Barack HUSSEIN Obama

[Baron Von PWN]

I think that if any intelligent person were to run for president in 2012, Obama would loose by a significant margin, given his low polling numbers. On the other hand, the definition of "intelligent person" sort of implies that he would not be running for president in the first place.

This is the type of thing I was talking about. Its gotten to the point where people have such complete lack of respect for their political opponents you will not even admit the president is an intelligent man. Such total disrespect for political opponents only degrades politics and lowers the level of debate to trivialities.

First of all, I think there was an assumption there that I was talking about Republicans. I don’t think any Democrat would run against Obama, at least not yet. Nor was I specifically talking about the President. I could talk about the President, but I was not talking about the “intelligence” of the President in that above quote.

My apologies then I misunderstood. I understood the sentence as " the definition of intelligent person would mean Obama would not be running" a failure in reading comprehension on my part. Again sorry.

Obama faces a very difficult problem in his reelection. It is impossible to “fact check” the future. It is easy to fact check the present and the past. Obama’s claims that he would, if elected, do X, Y and Z could never be “fact checked.” Obama’s record, on the other hand can be. His statements about the past, especially who and what caused the recession can be. His constant attempt to blame everything on Bush has already worn thin and beneath the veneer is the fact that the buck will one day stop at his desk for the state of the economy in 2012.

The average voter is generally conservative in terms of fiscal policies. The problem is trying to get the message to the voter against an appeal to emotion. The fundamental problem with socialism is that eventually it’s nothing but snake oil. It’s really only good when you are not taking it currently.

While I am not going to discuss the “intelligence” of Obama here, I will throw out a couple of facts for you to consider. He is not all that great at ad-libbing, outside of his teleprompter (although he doesn’t go into gaffs like Biden does). He is known for stating things as “fact” that are at best stretching the truth. I don’t think he has ever been able to debate a person who could rebut and fact checks him on the fly and I think he would buckle under the pressure. (But then a lot of politicians would probably do the same.)

I think it is verry valid to be criticizing Bush's economic policy for the current problems facing the US. certainly I don't think Obama can claim a perfect record but I don't think he was left much to work with either.

[tzor]

That you don't believe that he is good without a teleprompter, which is a personal opinion that is not supported by large numbers of other Americans, or by the fact that he has a distinguished academic record and is world-renowned for being an impressive advocate both with a teleprompter and when addressing an audience less formally.

That he states 'facts' that are later disproved, just like every other politician (and human being) that has ever roamed the earth.

Oh hey, let's go play the fun "how did Bush do on those fronts, and how loudly were you crying then?" game and see what happens... I hear that guy was just fucking great when he was ad-libing and had a real killer grasp of facts and figures.

My opinion of Obama without his teleprompter is based on watching him without his teleprompter.

The problem is that he bases his arguments entirely on those false facts; proving them wrong pulls the rug out from his arguments and makes him look foolish.

Who says I'm crying? But let's go with Bush for a moment. I don't recall Bush ever playing the blame game. When people complained he shouldn't be golfing during a war he stoped (unlike Obama who said he would not rest until the oil spill was fixed and is currently in Maine). He generally kept his arguments at the emotional level and rarely had to use facts (those were things he got his underlings to do like Colin Powell) that could be disproven.

You realize that all the nasty shit Bush did was kept by Obama, right?

[john9blue]

you're from new york tzor, you shouldn't be talking about the "chicago way"...

[tzor]

My apologies then I misunderstood. I understood the sentence as " the definition of intelligent person would mean Obama would not be running" a failure in reading comprehension on my part. Again sorry.

No, given the current state of the liberal media, any Republican who would want to run would be torn to shreads, and his family would be placed under extreeme pressure and slander. Why would any intelligent person want to go through that, especially since the secret service for life has been droped out of the presidental package.

I think it is verry valid to be criticizing Bush's economic policy for the current problems facing the US. certainly I don't think Obama can claim a perfect record but I don't think he was left much to work with either.

The current economic problems in the US started from the housing crisis. This crisis was caused by restrictive real estate laws in certain areas that drove up prices because of the laws of supply and demand accompanied by a bi-partisian demand on the banks that people should be entitled to homes even though they normally can't qualify or afford the loans. That is the root casue. Blame Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, not George Bush. In point of fact, Bush was trying to regulate Fanny and Freddie but Frank and Dodd opposed him tooth and nail.

But what about the deficit? Read the Wall Street Journal The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth.

You can blame a lot of bad things on Bush, just not the things Obama is trying to pin on him. He is just trying to keep them from sticking on himself.

[tzor]

you're from new york tzor, you shouldn't be talking about the "chicago way"...

Long island actually. It's in New York, but don't get me started on the "new york way."

[King Doctor]

My opinion of Obama without his teleprompter is based on watching him without his teleprompter.

But it is of course just your opinion, which a great number of your fellow countrymen do not share.

Can barely call a guy a bad President just because of your subjective opinion about his freewheeling rhetorical style, right?

The problem is that he bases his arguments entirely on those false facts; proving them wrong pulls the rug out from his arguments and makes him look foolish.

This is obviously a bridge too far.

'Entirely on false facts', give me a break. That's the kind of hysterical hyperbole that undermines so much of the criticism of Obama that his detractors attempt to level.

Who says I'm crying?

Are you crying? Does this upset you on a deep and emotional level?

But let's go with Bush for a moment. I don't recall Bush ever playing the blame game.

Except for the whole calling people who didn't support his illegal war 'unpatriotic' and 'unamerican', right?

I'm sure that others will gleefully offer further examples now that I have started the ball rolling.

He generally kept his arguments at the emotional level and rarely had to use facts

And you're offering this up as a good thing?

Reacting to criticism of Bush by saying "actually he was way worse!" is kind of playing into my hands a bit.

You realize that all the nasty shit Bush did was kept by Obama, right?

I appreciate that Obama hasn't done as much as I would have liked to roll back the abuses of the Bush era, but again you're succumbing to hysteria and hyperbole and overreaching with your accusations.

Also, when it comes to stonking great war debts, Obama only had so much option about keeping those around... just sayin'.

[thegreekdog]

King Doctor... a question: Do you support the policies of Barack Obama?

Another question: If you were an American citizen, would you have voted for Barack Obama?

A final question: If the answer to either question is "yes," please explain.

A statement: I find it somewhat puzzling (and a little frustrating) that you critique the views of others without offering your own views.

[King Doctor]

Do you support the policies of Barack Obama?

That's a very broad question; but I suppose that I would have to say, in general, yes.

Another question: If you were an American citizen, would you have voted for Barack Obama?

When the other option was angry old McCain and the Palin anti-logic?

Yeah, I'd have given Obama the nod.

A final question: If the answer to either question is "yes," please explain.

Well, I think I've kind of done the second question already. Given the breadth of the first, how about you throw up a couple of policies and I'll explain how much I do/don't support them. Does that sound fair?

A statement: I find it somewhat puzzling (and a little frustrating) that you critique the views of others without offering your own views.

Given that I critique them, it's fair to assume that I think contrary; so my views are fairly clear in that respect.

Also, I like to think of myself as functioning like a sort of white bloodcell here, seeking out the antibodies of foolishness and unreason and then dissolving them with repeated blasts of purified sense and logic.

[Phatscotty]

Do you support the policies of Barack Obama?

That's a very broad question; but I suppose that I would have to say, in general, yes.

Another question: If you were an American citizen, would you have voted for Barack Obama?

When the other option was angry old McCain and the Palin anti-logic?

Yeah, I'd have given Obama the nod.

A final question: If the answer to either question is "yes," please explain.

Well, I think I've kind of done the second question already. Given the breadth of the first, how about you throw up a couple of policies and I'll explain how much I do/don't support them. Does that sound fair?

A statement: I find it somewhat puzzling (and a little frustrating) that you critique the views of others without offering your own views.

Given that I critique them, it's fair to assume that I think contrary; so my views are fairly clear in that respect.

Also, I like to think of myself as functioning like a sort of white bloodcell here, seeking out the antibodies of foolishness and unreason and then dissolving them with repeated blasts of purified sense and logic.

I was unaware that white blood cells killed anything by calling it names in a hateful and mocking tone...

[Phatscotty]

I think President Obama's political games are working pretty well. If the economy ever comes under control, he'll be tough to beat in the next election.

I don't know... Palin is looking like an awfully strong contender.

I disagree...if the Republicans put Palin up as his opposition, they are literally handing him the election. Assuming something of historically bad proportions doesn't happen in the next couple years, of course. Palin would be a huge mistake.

Her negatives are far too high. She will run, just to round up her little special segment of; Christians, 10th'ers, and flyover voters. Then, she will endorse the strongest candidate, and "hand over/endorse" all the "support" she has garnered over the campaign.

That is my opinion of how campaigns and primaries are controlled. I have heard it nowhere else and is simply from my observations. You may notice there will be one of each type of liberal or conservative. It is a fight for the oval orifice, but everyone knows they also have their job to do for the party, and that is what liberals and even some conservative do not get.

I also entertain saxi's comments about the IDRP and Palin simply being the Trojan Horse.

[Woodruff]

especially since the secret service for life has been droped out of the presidental package.

I did not know that happened. That bothers me.

[Woodruff]

I think President Obama's political games are working pretty well. If the economy ever comes under control, he'll be tough to beat in the next election.

I don't know... Palin is looking like an awfully strong contender.

I disagree...if the Republicans put Palin up as his opposition, they are literally handing him the election. Assuming something of historically bad proportions doesn't happen in the next couple years, of course. Palin would be a huge mistake.

Her negatives are far too high. She will run, just to round up her little special segment of; Christians, 10th'ers, and flyover voters. Then, she will endorse the strongest candidate, and "hand over/endorse" all the "support" she has garnered over the campaign.

I can absolutely see this happening. However, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there isn't a fair amount of nervousness in the Republican camps about her willingness to do that. She seems a bit too...I don't know...self-convinced to take that road.

[Night Strike]

especially since the secret service for life has been droped out of the presidental package.

I did not know that happened. That bothers me.

Passed in the Clinton Administration, GW Bush is the last president to get SS for life.

[Phatscotty]

especially since the secret service for life has been droped out of the presidental package.

I did not know that happened. That bothers me.

Passed in the Clinton Administration, GW Bush is the last president to get SS for life.

Obama can have SS for life. 2008 was the last presidential election.

Then he can admit he is a follower of Blak Libertation Thelugy

[Woodruff]

especially since the secret service for life has been droped out of the presidental package.

I did not know that happened. That bothers me.

Passed in the Clinton Administration, GW Bush is the last president to get SS for life.

Obama can have SS for life. 2008 was the last presidential election.
Then he can admit he is a follower of Blak Libertation Thelugy

Yes, you're certainly a rational individual.

[Woodruff]

especially since the secret service for life has been droped out of the presidental package.

I did not know that happened. That bothers me.

Passed in the Clinton Administration, GW Bush is the last president to get SS for life.

That really is too bad, in my opinion. Not that I mind, but why would Bush be the last President to get SS for life if it passed during the Clinton administration...shouldn't both Clinton and Bush missed the cut in that case?

[King Doctor]

I was unaware that white blood cells killed anything by calling it names in a hateful and mocking tone...

Another tedious attempt to bait me by one of this forum's angry conserva-trolls.


My posts are clearly logical and well-written, the only person attempting to start a flame-war here is you.

[thegreekdog]

Do you support the policies of Barack Obama?

That's a very broad question; but I suppose that I would have to say, in general, yes.

Great, that gives me a little better view on your views. What specific policies do you support? Do you support his economic bailout? Do you support his healthcare plan (including and separately, the healthcare bill that he signed)? Do you support his continuation of the prosecution of two wars? Do you support his continued and, from all accounts, increased use of the Patriot Act? Do you support what appears to be his general policy to not secure the borders from illegal aliens? Do you support his lack of action on gay marriage?

Do you think that President Obama's economic policies have worked (or will work)? If so, why? This is a much broader question, but what do you think the role of federal government should be in the lives of US citizens (specifically with respect to economic policies)?

Another question: If you were an American citizen, would you have voted for Barack Obama?

When the other option was angry old McCain and the Palin anti-logic?

Yeah, I'd have given Obama the nod.

So you would have picked then-candidate Obama because John McCain is old and Sarah Palin is stupid?

A statement: I find it somewhat puzzling (and a little frustrating) that you critique the views of others without offering your own views.

Given that I critique them, it's fair to assume that I think contrary; so my views are fairly clear in that respect.

Also, I like to think of myself as functioning like a sort of white bloodcell here, seeking out the antibodies of foolishness and unreason and then dissolving them with repeated blasts of purified sense and logic.

Well, it appears to me you think the Tea Party is racist and that racism is wrong. While I disagree with the former, I certainly agree with the latter. That's pretty much all I can tell about your political views. I find it somewhat interesting that you, a Brit, have concentrated on American politics (specifically the Tea Party) with such apparent disgust.

Your purified sense and logic leaves a lot to be desired since they aren't backed up with any sort of evidence, facts, or, most importantly, alternative views. The "No you're wrong and you're stupid" tactic has been taken and used by others. I was sort of hoping you'd have a fresh take on things and make posts that deal with more substantive issues than "No you're wrong and you're stupid." But, if that's what works for you, keep at it my man.

[King Doctor]

Well that's a long and well-thought out post, so I'm going to take a fair bit of time to respond as fully as I feel that I can at this juncture.

Great, that gives me a little better view on your views. What specific policies do you support?

Again, that is a pretty big ask, so I'm going to have a quick run through of the ones that you've mentioned specifically.

Do you support his economic bailout?

Yes. Allowing Wall Street to crash would have caused Main Street to die. Without credit issuers and loan givers functioning, the entire US economy would have gone down the pan. In the current system allowing a big bank to fail starts a snowballing effect that will eventually culminate in all other big banks failing, unless the state intervenes. Hence the bailout was a good and necessary thing.

The real challenge now is creating a regulatory system that would make a bailout unecessary in a similar future crisis. i.e. creating an environment where there is no such thing as 'too big to fail', or 'too interconnected to collapse'.

Do you support his healthcare plan (including and separately, the healthcare bill that he signed)?

Yes. The idea that the richest country on earth was allowing its citizens to die in the gutter when they became ill with easily treatable diseases was a complete travesty. Access to basic healthcare services is something that every government ought to be providing, in the same way as it provides an army to protect against armed invaders.

Handing over healthcare to private companies perverted healthcare-provider's motives; making profit, rather than best-treatment, the purpose of care. It also added massive costs to the system (a multi-million dollar insurance industry) which a government administered scheme ought to be able to cut out.

Did I support the final Obama bill? No I didn't. It did not go far enough in reforming the US Healthcare system (largely because of obstructionist conduct from the Republican party, used purely for political rather than ideological reasons), which still has a considerable way to go before it is able to match many of its European counterparts.

Do you support his continuation of the prosecution of two wars?

I would like to see those wars ended ASAP, but understand that immediate withdrawal would leave a worse situation than the one that existed originally. For that reason, the wars do need to continue for the time being, though with an eye firmly fixed on an exit-strategy.

Do you support his continued and, from all accounts, increased use of the Patriot Act?

No. That act is a violation of the American people's human rights and civil liberties.

Do you support what appears to be his general policy to not secure the borders from illegal aliens?

Your tone has veered towards the rhetorical and away from the specific. Perhaps you could explain in a little more detail what it is that you are refering to?

Do you support his lack of action on gay marriage?

Lack of action in legalising it?

I'm a strong proponent of homosexuals' right to marriage. Though I would never dream of forcing Christians who oppose such things to participate in the ceremonies themselves, I belive that it is entirely right that homosexual unions be legally recognised in precisely the same way as those between heterosexual partners.

Do you think that President Obama's economic policies have worked (or will work)?

Broadly yes, but that's something of a dissertation question to answer in full, so perhaps you could be a little more specific for me again?

So you would have picked then-candidate Obama because John McCain is old and Sarah Palin is stupid?

That's not quite what I said.

I wouldn't have voted for McCain because I didn't believe that he had the right policies at the right time, he also pursued a very negative campaign and came across as somewhat embittered and desperate.

Also, Palin was a complete deal-breaker because she is, on all the evidence, simply not intellectually able enough to adequately fulfill the functions required of her in a vice-presidential (or, heaven forfend, presidential) role.

Being willing to sacrifice quality and ability for a cheap attempt to pretend a bond with the uninformed masses is precisely the kind of thing that potential leaders ought to be demonstrating that they wouldn't do. Making it a part of your election strategy is a critical error.

Well, it appears to me you think the Tea Party is racist and that racism is wrong.

It is fairly clear that the Tea Party does contain a significant element of racism. While many of its members are honest and upstanding members of society, it can't be denied that it has attracted a noticable minority(?) of supporters who harbour strongly racist opinions (classic example, the witchdoctor placards). Now that's not to say that the whole movement is rotten, but denying that it contains any hint of racially motivated activists/viewpoints is just clear and wilful blindness.

And yes, racism is indeed wrong.

I find it somewhat interesting that you, a Brit, have concentrated on American politics (specifically the Tea Party) with such apparent disgust.

Disgust is a mischaracterisation of my views. I simply find some of the viewpoints expressed here illogical and unsupportable.

Also, given that American Politics is talked about here more than any other topic, is it really so unreasonable for me to have made the majority of my contributions to the threads in which it is mentioned?

Your purified sense and logic leaves a lot to be desired since they aren't backed up with any sort of evidence, facts, or, most importantly, alternative views.

One does not necessarily need to unveil the truth in order to detect a fallacy.

A lot of posters here appear to be in the habit of making sweeping illogical statements and basless accusations; these people can easily be demonstrated to be wrong simply by pointing out the flaws in their reasoning.

That isn't shouting "you are wrong and stupid", it's a deconstruction of the arguments that they have advanced. I'm a very differnt type of poster than the traditional 'angry shouty opinionated dude' charicatures that seem to run amock around these parts.

I was sort of hoping you'd have a fresh take on things and make posts that deal with more substantive issues

Well I'm sory to hear that you feel that way, as you seem to be a highly erudite and sincere young man. I hope that in time your feelings towards me will warm, and I assure you that I shall endeavour to conduct myself in a fashion that will make such a transition as easy as possible for you.

[tzor]

My opinion of Obama without his teleprompter is based on watching him without his teleprompter.

But it is of course just your opinion, which a great number of your fellow countrymen do not share.

Can barely call a guy a bad President just because of your subjective opinion about his freewheeling rhetorical style, right?

Well, I must say, I do like your style. The definition of a "great number" is wonderfully vague. I think a great number of my fellow countrymen do share this opinion. And I don't think I've called him a bad president for that reason.

The problem is that he bases his arguments entirely on those false facts; proving them wrong pulls the rug out from his arguments and makes him look foolish.

This is obviously a bridge too far.

'Entirely on false facts', give me a break. That's the kind of hysterical hyperbole that undermines so much of the criticism of Obama that his detractors attempt to level.

I see nothing hysterical about it. If I had the time I could go back to a lot of his arguments and show the "false fact" that underlies the argument. Remember the old episode with Joe Wilson? Technically he was correct and Obama was lying. Any one with a smattering of constitutional law (and Obama studied constitutional law) knows that the courts have repeatedly insisted that "benefits" given by te federal goverment apply equally to all, citizens as well as non citizens alike and that by definition includes non citizens with no documentation or expired documenation. (Calling him out on it on a state of the union address was a no no, on the other hand calling out the justices of the United States in a state of the union was also a no no.)

Who says I'm crying?

Are you crying? Does this upset you on a deep and emotional level?

Nope, not upset. I get annoyed by liberal statist agendas but I also get annoyed by drivers with no respect for the rule of law on the highways.

But let's go with Bush for a moment. I don't recall Bush ever playing the blame game.

Except for the whole calling people who didn't support his illegal war 'unpatriotic' and 'unamerican', right?

That's not the "blame game." More importantly, he left that for his neo-con underlings and Fox News. Let's stick to the blame game.

Did Bush blame anyone for the disaster that was the result of the Rumsfield post Iraq war strategy or did the buck stop there?

Did Bush blame anyone for the disaster that was the aftermath of Katrinia or did the buck stop there?

Did Bush blame anyone for the collapse of the banking system and his need to bail out AIG or did the buck stop there?

He generally kept his arguments at the emotional level and rarely had to use facts

And you're offering this up as a good thing?

Reacting to criticism of Bush by saying "actually he was way worse!" is kind of playing into my hands a bit.

I'm not here to defend Bush. I'm also not here to defend Carter, Clinton, or any other president. I'm just talking about Barack HUSSEIN Obama.

You realize that all the nasty shit Bush did was kept by Obama, right?

I appreciate that Obama hasn't done as much as I would have liked to roll back the abuses of the Bush era, but again you're succumbing to hysteria and hyperbole and overreaching with your accusations.

Also, when it comes to stonking great war debts, Obama only had so much option about keeping those around... just sayin'.

No, I'm not succumbing to hysteria, I'm just keeping in touch with my liberal friends and listening to NPR. The biggest shit that the bush era did; various items in the patriot act, kidnapping by the CIA, and so forth were all kept by the administration and renewed by the democratically controlled congress. I'm pretty sure that wasn't done to keep Bush's biggest complainer still hopping mad. (You know that Glenn Beck guy?)

Once again, I think I gave a link eariler. It's not the "war debt." It's not the "tax cuts." The number one cause of the deficit is spending. Stimulus spending that took money and reserved it for this year and 2012. Spending that did not cause unemployment to level as was promised by the president. Spending that only resulted in a growth of government jobs (even construction jobs, the biggest receipient of the funds actualy continued to decline). Then add the new spending for this new health care "right."

A man builds a five story house. "Your five story house is wrong," the other man says. "It should only be one story tall." He then proceeds to build a ten story house and blames it all on the man who built a five story house.

Yes, there are many faults of Bush. But you can't blame all of Obama's problems on Bush. In fact Obama's problems are deja vu all over again. The entire history of the Great Depression, with FDR's "depression within the depression" is playing out all over again by repeating the same failed policies FDR used. (The only thing that saved us was that FDR had to abandon his policies in order to get businesses to go for the war effort.)

[Night Strike]

especially since the secret service for life has been droped out of the presidental package.

I did not know that happened. That bothers me.

Passed in the Clinton Administration, GW Bush is the last president to get SS for life.

That really is too bad, in my opinion. Not that I mind, but why would Bush be the last President to get SS for life if it passed during the Clinton administration...shouldn't both Clinton and Bush missed the cut in that case?

Oops, just did some checking, Clinton IS the last one to get it.

Until 1997, all former presidents, and their families, were protected by the Secret Service until the president's death. The last president to have lifetime Secret Service protection is Bill Clinton; George W. Bush and all subsequent presidents will be protected by the Secret Service for a maximum of ten years after leaving office.

Citation: 18 U.S.C. § 3056

[Woodruff]

I did not know that happened. That bothers me.

Passed in the Clinton Administration, GW Bush is the last president to get SS for life.

That really is too bad, in my opinion. Not that I mind, but why would Bush be the last President to get SS for life if it passed during the Clinton administration...shouldn't both Clinton and Bush missed the cut in that case?

Oops, just did some checking, Clinton IS the last one to get it.

That still seems shitty to me, if it were passed under Clinton. I mean..."Ha, I got it but you guys are screwed!".

[King Doctor]

That still seems shitty to me, if it were passed under Clinton. I mean..."Ha, I got it but you guys are screwed!".

Personally, I think that it's a good example of bold, strong and fearless leadership.

[Woodruff]

That still seems shitty to me, if it were passed under Clinton. I mean..."Ha, I got it but you guys are screwed!".

Personally, I think that it's a good example of bold, strong and fearless leadership.

Precisely why would that be a good example of bold, strong and fearless leadership?

[King Doctor]

That still seems shitty to me, if it were passed under Clinton. I mean..."Ha, I got it but you guys are screwed!".

Personally, I think that it's a good example of bold, strong and fearless leadership.

Precisely why would that be a good example of bold, strong and fearless leadership?

Because he did something bold, was unafraid of the consequences and drew a clear line in the sand to show where the new boundaries lay.

Can't get much firmer and stronger than that. We would all do well to learn from such an example.