Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.