not being unreasonable.

Col. Dash wrote:
Actually HL had already agreed to all but three of the contraceptive options out of the 20 something the law was trying to force so they were not being unreasonable.

Don't let your silly facts muddy up these waters.

Well it was fun revisiting the Hobby Lobby discussion for some reason. As for this thread, it seems to be much the same topics as the politics thread (Obama yay Obama boo Obama meh) so I can't see any need for it to stay open, especially when we're just arguing about something old. I'll leave it a bit longer, see if something unique can come out of it to justify it existing alongside the politics thread.

Threads like this remind me that we as a species still have a long way to go.

The president is made out to be this mythic figure responsible for all our woes or salvations. While the red tribe thumps thier chest and declares he's the worst ever. The blue tribe beats the ground and snorts that he'd do a better job without the red tribes meddling. While alot who belong to neither tribe entirely scratch their butts and go meh good and bad.

The fact we claim to be so advanced and still suffer from self centered tribal mentality is both amusing and saddening.

Oh and Im in the meh tribe. In the end hes only human.

lonestarr777 wrote:

The president is made out to be this mythic figure responsible for all our woes or salvations.

Because they are!

In 1963 after the alleged JFK assassination John F Kennedy was sent the moon to be the first man to walk on the moon. This was kept secret to us and we were made to believe he was assassinated on November 22nd 1963.

Upon arrival his mission was to clear the moon of any alien life to make future moon landings easy and safe. He lived on the moon for 26 years hunting and slaying aliens until NASA lost communication....his death has still not been confirmed however and many believe hes still murdering aliens today.

 kronk wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:

The president is made out to be this mythic figure responsible for all our woes or salvations.

Because they are!

Spoiler:

In 1963 after the alleged JFK assassination John F Kennedy was sent the moon to be the first man to walk on the moon. This was kept secret to us and we were made to believe he was assassinated on November 22nd 1963.

Upon arrival his mission was to clear the moon of any alien life to make future moon landings easy and safe. He lived on the moon for 26 years hunting and slaying aliens until NASA lost communication....his death has still not been confirmed however and many believe hes still murdering aliens today.

Animate that and set it to the music of Queen's "Princes of the Universe" and it might be the best thing ever.

 motyak wrote:
As for this thread, it seems to be much the same topics as the politics thread (Obama yay Obama boo Obama meh) so I can't see any need for it to stay open, especially when we're just arguing about something old.

The hread is literally called "What's your opinion of Obama?". I...am confused and not sure of what you expected it to be about other than "Obama ya / meh / boo".

 Sigvatr wrote:

 motyak wrote:
As for this thread, it seems to be much the same topics as the politics thread (Obama yay Obama boo Obama meh) so I can't see any need for it to stay open, especially when we're just arguing about something old.

The hread is literally called "What's your opinion of Obama?". I...am confused and not sure of what you expected it to be about other than "Obama ya / meh / boo".

Maybe he was expecting someone to worship him like a deity?

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 motyak wrote:
As for this thread, it seems to be much the same topics as the politics thread (Obama yay Obama boo Obama meh) so I can't see any need for it to stay open, especially when we're just arguing about something old.

The hread is literally called "What's your opinion of Obama?". I...am confused and not sure of what you expected it to be about other than "Obama ya / meh / boo".

Maybe he was expecting someone to worship him like a deity?

Would the Devil be considered a deity? Not saying he is Satan reborn just saying he is terrible

Bet a dollar I can make fried catfish better than Obama can.

If he had a son, he could fry better catfish.

I'm actually being serious. I make an amazing fried catfish.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
If he had a son, he could fry better catfish.

I think you mean if he had a son he'd have looked just like that catfish.

 Alex C wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
If he had a son, he could fry better catfish.

I think you mean if he had a son he'd have looked just like that catfish.

Hmmm, I'm just not seeing it....

That catfish is not holding a bag of skittles.

I knew there was some kind of dumbass racist comment buried in there. Thanks for confirming it.

Ugh.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I knew there was some kind of dumbass racist comment buried in there. Thanks for confirming it.

Ugh.

I wouldn't consider that racist necessarily, Obama made a snap judgement on a criminal and looked like a fool for it, he gets to reap that one for awhile

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
I knew there was some kind of dumbass racist comment buried in there. Thanks for confirming it.

Ugh.

I wouldn't consider that racist necessarily, Obama made a snap judgement on a criminal and looked like a fool for it, he gets to reap that one for awhile

Exactly. I'm saying Obama was a fething idiot for coming out with gak like that, how is that racist? Just because he's mixed race?

God I hate this day and age, can't say gak without some fething SJW coming out of the woodwork and taking offense at everything.