Obama- Good or Bad for the Nation?

Originally Posted by Anann

Only an idiot calculates their monthly expeditures using their earnings before taxes, are you trying to tell me that you are that foolish?

That money was never yours to begin with. You never touched it you never had it.

Part of your money already goes to healthcare, under the new HCP you'd actually get to use it.

They are taking a portion of the money you earned. If you didn't earn that money, there wouldn't be any money to take. Therefore, they are taking your money. So you are paying for it through taxes whether you like it or not.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

They are taking a portion of the money you earned.

and the constitution gives them the right to do that.

The idea of extending time in school is complete crap. If kids aren't learning enough it's because
of the lack of quality education, not that they need more time in school.

Originally Posted by Cukeman

The idea of extending time in school is complete crap. If kids aren't learning enough it's because
of the lack of quality education, not that they need more time in school.

yeah, he is off on that. I grew up in a farming community and I know for a fact that plenty of my classmates spent their summer working in the fields to help their parents.

Originally Posted by Tyras

and the constitution gives them the right to do that.

Um, what was the point of this post?

Originally Posted by Oni Dark Link

i really dislike obama. not only is he pulling out of the middle east too early

Too early? How many people do you, a clear expert on the Middle Eastern history, American-Middle Eastern relations, and military history, feel need to die before it's the right time for the United States to pull out of the Middle East?

but he doesn`t want to compromise when it comes to health care reform.

He doesn't want to compromise? Have you even paid attention to his Presidency? All Barack Obama has been doing is compromising. He barely ended up supporting a Public Option, which is a compromise between single-payer and total laissez-faire.

Originally Posted by Tyras

oh no, MSNBC is just as bad as fox in my opinion, it's just that Fox makes it too easy to make fun of them.

It's really not. In fact, MSNBC is extremely important, as it's the first real television outlet to rival Fox News in terms of political viewpoints. Keith Olbermann is the most important anchor on the channel; before him, the only personalities with any sort of power were Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. If you ask me my opinion, that's extremely dangerous.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Too early? How many people do you, a clear expert on the Middle Eastern history, American-Middle Eastern relations, and military history, feel need to die before it's the right time for the United States to pull out of the Middle East?

Et tu, Brute? You're obviously an expert on all of these right?

He doesn't want to compromise? Have you even paid attention to his Presidency? All Barack Obama has been doing is compromising. He barely ended up supporting a Public Option, which is a compromise between single-payer and total laissez-faire.

Perhaps it was the way you worded it, but this sounds like he was reluctant to support the compromise of the Public Option.

It's really not. In fact, MSNBC is extremely important, as it's the first real television outlet to rival Fox News in terms of political viewpoints. Keith Olbermann is the most important anchor on the channel; before him, the only personalities with any sort of power were Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. If you ask me my opinion, that's extremely dangerous.

Thank you for proving the point. It doesn't matter if it rivaled Fox News. It matters that is indeed biased towards the liberal side. Bias towards any side is bad because it reduces the ability for the public to gain good knowledge on both sides of a debate.

Also, look at the 4 major channels: CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CSPAN. Three of them are biased towards the liberal side (though CNN and CSPAN aren't that bad), while there's only one on the conservative side.

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

Et tu, Brute? You're obviously an expert on all of these right?

Never claimed to be. However, I've learned enough basic knowledge over the years to see why any American venture into the Middle East is at best extremely dangerous, and a continued occupation does much more harm then good.

Perhaps it was the way you worded it, but this sounds like he was reluctant to support the compromise of the Public Option.

He was.

Thank you for proving the point. It doesn't matter if it rivaled Fox News. It matters that is indeed biased towards the liberal side. Bias towards any side is bad because it reduces the ability for the public to gain good knowledge on both sides of a debate.

And this is a case where Fox News was not going to do away with their biases, and there was no other news network to challenge them before MSNBC took up the cause. It's idealism vs. realism, and MSNBC was the first step back towards idealism.

Also, look at the 4 major channels: CNN, MSNBC, Fox, CSPAN. Three of them are biased towards the liberal side (though CNN and CSPAN aren't that bad), while there's only one on the conservative side.

The American left-of-center is the international dead center.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Never claimed to be. However, I've learned enough basic knowledge over the years to see why any American venture into the Middle East is at best extremely dangerous, and a continued occupation does much more harm then good.

Any venture to anywhere would be dangerous. And what evidence do you have that it does more harm than good? The Gulf War? One example doesn't equal empirically proven. If there's another time we've been there, I'd like to know.

He was.

So, he's not all about compromising. He barelyaccepted the PO compromise. Throughout the whole healthcare debate, he's basically stated "I'm president. I won, so this is how we should do it. Any other way is wrong." And he only compromises when he absolutely has to.

And this is a case where Fox News was not going to do away with their biases, and there was no other news network to challenge them before MSNBC took up the cause. It's idealism vs. realism, and MSNBC was the first step back towards idealism.

What do you mean about idealism vs. realism?

The American left-of-center is the international dead center.

Good thing American issues are international then.

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

Any venture to anywhere would be dangerous. And what evidence do you have that it does more harm than good? The Gulf War? One example doesn't equal empirically proven. If there's another time we've been there, I'd like to know.

Well, Saddam Hussein's rise to power was a result of American policies in Iraq, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran was a result of American policies, Lebanon had a civil war, etc.

So, he's not all about compromising. He barelyaccepted the PO compromise. Throughout the whole healthcare debate, he's basically stated "I'm president. I won, so this is how we should do it. Any other way is wrong." And he only compromises when he absolutely has to.

Not at all. You seem to think that Bush is still President.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Um, what was the point of this post?

sorry, I've been dealing with teabaggers all day and you came off as a bit anti-taxish for a moment.

Originally Posted by Tyras

sorry, I've been dealing with teabaggers all day and you came off as a bit anti-taxish for a moment.

Haha, it's quite alright.

Originally Posted by Andross

To be honest, it's difficult for me to care for people I haven't met/know to an extent. Considering that most people are spiteful and/or patronizing at first contact to begin with, it's easier for me to care for people that have revealed their natures to me than care for people who I have no knowledge of.

So do things like genocide and famine not bother you because you don't know if those people are nice or not? Granted, everyone does favour people they love, but you actually don't give a crap whether someone suffers, so long as you haven't met them?

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

Any venture to anywhere would be dangerous. And what evidence do you have that it does more harm than good? The Gulf War? One example doesn't equal empirically proven. If there's another time we've been there, I'd like to know.

Originally Posted by Ogmios22188

Well, Saddam Hussein's rise to power was a result of American policies in Iraq, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran was a result of American policies, Lebanon had a civil war, etc.

So, he's not all about compromising. He barelyaccepted the PO compromise. Throughout the whole healthcare debate, he's basically stated "I'm president. I won, so this is how we should do it. Any other way is wrong." And he only compromises when he absolutely has to.

No, he's basically caved into the American Conservative movement and their demagoguery.

What do you mean about idealism vs. realism?

Over the course of history, liberals have supported idealism and have scarcely fought back against conservatism, while conservatives have constantly tried to stamp liberals out of existence, be it politically or violently. History has taught us that people who wait for the rise of ideal conditions in a society are constantly disappointed.

Good thing American issues are international then.

But international issues aren't American issues. That says something about the United States' role as global hegemon but the population's relative isolationism.

Originally Posted by Ogmios22188

Well, Saddam Hussein's rise to power was a result of American policies in Iraq, the Islamic Revolution of 1979 in Iran was a result of American policies, Lebanon had a civil war, etc.

The civil war in Lebanon was a result of the US? I

Not at all. You seem to think that Bush is still President.

No. I know quite well Obama is President. And I know quite well that he believes that he's saying that because he's president, his way is right and there are no other ways to do it.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

No, he's basically caved into the American Conservative movement and their demagoguery.

Caving doesn't equal compromise. Obama is unwilling to compromise unless he completely has to.

Over the course of history, liberals have supported idealism and have scarcely fought back against conservatism, while conservatives have constantly tried to stamp liberals out of existence, be it politically or violently. History has taught us that people who wait for the rise of ideal conditions in a society are constantly disappointed.

Liberals like you would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad. You're so easy to point out the obvious faults of conservatives, yet so hilariously blind to the exact same faults liberals hold. Liberals are just as guilty as conservatives, and if you deny that, on either side of the political spectrum, then you're in denial.

Also, you said liberals have supported idealism, yet history has taught us that people who wait for that idealism are disappointed. What are you trying to say?

But international issues aren't American issues. That says something about the United States' role as global hegemon but the population's relative isolationism.

Your point? And America isn't a hegemon. China is extremely close to usurping us as the biggest economy.

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

The civil war in Lebanon was a result of the US?

The involvement of the United States in the Lebanese Civil War greatly exacerbated the conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

No. I know quite well Obama is President. And I know quite well that he believes that he's saying that because he's president, his way is right and there are no other ways to do it.

You're wrong.

Caving doesn't equal compromise. Obama is unwilling to compromise unless he completely has to.

Again, you're wrong.

Liberals like you would make me laugh if it wasn't so sad. You're so easy to point out the obvious faults of conservatives, yet so hilariously blind to the exact same faults liberals hold. Liberals are just as guilty as conservatives, and if you deny that, on either side of the political spectrum, then you're in denial.

Liberals have never been organized. Conservatives have. A bit of background in history and political science would serve you well.

Also, you said liberals have supported idealism, yet history has taught us that people who wait for that idealism are disappointed. What are you trying to say?

That liberals tend to wait for their ideal conditions and are constantly disappointed.

Your point? And America isn't a hegemon. China is extremely close to usurping us as the biggest economy.

It definitely is. The economic sphere is only one; there's also the cultural sphere, the military sphere, and the political sphere. There's a reason American film and music are the most prevalent international media around the globe, there's a reason the United States has hundreds of military bases around the globe, and there's a reason that American politics is the most pervasive of all international politics around the globe. It's because the United States of America is the global hegemon.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

The involvement of the United States in the Lebanese Civil War greatly exacerbated the conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War

Interesting.

You're wrong.



Again, you're wrong.

Proof?

Liberals have never been organized. Conservatives have. A bit of background in history and political science would serve you well.

A political party never being organized? Sounds pretty oxymoronic to me.

That liberals tend to wait for their ideal conditions and are constantly disappointed.

That's what I thought, I just wasn't sure.

It definitely is. The economic sphere is only one; there's also the cultural sphere, the military sphere, and the political sphere. There's a reason American film and music are the most prevalent international media around the globe, there's a reason the United States has hundreds of military bases around the globe, and there's a reason that American politics is the most pervasive of all international politics around the globe. It's because the United States of America is the global hegemon.

Touche, DrZaius1. I didn't think about that. But that still doesn't change the fact that American news channels are all biased to the left with the exception of Fox, which isn't good and why no one should trust any one source, but instead back up the facts with another source.

Originally Posted by Lunchbox*

Proof?

An analysis of Barack Obama's presidency from a political science perspective that he hasn't been dogmatic about the majority of issues, health care being the central one. He hasn't said to a single member in Congress that his plan for health care reform is the only plan there is; the main focal point of his health care plan is still the public option, yet during August he was close to abandoning it, with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius saying that the public option was not the focal point of his healthcare plan and that they would be opening to abandoning it. That sounds like a compromise to me, especially when the most entrenched position of the right in regard to the health care reform crisis is that a public option is a government takeover of the health care industry/socialism. He hasn't even spoke out against the Baucus health care plan, which doesn't include a public option. That doesn't sound like Barack Obama is a dogmatic idealogue not open to compromise. The problem is that he values compromise too much.

A political party never being organized? Sounds pretty oxymoronic to me.

Neither liberals or conservatives are an American political party.

Touche, DrZaius1. I didn't think about that. But that still doesn't change the fact that American news channels are all biased to the left with the exception of Fox, which isn't good and why no one should trust any one source, but instead back up the facts with another source.

The vast majority of free media in the world would be considered as biased to the left as CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN are domestically. When that's the middle ground on an international scale but is considered biased on one nation's political scale, I'd tend to go with the international viewpoint, especially in this case.

^ err, does he listen to info wars on a regular basis?

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

The American left-of-center is the international dead center.

Actually, Obama would be considered a far right in Sweden. The right-of-center party in Sweden that controls here right now would be considered communists in America.