# Latest Polls: Obama Worst President Since WW II, US Would Be Better Off Under Romney



## Sanity Check (Jul 2, 2014)

> *Poll after poll has charted President Obama?s dipping approval rating in recent months, but Wednesday brought perhaps the cruelest cut to date: A new Quinnipiac University survey found that voters rate Mr. Obama as the country?s worst president since World War II.*
> 
> With Mr. Obama deploying troops to Iraq, failing to find compromise with Congress and seeing major defeats in the Supreme Court, voters continue to sour on him. The new poll also revealed that more voters now say GOP nominee Mitt Romney would have been a better choice in 2012.
> 
> ...


----------



## LesExit (Jul 2, 2014)

My history teacher always told us it's almost impossible to label a president as truly bad until you wait like a decade and see the full effects of their decisions


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 2, 2014)

And again, most people show how stupid they are. Obama isn't perfect, but he is no way the worst.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 2, 2014)

Obama ranked worst since WW2

Reagan ranked best since WW2

I am amused. The liberal tears this will will create. Let the rage commence.

And inb4 liberal Americans start saying how stupid Americans are.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 2, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Obama ranked worst since WW2
> 
> Reagan ranked best since WW2
> 
> ...



You're asking everyone to lie?


----------



## wibisana (Jul 2, 2014)

what Obama do that actually worst than attacking country w/o any valid reason?
installing democracy and become worst than before.

now some ISIS come and will become new threat to US Ally (Israel).


----------



## Vermin (Jul 2, 2014)

i fail to see anything that makes him the worst president 

i mean people actually preferring  the person who said that in terms of financial aid children can borrow money from their parents would make a better president then idk


----------



## Chelydra (Jul 2, 2014)

Well honestly our foreign policy would likely be better under Romney, as he does not seem to be as much of a pansy ass, however under Obama our domestic policy has been better, with many advances for gay rights, something that would not have happened under Romney, I think it was pick your poison sort of, a bad domestic policy under Romney with more aggressive foreign policy, OR a weak foreign policy with Obama and a generally better domestic policy.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 2, 2014)

The only thing Obama did wrong was trying to play fair with a congress that will always vote against him.  Unless there is a rule in the US I don't know about if the GOP lead congress is being this disruptive then there is not much he can do.


----------



## Blue (Jul 2, 2014)

Obama really is one of the worst if not the worst president since WWII. His every policy has been disastrous, every single one of his appointments to every position cabinet level on down have been stooges, even Hillary Clinton, who despite being insanely competent and qualified was only SecState to get the Clintons and their voters on his side, refused to take responsibility for anything, his every public act is a media ploy.

You can say "oh but he let gays in the military" but _who fucking cares_. You or I could do that too if we were President. My 6 year old cousin could do that. 

That Romney would have been a better choice should be totally fucking obvious by now, so I'll skip over that part.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 2, 2014)

I may not be a fan of Obama. But most people don't know what worst is if they've picked the lesser of the two. You can say whatever you want once you've avoided a bullet, but that doesn't mean it would not have killed you.

I don't put any stock in what Blue says because Blue has obviously been beating that nonsensical drum since the primaries. But normal people have no excuse for that kind of thought.


----------



## Lurko (Jul 2, 2014)

I don't know how bad he is because I'm only 19 but he's definitely a bad president.


----------



## Blue (Jul 2, 2014)

If Romney was as bad as all the liberals want to think he would be - (he wouldn't have been, the guy was absolutely based and probably the best candidate we'll see for president in a decade besides Hillary) -

IF he was, then Hillary would have beaten him easily in 2016.

As it is, she's going into the absolute worst situation for any presidential candidate ever since Mondale ran against Reagan. The only reason she has any fucking chance at all is she's Hillary fucking Clinton.

All the Republicans will have to do is say "do you want 4 more years of Obama?" and her poll numbers will drop legit 20 points.


----------



## Blue (Jul 2, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> I don't put any stock in what Blue says because Blue has obviously been beating that nonsensical drum since the primaries..



Which just makes it better now that I'm obviously right.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 2, 2014)

Blue said:


> If Romney was as bad as all the liberals want to think he would be - (he wouldn't have been, the guy was absolutely based and probably the best candidate we'll see for president in a decade besides Hillary) -
> 
> IF he was, then Hillary would have beaten him easily in 2016.
> 
> ...



Your political predictions have been wrong for like 6 years now. So forgive me if I take it with a grain of salt. 

Furthermore, it wasn't Gov. Romney running, it was candidate Romney and candidate Romney's domestic and foreign policies were worse than Obama's. Just like you he has a complete disconnect with the general population, and even expressed contempt for them.

Obama has plenty of things he needs to and could do better, but with who Romney was pandering to and the power behind him, I'm more than glad he didn't win. All this illustrates your still sour grapes over the election year though, when the only thing you were doing all that year was dismissing every poll you didn't like, a contrast to now of course.


----------



## martryn (Jul 2, 2014)

> My history teacher always told us it's almost impossible to label a president as truly bad until you wait like a decade and see the full effects of their decisions



At which point the populace will think that the current president is responsible, good or bad.



> And again, most people show how stupid they are. Obama isn't perfect, but he is no way the worst.



I agree with the poll.  He barely edges out Carter.  Carter and then Johnson. 



> And inb4 liberal Americans start saying how stupid Americans are.



Too late.



> what Obama do that actually worst than attacking country w/o any valid reason?
> installing democracy and become worst than before.
> 
> now some ISIS come and will become new threat to US Ally (Israel).



While Bush brought stability to the region, temporarily, amidst controversy, Obama announced when the US was going to leave, which signaled to ISIS how long they'd have to wait before they could come in and take control back.  Withdrawing the troops due to pressure has now undone everything we sought to do over there.  

And I can't help but think that Obama's empty threats to Syria might not have encouraged our overseas enemies to be more aggressive than they might have otherwise been. 



> i mean people actually preferring the person who said that in terms of financial aid children can borrow money from their parents would make a better president then idk



Government backed student loans and state schools are both partially responsible for the astronomical rise of the cost of a college education.  Responsible parents should start a 529 plan for their kids.  Not that it'll matter at this point.  Things are going to topple real soon unless something changes quick. 



> Obama our domestic policy has been better, with many advances for gay rights, something that would not have happened under Romney



I'm not sure this is true.  I don't know how much influence the president has over these matters that should come down to state governments.  



> The only thing Obama did wrong was trying to play fair with a congress that will always vote against him.



You mean abide by the checks and balances of the Constitution instead of trying to rule over us like some emperor or king?  Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people that elected them.  Their constituents.  If the people disagree with what their Congress members do, they elect a new representative.   We'll see later this year what Americans think.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 2, 2014)

Blue said:


> Which just makes it better now that I'm obviously right.



But...your not 

Also Martyn, i don't think anyone could be any more transparent if they tried


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 2, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Obama ranked worst since WW2
> 
> Reagan ranked best since WW2
> 
> ...



At the very least there's some serious nostalgia and idol worship going on. It is perfectly valid to bring up that a lot of shit we are dealing right now are a result of Reagan's policies, and Reagan started some nasty trends with his term that only have seem to hurt us in the long-term. Not to mention how ironic it is for the conservatives particularly of today to idolize him while he could never have been elected today on many of his policies.


----------



## martryn (Jul 2, 2014)

> a lot of shit we are dealing right now are a result of Reagan's policies, and Reagan started some nasty trends with his term that only have seem to hurt us in the long-term.



Please, be specific.  I'd love to hear this.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 2, 2014)

Mega isn't American. So he obviously would not understand the backwards ass thinking Reaganomics has had on a lot of the population since it was made a thing by his administration. I don't blame him.

But i do blame people like Martyn, who should know better than to actually be brainwashed by this garbage.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 2, 2014)

martryn said:


> While Bush brought stability to the region, temporarily, amidst controversy, Obama announced when the US was going to leave, which signaled to ISIS how long they'd have to wait before they could come in and take control back.  Withdrawing the troops due to pressure has now undone everything we sought to do over there.



what justify Iraqi war once again? because they are not democratic? Saudi arabia is not democratic at all, why US do nothing? NK, Egypt, 

it was Bush's deal/agreement to leave Iraq 
Obama just honor the deal and leave because It was a mistake to go there to begin with


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 2, 2014)

Blue said:


> If Romney was as bad as all the liberals want to think he would be - (he wouldn't have been, the guy was absolutely based and probably the best candidate we'll see for president in a decade besides Hillary) -
> 
> IF he was, then Hillary would have beaten him easily in 2016.
> 
> ...



And all the democrats have to say is "do you really want the tea party in power." followed by "This is what we would have had if it wasn't for those guys blocking every single piece of legistlation."

No Democratic president would be able to do anything unless they had 60% of both houses of Congress.  Since the republicans are playing the block everything game.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 2, 2014)

The fact of the matter is, people are fucking stupid and have short term memories. And the only ones who try to make them dumber and dilute the facts are the ones who have an obvious agenda.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 2, 2014)

^ Exactly. I have a feeling most people forget that Obama's policies have been blocked greatly due to the GOP/Tea Party controlled Congress.


----------



## wibisana (Jul 2, 2014)

bush sign treaty to leave Iraq by the end of 2011,
some people watch fox too much they got their fact manipulated


----------



## Raiden (Jul 2, 2014)

I understand the policy concerns that people are raising, but this is just all politics. Republican leadership is trying to make people feel pissed about everything, and they're doing a damn good job at it. I'm glad he finally decided to clap back by challenging Boehner. He needs to do more of that.

If Romney was elected, I'm sure Republican leadership would also say his "business friendly" policies caused the unemployment rate to fall to where it is now. He would have been a terrible President. We made the right decision.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 2, 2014)

Romney couldn't even win a single county in his home state, and he lost it by a considerable margin. This is the supposed governor Blue incessantly wanks over for being great, and he couldn't even carry the state on that reputation. That says a lot I think about just how far removed his presidential policies were on his as governor. He completely distanced himself from them in the election. He probably would have and could have done a decent job had he stuck to them, but the fact remains that he didn't. What's more is that the GOP has become so dominated by what was once its fringe that they just can't carry national elections like they used to. All they seem good for now is making things worse and being obstructionists. This was one of their goals, they succeeded in that at least.


----------



## Blue (Jul 2, 2014)

Because his "home state" - which is Utah, but I assume you refer to Massachusetts - is extremely extremely democratic and most democrats and republicans would vote for their respective candidates no matter who was running against who.



> The fact of the matter is, people are fucking stupid and have short term memories. And the only ones who try to make them dumber and dilute the facts are the ones who have an obvious agenda.


We can agree on this.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 2, 2014)

Me and this thread:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ula8oi_M4Ww[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 2, 2014)

Look at Mega not following his own rules.



Blue said:


> Because his "home state" - which is Utah, but I assume you refer to Massachusetts - is extremely extremely democratic and most democrats and republicans would vote for their respective candidates no matter who was running against who.
> 
> We can agree on this.



He lives in Utah. He was born in Michigan (which he didn't win either, btw). Governor of Massachusetts. His political reputation, of which you wanked over on, was his term as governor in the latter.


----------



## dr_shadow (Jul 3, 2014)

> *The Washington Times - Political leanings*
> 
> The political views of The Washington Times are often described as conservative. The Washington Post reported: "the Times was established by Moon to combat communism and be a conservative alternative to what he perceived as the liberal bias of The Washington Post."
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

To be fair shadow, the University that conducted this poll seems nonpartisan. So while the reporting of it was clearly slanted, the university that conducted the poll are not.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 3, 2014)

It should be noted that second-term presidents tend to have lower poll numbers as they near the end of their terms. Reagan, Clinton and Bush are examples. 

Seto and Nem probably explained my opinion on the domestic policy side. Foreign policy on the other hand...aside from killing OBL (Not counting Iraq since getting out was Bush's gameplan in the first place), I don't think Obama is going to be fondly remembered in that field.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 3, 2014)

This isn't even a discussion about Obama's actual status as president. Its combating revisionist history pure and simple


----------



## Fiona (Jul 3, 2014)

I like how people think polls like this actually matter


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 3, 2014)

they matter enough to the people who care enough to actually vote in such polls. Which probably pretty low...but there's no other way to poll i suppose


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

They matter.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 3, 2014)

I read this as: Repubs President good, Dems President Satan!


I like how the former ignores the last president they had started a war on pure lies, crashed you guys economy just to line the pockets of Military contractors.

And the man who is basically one of the reason the Middle east is such a problem for you guys is the Best president ever?


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 3, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> It should be noted that second-term presidents tend to have lower poll numbers as they near the end of their terms. Reagan, Clinton and Bush are examples.
> 
> Seto and Nem probably explained my opinion on the domestic policy side. Foreign policy on the other hand...aside from killing OBL (Not counting Iraq since getting out was Bush's gameplan in the first place), I don't think Obama is going to be fondly remembered in that field.



Well to be fair, this whole "Obama is soft." is still from republicans blocking any kind of foreign policy that would have been harsher one minute.  Then yelling how soft he is the next.


----------



## Pilaf (Jul 3, 2014)

Former Obd Lurker. said:


> I don't know how bad he is because I'm only 19 but he's definitely a bad president.



I'm really happy you decided to come on here and regurgitate the opinion of your parents and co-workers. That took some real bravery.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 3, 2014)

Reagan is held up as a god by the conservatives. 

But its just because a lot of what he espoused just happens to fall in line not with actual values, but with what the people who put money in their pockets happen to believe will further their own interests. Not even everything, because Reagan also had certain centrist outlooks during his presidency that are glossed over because the narrative is too ingrained into their platform.

"We must kill old people and poors by destroying and/or privatizing social security because Reagan believed in fixing the budget deficit!"

"But reagan said social security had nothing to do with the defic-"

"DEFICIT REAGAN DEFICIT REAGAN DEFICIT REAGAN DEFICIT REAGAN"


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 3, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> Well to be fair, this whole "Obama is soft." is still from republicans blocking any kind of foreign policy that would have been harsher one minute.  Then yelling how soft he is the next.



Even then, I'd argue that Obama has proven to be, well I can't say naive, but he lacks that realpolitick pragmatism then helped Nixon and Kissinger immensely.

Take Syria, Mega said it best in another thread, Obama should have stepped in with funds and guns when the moderate FSA still controlled the rebellion, and McCain and the other GOP hawks probably would have lended their support regardless. When he did his whole "redline" thing last summer, ISIS and Al-Nusra pretty much pushed the FSA to the sidelines while they were busy trying to rebuild the caliphate and attract God knows how many wannabe Tsarnaevs to bomb making school. And because he waffled so much, Putin pretty much backed him into a corner when he offered his proposal to oversee Syria's WMD dismantlement.

And speaking of, I kind of think Obama's indecisiveness with Syria is what emboldened Putin to do his little landgrab in the Crimea, and all of Obama's warnings of sanctions and pleas to respect the Ukraine's sovereignty were met with this reaction:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M&feature=kp[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Fiona (Jul 3, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They matter.



How so? 

Approval ratings are absolutely meaningless. Its not as if it gets to a certain point then Obama is no longer president. He was voted into office and until his term is up he will be the President of the United States regardless of how many people don't like him.

Why people care about this kind of pointless back and forth is just beyond me.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 3, 2014)

i think its because its a temperature test. public sentiment can be contagious and swell up to general discontent, even if its unfounded. "I voted for this guy cause i was tired of the other guy, even though i don't know a thing about his policies", is actually a pretty legitimate thing. 

Just see scott walker. He drives a truck and is a 'family man'. It doesn't matter if he's one of the most bought and paid for guy out there, if your tired of the incumbent because of a general wave of discontent even if manufactured, something is going to happen. That's how stupid/ignorant/busy people are rolled.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 3, 2014)

I know, but it is ultimately useless information. 

Regardless of how much people stamp their feet or wag their finger in the end we are right back where we started except now everyone is angrier than before and wasted some time. 

Then again politics is almost entirely an exercise in pointlessness. So I guess everyone needs a hobby


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

Fiona said:


> How so?
> 
> Approval ratings are absolutely meaningless. Its not as if it gets to a certain point then Obama is no longer president. He was voted into office and until his term is up he will be the President of the United States regardless of how many people don't like him.
> 
> Why people care about this kind of pointless back and forth is just beyond me.



It can give a bleak forecast on what the rest of his term will be like. It means the GOP machine is working, and they'll just continue on their road; fortunately, I feel this means they'll continue to lose nationally. At the same time however be as obstructive as ever. This is essentially the mandate they need to do so.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 3, 2014)

as long as they are how they are, they can continue to be how they've been with no deviation. Who knows how long this will go on. It could be many years before we can reverse the damage done, if its ever possible.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Jul 3, 2014)

He is by far not the best President, but then again, not the worst. 
Many historians do not like to venture into "what if" history because saying B will be better because A is bad does not prove anything. Moreover, B could be just as worst. If Romney had intervene everywhere and having everyone one his back people would be saying Romney is the worst President since Calvin Coolidge. 
So, saying Romney would be better then Obama remains to be seen. Perhaps he would have, but then again he might not.


----------



## Garfield (Jul 3, 2014)

Blue said:


> If Romney was as bad as all the liberals want to think he would be - (he wouldn't have been, the guy was absolutely based and probably the best candidate we'll see for president in a decade besides Hillary) -
> 
> IF he was, then Hillary would have beaten him easily in 2016.
> 
> ...


Contrary to youe belief, there was a recent poll with a popular thread in cafe itself, conducted by PRRI no less that showed that even though Obama is losing in popularity, the democrats are winning by a lot.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Jul 3, 2014)

adee said:


> Contrary to youe belief, there was a recent poll with a popular thread in cafe itself, conducted by PRRI no less that showed that even though Obama is losing in popularity, the democrats are winning by a lot.



That's only because the Republican Party keeps pulling clowns out of its hat. The Democrats do not need to do much fighting. The Republicans are pretty good at destroying their credibility by themselves. 

(and I speak as a non partisan. Just noticing that the better republicans seemed to be sidelined by the wackos. Since they go with the wackos, the Democrats can just bring anyone in and win.)


----------



## Roman (Jul 3, 2014)

Meh, if Romney was president, they'd be saying Obama would've been better. The two were just the same. Romney was just more open about his stupidity.


----------



## Garfield (Jul 3, 2014)

I really don't like this thing though. It's like a group of jerks from a gang said, make our member the leader or we'll create havoc. But when it doesn't happen, they create the worst havoc ever and then say, "See? Didn't we tell you choosing our candidate would have been better?"


----------



## stream (Jul 3, 2014)

I find the numbers hard to believe, to be honest. Remembering the state of the Republican party in 2008, when they were basically so ashamed of Bush they did not want McCain to be associated with him, I doubt the 2016 election will be anything like this for the Democrats.


----------



## Naya (Jul 3, 2014)

How do those polls work. I don't get it. He was re-elected, so how is this true? The story was the same before he got elected the second time and it's not only about the actions "he" (not personally, seriously) took about dealing with the damage after disaster.


----------



## Tragic (Jul 3, 2014)

I'm only 19 and I've lived through 3 presidents but only remember 2.  All I really have to say is unless these last two have_ really _been exceptionally bad, I have little to no doubt that the "exact" same story will be released when the next President rolls around. Not going to pretend like politics or history is my strong suit but I feel like people will always play the blame game and the what if game. I don't think it's possible to satisfy people, _especially _when it comes to the president and his decisions.


----------



## Orochimaru (Jul 3, 2014)

I'm finally starting to believe this too.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 3, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> ^ Exactly. I have a feeling most people forget that Obama's policies have been blocked greatly due to the GOP/Tea Party controlled Congress.




The ability to put his policies into practice is one of the measures of a good president.
The fact you think his inability to deal with his opposition absolves him, is frankly ridiculous.

In fact what you posted to defend him, just further proves why he is a bad president.


----------



## Roman (Jul 3, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> The ability to put his policies into practice is one of the measures of a good president.
> The fact you think his inability to deal with his opposition absolves him, is frankly ridiculous.
> 
> In fact what you posted to defend him, just further proves why he is a bad president.



By that logic, Bush was an amazing president.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 3, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> The ability to put his policies into practice is *one of* the measures of a good president.





Freedan said:


> By that logic, Bush was an amazing president.




There is no logical way that sentence can be used, to make Bush sound like an amazing president.
Being great at one of the criteria and failing most of the others, pretty much cements him as a bad president.

But reading comprehension seems to be a lost art.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 3, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> And all the democrats have to say is "do you really want the tea party in power." followed by "This is what we would have had if it wasn't for those guys blocking every single piece of legistlation."
> 
> No Democratic president would be able to do anything unless they had 60% of both houses of Congress.  Since the republicans are playing the block everything game.



All things considered would the tea party had been any worse? I think they could've been a lot better. Romney was the only sound choice, he was a successful businessman who understood how economics work, look at what he did to the salt lake city olympics, how he turned it around and made it one of the most profitable olympics of all time. 

I knew Obama was an idiot ever since cash for clunkers: getting people who can't afford a car payment into car payments and then destroying their old car, thereby preventing another low income family or student from getting a car. I read one report where over 200 used car dealerships in virginia closed due to having no cars to sell thanks to this plan. Ironically most who used this program ended up having their cars repo'd because they couldn't afford new car payments. Imagine that. 

Jimmy carter's loving this, he's not the worst anymore.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 3, 2014)

Ceria said:


> Jimmy carter's loving this, he's not the worst anymore.



First black president. One of the worst ever.
Way to set an example Obama and also for helping to further the racist agendas for a while.


----------



## Roman (Jul 3, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> There is no logical way that sentence can be used, to make Bush sound like an amazing president.
> Being great at one of the criteria and failing most of the others, pretty much cements him as a bad president.
> 
> But reading comprehension seems to be a lost art.



My point exactly. You're cementing Obama as a bad president with the argument of him being incapable of dissuading a virtually Republican-controlled congress, almost justifying the article's claim that he's the worst there is since WW2. Since we're using this criteria alone to cement presidents as good or bad, we may as well say Bush was amazing.

Note: I'm not disagreeing that Obama's been a bad president. I'm saying it's unfair to judge him based on the fact that he keeps getting cockblocked by congress, and convincing them to change their stands almost pretty much implicates a complete change of constitutional laws.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 3, 2014)

Freedan said:


> My point exactly. You're cementing Obama as a bad president with the argument of him being incapable of dissuading a virtually Republican-controlled congress, almost justifying the article's claim that he's the worst there is since WW2. Since we're using this criteria alone to cement presidents as good or bad, we may as well say Bush was amazing.
> 
> Note: I'm not disagreeing that Obama's been a bad president. I'm saying it's unfair to judge him based on the fact that he keeps getting cockblocked by congress, and convincing them to change their stands almost pretty much implicates a complete change of constitutional laws.




So that's where our disagreement comes from. Your treating my post as a stand alone.
If you look at it as a response to the other guy, you will notice we are actually in a perfect agreement.

The one I was responding to, used the cockblocking congress as an excuse to absolve him. 
So I merely pointed out, that was just one of the criteria. And that it even worked against him, unlike he imagined.


----------



## Rescuebear (Jul 3, 2014)

Bush is undeniably the worst president in my lifetime so far. Obama is nowhere close.
In terms of policy Bill Clinton would be the best, he did so much for your country and you impeached him.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 3, 2014)

Rescuebear said:


> Bush is undeniably the worst president in my lifetime so far. Obama is nowhere close.
> In terms of policy Bill Clinton would be the best, he did so much for your country and you impeached him.



Dat puritan heritage.
Like it matters who he is screwing, as long as it isn't the country.

And I know it was technically because he lied about it, but the reason for the lying still comes down to this.


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2014)

I'm still baffled that martyrn actually thinks that Bush helped create stability in Iraq for a time period.

That fucking blows my mind, especially considering Bush was the one who gave the order to blow the whole fucking thing up and then also appoint Paul Bremer who had the genius idea of disbanding the entire Iraqi Army.

@Ceria: What on Earth do you think the Tea Party could actually achieve that'd benefit the whole nation without being railroaded into some Ayn Rand fantasy?


----------



## Garfield (Jul 3, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> The ability to put his policies into practice is one of the measures of a good president.
> The fact you think his inability to deal with his opposition absolves him, is frankly ridiculous.
> 
> In fact what you posted to defend him, just further proves why he is a bad president.


While I would generally agree with that statement, it appears to me that the Republicans and Tea Party have gone way above and beyond reasonable opposition to Obama.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

I will be fair and say that condemning the sitting president as the worst president ever is ridiculous. Like someone or another said, you need to let it simmer for 10 years before making any kind of real judgement.

Of course, by that standard, Bush is now lower-mid tier, nowhere near the worst. I mean if you think pursuing a useless war made him the worst president I have a history lesson for you about a place called Vietnam.

Obama, meanwhile, is failing both domestically and abroad and we don't even hear about half the scandals of his office because _there's so fucking many_ of them.

The media beat the Clintons with Whitewater for years. Because besides Lewinsky, that was Bill's only real scandal, and it was bullshit. With Obama, they have a new cataclysm every few months, few of which are bullshit, and they can't decide which to report.

Without a doubt Obama is contender for worst president since WWII. These levels of executive incompetence and abuse haven't been seen since the 1800s.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Jul 3, 2014)

Very interesting. So at the same time Obama was voted for the place of the 4th best president since WWII and the worst place at the same time. Such an enlightening research.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

adee said:


> Contrary to youe belief, there was a recent poll with a popular thread in cafe itself, conducted by PRRI no less that showed that even though Obama is losing in popularity, the democrats are winning by a lot.



Was that poll Hillary vs. Whoever?

Because yes, obviously Hillary is going to win those. She's a rock star from Mars right now and nobody knows any of the potential GOP candidates.

Things will change very quickly when the election starts.

Because consider the fact that Hillary was beating Obama by 40 points before the primaries started.


----------



## Garfield (Jul 3, 2014)

I think it was the same poll which said Fox news was the most trusted medium for people's information. So it wasn't specifically about Hilary, just people's opinion of the Dem party vs the Rep party.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jul 3, 2014)

> As much as voters are down on President Obama, the star of former President Ronald Reagan continues to soar. The two-term California Republican was rated as the best of the 12 presidents who have served since Franklin Delano Roosevelt by 35 percent of the voters polled by Quinnipiac, just short of twice the number of second-place Bill Clinton at 18 percent.



should have put this at the start so i'd know not to take the poll seriously


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2014)

Methinks people are a little too entwined with instant gratification nowadays.


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2014)

Blue said:


> I will be fair and say that condemning the sitting president as the worst president ever is ridiculous. Like someone or another said, you need to let it simmer for 10 years before making any kind of real judgement.




Know that I'm cutting this post smaller because it's the only part I agree with. But yeah, pretty much. 

But presidents like Bush you don't really need 10 years to make a decision that they were indeed a shitty one. 



Mael said:


> Methinks people are a little too entwined with instant gratification nowadays.



uh huh.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jul 3, 2014)

So Obama is a bad president cause he didn't go Guns blazing every time a riot happened in a country? He decided to save taxpayers money by not wasting it on policy where people will kill each other when many people in America is homeless? Why waste money,lives on other peoples matter when your own home is not filled with rainbows?

Whatever. I just thinks it takes a lot of courage for an American not to pull the trigger every time they see a shadow in the window anyway.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

Flow said:


> Know that I'm cutting this post smaller because it's the only part I agree with. But yeah, pretty much.
> 
> But presidents like Bush you don't really need 10 years to make a decision that they were indeed a shitty one.



Intellectual dishonesty is a terrible thing to experience


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2014)

You apply statements like that when you're actually right tho


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

All this proves is that the Republican lies and obstruction machine is starting to work.


----------



## Pliskin (Jul 3, 2014)

Blue said:


> Intellectual dishonesty is a terrible thing to experience






Blue said:


> A little bit of cognitive dissonance never hurt anyone.



\10char


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Blue said:


> Intellectual dishonesty is a terrible thing to experience



Bush lied to the country to start a war that cost a shit ton of money and then lowered taxes instead of making everyone buckle down to pay for it. Now that same war has spawned a caliphate group that's worse than the people we pretended were there to go over and fight. They're so bad we're talking about helping Iran and that the Al Qedea put them out. 

This is Bush's fault.

And being an expert in Blue's bullshit arguments I can see him blaming Obama for the troops pulling out of Iraq, but that was the number set under *gasp* Bush.


----------



## martryn (Jul 3, 2014)

> My point exactly. You're cementing Obama as a bad president with the argument of him being incapable of dissuading a virtually Republican-controlled congress



Funny.  Weren't both sides of the 111th Congress controlled by the Dems?



> I'm still baffled that martyrn actually thinks that Bush helped create stability in Iraq for a time period.



We had stability in Iraq until we decided to withdraw our troops, and then announce to the insurgents exactly when we were doing it.  Sure, there were still attacks, but 97% of the population are Muslim, and that's bound to happen regardless of who is in power.  If we maintained a military presence there, and were more deliberate with handing over control of the nation, Iraq could have, in the next decade or two, turned into one of our strongest allies in the Middle East. 



> The media beat the Clintons with Whitewater for years. Because besides Lewinsky, that was Bill's only real scandal, and it was bullshit. With Obama, they have a new cataclysm every few months, few of which are bullshit, and they can't decide which to report.



I'm telling you, KnK, my family has a close family friend who worked security detail for them while they were in Arkansas.  He was Bill's personal driver while he was governor.  While he won't go into details about what he saw, he has repeatedly told us that the Clintons are about the most amoral and depraved people he's ever known.  He's hinted at drugs and sex in the backseat of the limo, and not between Hilary and Bill.  If Hilary Clinton is elected president, I swear to you I'm fucking out of here.  I'm renouncing my citizenship and bailing ship.



> Very interesting. So at the same time Obama was voted for the place of the 4th best president since WWII and the worst place at the same time. Such an enlightening research.



Reading comprehension!  He was voted the worst president, and then when asked who the best president was, a small portion of those surveyed said he was.  It just indicates he's very polarizing.  He's a love 'em or hate 'em type of president.  



> All this proves is that the Republican lies and obstruction machine is starting to work.



I can't help but think that many of Obama's staunchest supporters are the young and uninformed, easily swayed by popular media and meaningless rhetoric.  It appears that those who are older, wiser, with more experience, and possessing the ability to think for themselves have now made their voices clear.


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2014)

> We had stability in Iraq until we decided to withdraw our troops, and then announce to the insurgents exactly when we were doing it. Sure, there were still attacks, but 97% of the population are Muslim, and that's bound to happen regardless of who is in power. If we maintained a military presence there, and were more deliberate with handing over control of the nation, Iraq could have, in the next decade or two, turned into one of our strongest allies in the Middle East.



No marty what you had was only temporary stability due to the Sunnis rising up against AQ.  The US "surge" had no real play in this.  For a short time period, the Iraqis had managed to create the tenuous peace themselves in accompaniment of Muqtada al-Sadr also telling the Madhi Army to cut the shit.  It was stable only because each Muslim side had gotten sick of AQ and outsider bullshit.

Announcing the withdrawal was something that needed to be done because frankly it wasn't worth investing any more time into it.  You're blaming Obama for Bush's mess which is mind-boggling but then again look who I'm responding to.  This instability you see now is because of Syria and the spillover, not to mention al-Maliki's incompetence once again shutting out one particular Muslim group over another, as his side is primarily with Shia Islam and Iran.

So please, get some fucking context.



> If Hilary Clinton is elected president, I swear to you I'm fucking out of here. I'm renouncing my citizenship and bailing ship.



Should this forum be active in 2016, we eagerly await your next moves.

I remember Rush and some other talking heads saying the same thing about Obama but lol they're still here.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

I'm pretty sure Martryn be trolling.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

Bush is a much better president than Obama ever will be.

Obama is terrible for the economy, his foreign policy is abysmal at best, and he isn't respected. 

Putin laughs in Obama's face, the wars have turned into a disaster, the military's budget is being cut in half, and all he does that is even remotely alright in some sense was the ACA which is just a fucking mess right now. Iraq is in civil war(should've seen it coming, oh shit they did everyone could see where they was headed). 

Romney probably would've been pretty corrupt but im sure he would get shit done that needed to be done. He wouldn't have cut the military's budget, economy would be doing better(he is a business man that made money).


Obama is only about the social part of being president. Sorry but there are more responsibilities to your citizens other than fair treatment and equality.

As for congress that is Obama's own doing. He will not man up and go talk to them face to face. At the later part of 2012 he had only met congress in the flesh 1 time, Bill Clinton and George W. loved to address their congressional counterparts and they would frequently be seen driving up to the west wing to talk about policy. Maybe if Obama would address Congress in the flesh instead of over the t.v. he might actually get some where within a reasonable time frame. 

Hell I seen how ignorant the American people are the other day in a poll. THey think that Nixon was a terrible resident just because of watergate while I have the utmost respect for him because of the way he handled himself. Their was a protest in the middle of the night outside the whitehouse, instead of just drowning out the noise he went and ushered them all to some area(can't remember the monument right now) and asked them why they was mad and their problems and would address them. 

Im not going to say he is completely horrible or even the worse. But in this day and age having a bad president and policies will hurt us far worse than say in 1840.

Im honestly believe that McCain was the best choice we had(not policy wise as much but just character wise) from the first election til now.He fucked up making Palin his running partner with her insane views. If he had picked Romney and Romney was ok with it, they would swept the election and America would be booming and our military would be expanding.


----------



## epyoncloud (Jul 3, 2014)

He is more incompetent than Putin thats for sure. 

anyway, Obama is not that bad in worldwide polls outside america, at least US stop acting like a warmongering dick during his office terms. His only dip is during the NSA and snowden trolling affair. Overall international image of america is more favorable during his years in office, since he resorts to diplomacy rather than the gun.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 3, 2014)

Where exactly will he go, Canada? Wouldn't last a year before you get ship back. I doubt any of you would last long in a 3rd world country.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Bush is a much better president than Obama ever will be.
> 
> Obama is terrible for the economy, his foreign policy is abysmal at best, and he isn't respected.
> 
> ...



Bush was president during the worst economic downturn since the depression; great for the economy. 



Danger Doom said:


> Where exactly will he go, Canada? Wouldn't last a year before you get ship back.


Some of you don't know what tense is.


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2014)

Tense works great when you're verbalizing or using displays of sarcasm or parody, CTK.

Doesn't work so well when you make absurd claims and confuse people whether you're trolling or not.


----------



## martryn (Jul 3, 2014)

> Bush lied to the country to start a war that cost a shit ton of money and then lowered taxes instead of making everyone buckle down to pay for it.



Bush was misinformed by his own advisers.  

Obama flat out lied to the country on multiple occasions.  He lied about keeping your doctor and your plan.  He lied about not knowing about the VA shit before it went down.  That, or he is the shittiest president in history.  The man sat on the VA committee while in the Senate.  How the fuck did he have no clue what was going on? 

Also the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost a lot less than you'd think.  It cost us approximately $137 billion a year.  In 2003 we spent $474 billion on Social Security, $249 billion on medicare, $185 billion on social welfare, and $165 billion on medicaid.  That's over a trillion dollars.  

In 2009 we spent more on the interest of our debt than we did on the War on Terror.  We spent twice as much on unemployment and other welfare spending programs than we did on the War on Terror.  We spent 4 times more on social security.


----------



## Pliskin (Jul 3, 2014)

epyoncloud said:


> He is more incompetent than Putin thats for sure.



I know you are trolling but since 'based Putin' is a serious opinion around the world I'd like to ask: what has Putin achieved except power? THe guy is a beast at getting and consolidating his influence in Russia, but everything else he is a failure. Foreign policy? Singlehandedly repsarked the cold war with almost nothing to show for it. Economy? hardly any improvement for 99% of Russians. Corruption? Tolerated or explicitly favored depending on where you are.

Russia has the GDP of Texas, the average Russian male has a . REmember, not to long ago it was one of the two contenders for most scientifically advanved nation (there was a time when most important papers in physics were in Russian), nowadays it is a joke in that aspect.

So what the hell?


----------



## Sherlōck (Jul 3, 2014)

> Bush was misinformed by his own advisers.



Stop the theatrical & admit he was an idiot. Or his advisers were. And his advisers advisers. Their advisers. So was CIA,FBI,Military Intelligence. Basically whole administration was filled with idiots.


----------



## martryn (Jul 3, 2014)

> Stop the theatrical & admit he was an idiot.



I hate seeing this shit.  Obama can't figure out how to use a debit card and thinks there are at least 57 states, and Bush keeps getting picked apart for being an idiot.  Thanks, liberal media.


----------



## Mael (Jul 3, 2014)

martryn said:


> I hate seeing this shit.  Obama can't figure out how to use a debit card and thinks there are at least 57 states, and Bush keeps getting picked apart for being an idiot.  Thanks, liberal media.



Two wars (one of fucking idiotic pretense) that dragged on far longer than it should have, incompetent staff like Paul Bremer, and thousands of American service members dead.

Thanks, liberal media.

I hate seeing your excuses.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

Both Bush and Obama are more intelligent than anyone most cafe posters have ever even met.

Doesn't make them good presidents. Being smart is just the bare minimum.


----------



## epyoncloud (Jul 3, 2014)

I think what americans need is a troll like shinzo abe in office.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

epyoncloud said:


> I think americans need a troll like shinzo abe in office.



If my "troll" you mean "saavy, motivated, and experienced politician with a clear foreign policy agenda and a record of success" then I would agree.

Too bad we didn't elect him.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

Blue said:


> Both Bush and Obama are more intelligent than anyone most cafe posters have ever even met.
> 
> Doesn't make them good presidents. Being smart is just the bare minimum.



That's such an idiotic thing for you to say, since their academics and public image are the only reliable measure of intelligence, then there are plenty here smarter than Bush. There are plenty of people smarter than Bush in academics. Bush got into presidency not by his own individual accomplishments but by nepotism. His brother and his father have always been the achievers, the fact that GWB became president is something akin to a rare anomaly.



> If my "troll" you mean "saavy, motivated, and experienced politician with a clear foreign policy agenda and a record of success" then I would agree.
> 
> Too bad we didn't elect him.
> __________________



Except he wasn't savvy which is why the public caught wind of his contempt of them. He wasn't motivated because he thought his victory was a given and didn't put the extra effort in to ensure it, and he only served one term as governor; not much better than Obama on experience.

Jesus, you wank Romney harder than Bender ever did Obama on his worst day. The governor didn't run for president, the candidate did. The candidate divorced himself from his accomplishments in the past by flipping on nearly every policy he established himself on.


----------



## Jin-E (Jul 3, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Bush lied to the country to start a war that cost a shit ton of money and then lowered taxes instead of making everyone buckle down to pay for it. Now that same war has spawned a caliphate group that's worse than the people we pretended were there to go over and fight. They're so bad we're talking about helping Iran and that the Al Qedea put them out.
> 
> This is Bush's fault.



Actually, that has more to do with Obama ignoring a nearly unanimous advice from his security council to arm moderate rebels in 2012. That neglect allowed the extremists the opportunity to use Syria as an incubator until it grew powerful enough to re-enter Iraq.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Jin-E said:


> Actually, that has more to do with Obama ignoring a nearly unanimous advice from his security council to arm moderate rebels in 2012. That neglect allowed the extremists the opportunity to use Syria as an incubator until it grew powerful enough to re-enter Iraq.



America needs to stop just arming other countries willy nilly. And even if they were armed it wouldn't have mattered.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 3, 2014)

martryn said:


> Funny.  Weren't both sides of the 111th Congress controlled by the Dems?
> 
> 
> I can't help but think that many of Obama's staunchest supporters are the young and uninformed, easily swayed by popular media and meaningless rhetoric.  It appears that those who are older, wiser, with more experience, and possessing the ability to think for themselves have now made their voices clear.



But did they have that rediculous need for 60% of each house or was there a huge chunk of Fillibusting going on.  Hint, it was the latter which basically blocked any kind of progress.

Secondly, those who are informed can see that the US needs to move further and further away from the right and the stupidity it brings.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> But did they have that rediculous need for 60% of each house or was there a huge chunk of Fillibusting going on.  Hint, it was the latter which basically blocked any kind of progress.
> 
> Secondly, those who are informed can see that the US needs to move further and further away from the right and the stupidity it brings.



The real issue is that in a democratic controlled congress you get people that go against their party because they believe differently. The right is so tightly controlled and behaves more like a gang that if you vote against the party on anything too big you're out of the group and won't be supported. So they have a more cohesive voting pattern. It's not a good thing, it's actually making them easier for the party itself to manipulate. 

And the candidates aren't supposed to be there for the party.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Bush was president during the worst economic downturn since the depression; great for the economy.



NAFTA
Easier Loans from Banks
Tax increase of which speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said:  ?Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.

Bush was just alright but I don't believe he did anything detrimental and the only thing people have against him is the war on terror of which an Iraqi general has said they moved the chem weapons to Syria in 01 under the guise of relief aid to the civilians after a disaster of some sort. And to circumvent customs they put the cargo in the passenger compartments.


----------



## αce (Jul 3, 2014)

> That Romney would have been a better choice should be totally fucking obvious by now, so I'll skip over that part.



its almost 2 years now since november 2012
why you still mad


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 3, 2014)

LOL Romney, the person who couldn't even make a good budget, who degraded the lower classes behind closed doors, and couldn't even win in any of his 'home states' would have been a better president? Seriously...such stupidity.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 3, 2014)

Chelydra said:


> Well honestly our foreign policy would likely be better under Romney, as he does not seem to be as much of a pansy ass, however under Obama our domestic policy has been better, with many advances for gay rights, something that would not have happened under Romney, I think it was pick your poison sort of, a bad domestic policy under Romney with more aggressive foreign policy, OR a weak foreign policy with Obama and a generally better domestic policy.



And the latter is always better than the former. There's no need to look strong if your country is falling apart from the inside out.

That said, why do you still keep your politics bipartisan?


----------



## Raiden (Jul 3, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> LOL Romney, the person who couldn't even make a good budget, who degraded the lower classes behind closed doors, and couldn't even win in any of his 'home states' would have been a better president? Seriously...such stupidity.



I have nothing against GOP candidates, but he literally said anything to get elected as well. All politicians posture and he especially was across the board on every issue.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Black Banana said:


> I have nothing against GOP candidates, but he literally said anything to get elected as well. All politicians posture and he especially was across the board on every issue.



The first debate he changed his stances so hard that I think even Obama was like "WTF" for the whole thing. He lied about everything he said and believed and he changed stories from the day before that.


----------



## Alwaysmind (Jul 3, 2014)

Blue said:


> That Romney would have been a better choice should be totally fucking obvious by now, so I'll skip over that part.



And yet, an ostrich would have been a better choice than Romney. That is painfully obvious too.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

αce said:


> its almost 2 years now since november 2012
> why you still mad



That's kind of a dumb question isn't it

If Obama hadn't been doing completely terrible, I'd be relieved, if a little abashed, not mad

If all of Romney's foreign policy ideas hadn't proven absolutely prescient, I'd be confused, not mad

If Obama's second term hadn't been one fucking scandal after another, I'd be disinterested, not mad

But all of those things did happen

So why wouldn't I be mad America made such a dumb choice?


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 3, 2014)

What scandal's 'exactly'? Ones that pro Conservatives think are scandals?


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2014)

αce said:


> its almost 2 years now since november 2012
> why you still mad



Oh my god the thread was so glorious.

"I'd be surprised if Obama even competed with Romney"

"Romney has this in the bag."

and all the pain and misery they suffered.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> What scandal's 'exactly'? Ones that pro Conservatives think are scandals?



Not even gonna entertain this

There's a whole fuckin' list of them, including several that Democrats are mad about



And the VA affair

I guess I kind of entertained it. You're welcome.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

And scandals that liberals think are everyday D.C. procedure.

Fucking please SaiyaMan you aren't ignorant.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 3, 2014)

Ah the good old Bergdahl case where Repubs think 5 Americans = 1 Gitmonee 

Then totally ignoring that Reagan traded arms for POWs and look how that turned out.


Dat selective memory


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 3, 2014)

And the whole VA scandal _started under Bush_.


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> Ah the good old Bergdahl case where Repubs think 5 Americans = 1 of theirs
> 
> Then totally ignoring that Reagan traded arms for POWs and look how that turned out.
> 
> ...



The question was if only Republicans are concerned with Obama's nonstop scandals

The answer is unequivocally no

Your hedging is irrelevant


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> Ah the good old Bergdahl case where Repubs think 5 Americans = 1 Gitmonee
> 
> Then totally ignoring that Reagan traded arms for POWs and look how that turned out.
> 
> ...



You also have to forget about Nixon and ewhat Bush did 

These big jimmies just hate on Obama for whatever reason :rofl


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> And the whole VA scandal _started under Bush_.



The VA scandal started so long before Bush, almost before I was born.

As someone with a Veteran for a father I think it's fucking disgusting how quick Republicans are ready to start these wars and no one is there to pick up the slack after


----------



## Ceria (Jul 3, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> First black president. One of the worst ever.
> Way to set an example Obama and also for helping to further the racist agendas for a while.



That's the biggest problem I see with Obama, first black president but instead of setting a good example he furthers stereotypes of black incompetence. He even had the gall to blame his problems on the color of his skin, as he did in the most recent new yorker interview.  Then the "I'm not just the president of black people" comment, that was a fuck you black community, I ain't doin shit for you comment if ever there was one.


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2014)

_FINALLY_

Something I can dig into 



Ceria said:


> That's the biggest problem I see with Obama, first black president but instead of setting a good example he furthers stereotypes of black incompetence. He even had the gall to blame his problems on the color of his skin, as he did in the most recent new yorker interview.  Then the "I'm not just the president of black people" comment, that was a fuck you black community, I ain't doin shit for you comment if ever there was one.



What 'stereotypes' of black people has Obama portraying? 

Do you realize that comment was made towards people saying he'd only be beneficial towards black americans? noooo of course you don't, lol.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Ceria said:


> That's the biggest problem I see with Obama, first black president but instead of setting a good example he furthers stereotypes of black incompetence. He even had the gall to blame his problems on the color of his skin, as he did in the most recent new yorker interview.  Then the "I'm not just the president of black people" comment, that was a fuck you black community, I ain't doin shit for you comment if ever there was one.



Wait, what? He seems incompetent to you? I don't see it that way. He seems pretty competent, but he's working against what's supposed to be safeguards being abused and a group that says they hope the country fails.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> Ah the good old Bergdahl case where Repubs think 5 Americans = 1 Gitmonee


 No they just don't believe 1 deserter=5 enemies.  Bergdahl should've done his country a service by rotting in that cave as harsh as that may sound.





> Then totally ignoring that Reagan traded arms for POWs and look how that turned out.


Yea just 1 scandal compared to 5 of Obama's?





> Dat selective memory


The inability of comprehension 


I  don't care shit about politics I only care about actions and Obama has shown that he isn't a person I want to respect nor will I.


@Flow- Please tell me about Nixon, because I know just about all there is and imo he is the last best president we have had and will have for the next few elections. Nixon was a great president and one that I respect not just for his policies or views, but how he handled himself and criticism. Yea he did fall off when watergate came out.


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2014)

> Please tell me about Nixon, because I know just about all there is and imo he is the last best president




Oh God

Please tell everyone in this thread why you believe Nixon was the greatest president ever. :rofl


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

Nixon had a solid foreign policy platform, but domestically he was unpopular for obvious reasons now.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The VA scandal started so long before Bush, almost before I was born.
> 
> As someone with a Veteran for a father I think it's fucking disgusting how quick Republicans are ready to start these wars and no one is there to pick up the slack after



I think its fucking disgusting that people always wnat to attack the other party. You act as if Republicans are the only ones going to war yet Democratz supported it as well. Hell Obama is sending troops back into Iraq and cutting the military's budget(which won't help how they are treated after they come home).


As someone with a veteran as a father I think its' fucking disgusting as does my father that we don't complete the mission.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 3, 2014)

Heres the thing with the military. Just because he deserted his post you don't go " well fuck him!" You get him out and punish him accordingly. 
You act as if Reagan scandal is something to look over the chain events he cause is literally most of your woes in the Middle East 

It's not political and I have yet to see any of you guys demonize the right wing as much you do the left. 
I wonder if Obama won as a republican would this headline read "Obama best president since WWII"?


----------



## Blue (Jul 3, 2014)

Nixon was okay

He didn't order the Whitewater breakins, and he was furious when he found out about them

The part people don't like is he tried to cover them up, but I think that's what most presidents would have done.


----------



## EJ (Jul 3, 2014)

Yeah, like water-boarding.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jul 3, 2014)

nixon was a good president but not such a good person


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> nixon was a good president but not such a good person



He helped the Doctor get rid of the Silence. At least, that's how I remember it.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 3, 2014)

Blue said:


> Nixon was okay
> 
> He didn't order the Whitewater breakins, and he was furious when he found out about them
> 
> The part people don't like is he tried to cover them up, but I think that's what most presidents would have done.



If you don't count him getting the south vietnamese to pull out of peace talks during the election season just so he could be elected.



> He helped the Doctor get rid of the Silence. At least, that's how I remember it.



It was just a renegade faction.  The main faction stayed at Trenzalor.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 3, 2014)

Flow said:


> _FINALLY_
> 
> Something I can dig into
> 
> ...



That's the problem he's done more for other groups than the black community. Other than say men need to take care of their kids or that if he had a son he'd look like Trayvon, all the while doing nothing about all the black on black murders in his own home town of chicago, also known as Chiraq because on average they've had more murders per year than the number of soldier deaths in the war in Iraq. 

as I said i've viewed him as incompetent since cash for clunkers, but whenever someone asks him something, whether it be fast and furious, Benghazi, Syria, Keeping your doctor with Obamacare, his favorite and most predictable answer is I don't know. If that's not laziness and incompetence then what is?


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

cash for clunkers was terrible. You can take the car to the scrapmetal yard and get double for it.

He is half white to people.

Nixon didn't run from the public and brought peace to millions and prosperity to billions. He brought China out of isolation, started SALT, saved Israel in 73, and signed the treaty with N. Vietnam. He desegregated Southern school something JFK and LBJ couldn't achieve, launched the EPA(although its grown out of control), ended the compulsory draft, created more parks than anyother president, created the federal war on Cancer.

Shit Obama would give his life for that Resume.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 3, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> cash for clunkers was terrible. You can take the car to the scrapmetal yard and get double for it.
> 
> He is half white to people.



But it also destroyed the used car market, how many jobs were lost due to all those wrecked cars, hundreds upon hundreds of used car dealerships were closed.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> cash for clunkers was terrible. You can take the car to the scrapmetal yard and get double for it.
> 
> He is half white to people.



When you're half black that hardly matters. People are going to call you black, treat you black and act as if you're black when you do things. Your white half can't go to court for you.



Ceria said:


> But it also destroyed the used car market, how many jobs were lost due to all those wrecked cars, hundreds upon hundreds of used car dealerships were closed.



I've never heard anyone bleeding heart over used car dealers. Way to find a new low.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 3, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> When you're half black that hardly matters. People are going to call you black, treat you black and act as if you're black when you do things. Your white half can't go to court for you.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard anyone bleeding heart over used car dealers. Way to find a new low.



you've missed the point, it's lost jobs, lost opportunities for students and low income families to get decent cars that were destroyed due to that program.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

Yea when I was down on my luck and broke it was hard to find a decent car for $800 outright. I ended up getting a deal from my aunt(used car dealer) for a mazda and a dodge truck for 4k together.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

Danger Doom said:


> Heres the thing with the military. Just because he deserted his post you don't go " well fuck him!" You get him out and punish him accordingly.
> You act as if Reagan scandal is something to look over the chain events he cause is literally most of your woes in the Middle East
> 
> It's not political and I have yet to see any of you guys demonize the right wing as much you do the left.
> I wonder if Obama won as a republican would this headline read "Obama best president since WWII"?



Ronald Reagan was the devil.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

I demonize the fuck out of the right wing. My biggest issue with the left is their need to be too easy on the right. When we had people willing to get mad at the right, we let bullshit scandals (Anthony Weiner) take them away. 

This mother fucker sent a dick picture and he's gone? That's fucking bullshit.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Jul 3, 2014)

Weiner? Dick pic? Anybody else sees the irony here?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I demonize the fuck out of the right wing. My biggest issue with the left is their need to be too easy on the right. When we had people willing to get mad at the right, we let bullshit scandals (Anthony Weiner) take them away.
> 
> This mother fucker sent a dick picture and he's gone? That's fucking bullshit.



yeah, Newt Gingrich was getting blown by his mistress ironically enough during the Lewinsky Scandal and he was the one spearheading the whole matter against Clinton. Then remember the "Swift Boating" with Kerry? Absolutely disgusting. At least we know where he went during his service, we never got a conclusion on exactly what Bush did before he left...Then there's the Jeremiah Wright controversy despite McCain's open association with John Hagee and Palin's own church pastor having a history of separatist commentary. Romney...well, he fucked himself over with that 47% video, so I guess that's the exception?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Hozukimaru said:


> Weiner? Dick pic? Anybody else sees the irony here?



We saw it like two years ago when this all happened.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> yeah, Newt Gingrich was getting blown by his mistress ironically enough during the Lewinsky Scandal and he was the one spearheading the whole matter against Clinton. Then remember the "Swift Boating" with Kerry? Absolutely disgusting. At least we know where he went during his service, we never got a conclusion on exactly what Bush did before he left...Then there's the Jeremiah Wright controversy despite McCain's open association with John Hagee and Palin's own church pastor having a history of separatist commentary. Romney...well, he fucked himself over with that 47% video, so I guess that's the exception?



FUCK JOHN HAGEE. I've been to that church and that's a fucking cult if I've ever seen one. 

Every modern scandal involving Republicans gets swept under the rug or ignored, if it's a Democrat it's the next fucking Watergate.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 3, 2014)

Black Banana said:


> I have nothing against GOP candidates, but he literally said anything to get elected as well. All politicians posture and he especially was across the board on every issue.



Politicians are the scourge of the Earth, what can we do? 



Blue said:


> That's kind of a dumb question isn't it
> 
> If Obama hadn't been doing completely terrible, I'd be relieved, if a little abashed, not mad
> 
> ...



Damn your bipartisan democracy for giving you only two choices and lacking a catch all for the minorities.



IchLiebe said:


> cash for clunkers was terrible. You can take the car to the scrapmetal yard and get double for it.
> 
> He is half white to people.
> 
> ...



He also erected a military dictatorship in Chile and sunk it in another Lost Decade before Pinochet and the Chicago Boys realized what they had done wrong and slowed their neoliberalism down 



Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> When you're half black that hardly matters. People are going to call you black, treat you black and act as if you're black when you do things. Your white half can't go to court for you.



Hopefully, that's just a generalization. I'd feel offended otherwise.

Also,


*Spoiler*: _The Cafe in a Nutshell_ 



[YOUTUBE]uUxlEnHJam8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 3, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> FUCK JOHN HAGEE. I've been to that church and that's a fucking cult if I've ever seen one.
> 
> Every modern scandal involving Republicans gets swept under the rug or ignored, if it's a Democrat it's the next fucking Watergate.



I remember during the election with the Wright controversy they tried to link he and Obama to what was it, "Black Liberation Theology", or something. Fox News of course did a whole expose on the matter. WHAT ARE THEY PREACHING IN BLACK CHURCHES?


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 3, 2014)

To be fair before that I thought black people only sang hymns like bosses.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I remember during the election with the Wright controversy they tried to link he and Obama to what was it, "Black Liberation Theology", or something. Fox News of course did a whole expose on the matter. WHAT ARE THEY PREACHING IN BLACK CHURCHES?



I remember seeing part of that. I hate that my Dad makes me watch fucking  Fox news to see how bad they are. I know they're bad.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 3, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Then clearly you don't know anything. We're gradually pulling out of Afghanistan, by 2016 we'll be completely withdrawn. He sent more troops to secure the _Embassy_ in Iraq, not putting down divisions. No hypocrisy.



We kind of have to do something about it at this point because if we don't it could cause issues in the rest of that region or for us down the line


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 3, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> We kind of have to do something about it at this point because if we don't it could cause issues in the rest of that region or for us down the line


I know. But then Obama will be called a hypocrite and Republican's will stupidly attack him despite the fact they were calling for action.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 4, 2014)

Anything Obama has done is better than going to fucking war; like apparently a lot of people here wanted. 

At least during Obama administration the US was not acting like a dick.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Jul 4, 2014)

Polls predict counter-factual history?

Nice


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 4, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> Anything Obama has done is better than going to fucking war; like apparently a lot of people here wanted.
> 
> At least during Obama administration the US was not acting like a dick.




You mean like how he was preparing tor enter the war in Syria, until Putin made him back the fuck down?


----------



## Garfield (Jul 4, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> You mean like how he was preparing tor enter the war in Syria, until Putin made him back the fuck down?


That statement is pretty damn misleading because it takes away all of the very important nuance of a pretty complex situation. Come on man, this wasn't a middle school gang affair.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 4, 2014)

adee said:


> , this wasn't a middle school gang affair.



You realize were talking about politicians, right.
Take a look at the US Congress again and tell me with a straight face, that their not acting like small children.


----------



## Blue (Jul 4, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> When you're half black that hardly matters. People are going to call you black, treat you black and act as if you're black when you do things. Your white half can't go to court for you.



Oh, hey, I missed this bullshit.

I'm... like, quarter or something, I don't know my dad is a weird mix. I'm Obama's shade anyway.

I've never been discriminated against in my life - to my knowledge - because I don't act like a ^ (use bro), talk like a ^ (use bro), or dress like a ^ (use bro). 
White people who act like ^ (use bro), talk like ^ (use bro), and dress like ^ (use bro) are treated like ^ (use bro).
Similarly, people who act like rednecks, talk like rednecks, and dress like rednecks are treated like rednecks.

What you think is racism is actually classism and most victims of it deserve it for wearing hoodies - or woodland camo jackets - and being unable to link 4 or more words together.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Oh, hey, I missed this bullshit.
> 
> I'm... like, quarter or something, I don't know my dad is a weird mix. I'm Obama's shade anyway.
> 
> ...



God you are so out of touch it's incredible. 

Who gives a shit about you? Your life is not how everyone else lives their life, what you've shared about such details it's far from the norm. The fact that you think it is such only illustrates what I've constantly said is the biggest thing you have in common with Romney in that you are completely divorced from the experiences of the average individual. It doesn't matter how you fucking act in a lot of places. I've been discriminated against for no reason other than my skin. I've had plenty of coworkers, acquaintances, friends and even my own family get profiled on the basis of their race, not their behavior. Obama himself has been the target of such discrimination. Countless people experience that. Even so, if you know shit about your history, then by history of how this society's judges race and the legacy it left behind Obama is and would be considered, a black man.

The fact you think a person deserves discrimination on the latter basis is idiotic in itself. Since when did manner of dress determine character? It's certainly not job interview attire, but you don't know shit about the person. I've met plenty rednecks with far more insight than you for example.


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

Yeah Blue, you're like one of the few guys that I've heard state "I-I-ve never been discriminated against, so that means you all must be lying and exaggerating"


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Oh, hey, I missed this bullshit.
> 
> I'm... like, quarter or something, I don't know my dad is a weird mix. I'm Obama's shade anyway.
> 
> ...


So fucking true. 

I know this black guy people call "Red" because he is the biggest fucking redneck there ever was.


@Seto- The white male is the most openly discriminated against.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Oh, hey, I missed this bullshit.
> 
> I'm... like, quarter or something, I don't know my dad is a weird mix. I'm Obama's shade anyway.
> 
> ...



[YOUTUBE]5hfYJsQAhl0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Superrazien (Jul 4, 2014)

Well anyone who is a Republican or a Democrat are just very naive people. They are both bought and paid for by companies, they don't make decisions based on the people or based on whats right. They make decisions based on what makes them money. Obama definitely isn't as good as he was hyped up to be. However the Republicans refusing to do anything, or compromising to do anything at this point is borderline treason. 

The President is not the King(not yet), he cannot make all the decisions on his own, he cannot save the country on his own. People are quick to give all the Presidents the blame, so they just vote for the opposite party after. While they keep the same Congressmen, Senators, House of Rep. people in power. The problem isn't just with the President or the other branches of Government, it is with the people.

I love those people who are like "Wait for the Liberals to call the American people dumb." But a majority are dumb, the country belongs to the people. We are suppose to be the bosses. It's the peoples responsibility to inform themselves about who they are voting for, and to hold them accountable. I didn't hear people calling for a trial of George W. Bush or Dick Chaney after committing there war crimes. I'm also willing to bet there wont be a trial for the Obama administration for spying on ever American illegally. 

Also how can people be so retarded to think Romney(The guys a dam Mormon first off, anyone dumb enough to believe that has no place running the world) would have been better than Obama? The only thing that might have happened better is the Democrats would be less likely to hold the country hostage and they would work with him. Kind of like how your suppose to do no matter what. The reason shit is going no place with Obama is because the Republicans from day one said they just exist to make him look bad.


----------



## Beckman (Jul 4, 2014)

afaik, Obama haven't been responsible for a huge number of lives, so no he ain't even close to beeing the worst.


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> So fucking true.
> 
> I know this black guy people call "Red" because he is the biggest fucking redneck there ever was.



What the hell does that have to do with anything he just said. :rofl


----------



## Blue (Jul 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> Yeah Blue, you're like one of the few guys that I've heard state "I-I-ve never been discriminated against, so that means you all must be lying and exaggerating"



Because people find it easy to blame their inadequacies on their race, among other things. I imagine this is a frequent pasttime for CTK.

I don't have any inadequacies, so I don't need to see racism where it doesn't exist.

Which isn't to say racism doesn't exist anywhere. If you live in Mississippi poverty country, you're probably gonna find some. But it's virtually nonexistent in America among people who actually matter.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Because people find it easy to blame their inadequacies on their race, among other things. I imagine this is a frequent pasttime for CTK.
> 
> I don't have any inadequacies, so I don't need to see racism where it doesn't exist.
> 
> Which isn't to say racism doesn't exist anywhere. If you live in Mississippi poverty country, you're probably gonna find some. But it's virtually nonexistent in America among people who actually matter.



And an armchair psychologist too. It just doesn't stop with you, does it? It has shit to do with inadequacies and everything to do with reality, which it's clear you don't live in. 

Blue, you've got a major one. 

You hardly seem like who would know one way or another with how astoundingly oblivious you are.


----------



## Blue (Jul 4, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> You hardly seem like who would know one way or another with how astoundingly oblivious you are.



I mean... I'm a brown dude with an even browner father who was head of medicine for the American space program back when racism was still kind of a thing.

You don't have to take my word completely for it, but you should make a note in your little red book at least.

It's classism. Classism is the big discrimination issue in America today but people don't want to address it.


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Because people find it easy to blame their inadequacies on their race, among other things. I imagine this is a frequent pasttime for CTK.
> 
> I don't have any inadequacies, so I don't need to see racism where it doesn't exist.
> 
> Which isn't to say racism doesn't exist anywhere. If you live in Mississippi poverty country, you're probably gonna find some. But it's virtually nonexistent in America among people who actually matter.



I've faced racism  and others in VA and MD and we didn't live in bad neighborhoods or the South. 

Yeah there are definitely people out there that blame their problems because of ethnicity but you'd be a fool to generalize this being the case most of the time.


----------



## αce (Jul 4, 2014)

> and most victims of it deserve it for wearing hoodies



come one now son


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

I completely skimmed that part of his post. Blue, why would you say that?


----------



## αce (Jul 4, 2014)

Also, I don't live in a poverty struck neighbourhood. I live on the edge of the suburbs in my city. Yes, I've experienced racism - mostly from the fact that most of my friends are asian and their parents are terrified of their son or daughters random black friend.

That and the large mormon population towards the end of the city where I live.




To say that racism doesn't exist, because of anecdotal evidence is kind of stupid. And define "people that matter" because for every day individuals, people that matter aren't some ceo's of a corporation, they are your neighbours and your friends and family


And I've had my fair share of racist experiences with friends family members.



And I live in Canada
Racism still exists
i mean, it usually won't stop you from fufilling a life long goal of becoming a doctor or some stupid job like that

but it's an annoyance on an everyday scale


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

^ Yeah, no one is trying to say "You can't become a doctor if you;re ___" but to say racism doesn't exist that much is fucking stupid.


oh, but it's a different case when legal matters get involved in some scenarios. don't even care what people have to say about that, the statistics are apparent.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> I mean... I'm a brown dude with an even browner father who was head of medicine for the American space program back when racism was still kind of a thing.
> 
> You don't have to take my word completely for it, but you should make a note in your little red book at least.
> 
> It's classism. Classism is the big discrimination issue in America today but people don't want to address it.



Race and class have always had a strong relationship in this country, anyone competent will tell you that. A large part of our history has been built upon how the two concepts relate to one another.

Class is a big issue in this country, particularly with a weakened middle-class and even worse off poor, and in tackling that you do tackle a lot of the destructive effects institutionalized racism has had. Yet in attempting to do so, you will begin to realize that in many people's minds their racism is tied to their classism, even if they are poor themselves; such as many white southern voters for example and their contempt of poor blacks.


----------



## Risyth (Jul 4, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Obama ranked worst since WW2
> 
> Reagan ranked best since WW2
> 
> ...



*You can't be serious.*


----------



## Adrianhamm (Jul 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> I've faced racism  and others in VA and MD and we didn't live in bad neighborhoods or the South.


Since both states are South of the Mason-Dixon Line, you were in the South.


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

@Adrian, Not culturally though.


----------



## Totally not a cat (Jul 4, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> The white male is the most openly discriminated against.


Now, now, don't be _that_ guy.


----------



## Mael (Jul 4, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> @Seto- The white male is the most openly discriminated against.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 4, 2014)

ClandestineSchemer said:


> You mean like how he was preparing tor enter the war in Syria, until Putin made him back the fuck down?



Its easy to say he was "preparing".

Whatever the case; at the end he didnt and that is a plus in my book.

Bush - 2 wars

Obama - 0

He wins automatically for me.


----------



## C-Moon (Jul 4, 2014)

According to Blue, when I was called a ^ (use bro) and had my shoes stepped on by a skinhead at a college football game, I deserved it because reasons, even though what I wore wasn't much different than what anyone else had on


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 4, 2014)

Gamma Akutabi said:


> According to Blue, when I was called a ^ (use bro) and had my shoes stepped on by a skinhead at a college football game, I deserved it because reasons, even though what I wore wasn't much different than what anyone else had on



I really wonder how it is even possible to rationally come to this reasoning.

Not saying Blue said that; I didnt saw the post; but if he did..... wow.


----------



## Blue (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Which isn't to say racism doesn't exist anywhere. If you live in Mississippi poverty country, you're probably gonna find some. But it's virtually nonexistent in America among people who actually matter.



Skinheads don't matter and will never matter


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> I really wonder how it is even possible to rationally come to this reasoning.
> 
> Not saying Blue said that; I didnt saw the post; but if he did..... wow.



He did say that. In the past few pages.


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> What you think is racism is actually classism and most victims of it deserve it for wearing hoodies - or woodland camo jackets - and being unable to link 4 or more words together.



Doesn't everyone wear hoodies? I just don't


----------



## Thunder (Jul 4, 2014)

Gamma Akutabi said:


> According to Blue, when I was called a ^ (use bro) and had my shoes stepped on by a skinhead at a college football game, I deserved it because reasons, even though what I wore wasn't much different than what anyone else had on



I had a similar experience at the theater as I was leaving. But then again I went to see a redneck themed movie so I was practically asking for it.

Blue is correct that money and power command respect.

But dressing well and talking well doesn't completely erase the potential for racism. Because the main reason people  are racist is . . . your race I think. Besides "acting white" comes with it own set of annoyances. Hearing "you're one  of the good ones" accompanied by an equally condescending grin and pat on the shoulder gets old.

First world middle class black problems.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> He did say that. In the past few pages.



If he did; shouldnt this be grounds for an automatic ban?


----------



## Hozukimaru (Jul 4, 2014)

He just underestimates the size of racism currently in the US and says that classism is the real problem. Although I'm not sure if he means that rich people discriminate against poor people or the opposite. Truth is that both happen.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 4, 2014)

Hozukimaru said:


> Truth is that both happen.



On equal meassure?


----------



## Blue (Jul 4, 2014)

Flow said:


> Doesn't everyone wear hoodies? I just don't


lol no. No they don't.



Thunder said:


> But dressing well and talking well doesn't completely erase the potential for racism. Because the main reason people  are racist is . . . your race I think.


Well if someone is specifically targeting your race with insults, then yes, it's certainly racism even if they're only expressing their classism with racist terms.

What I'm implying that being treated like shit in general doesn't necessarily have to do with the color of your skin, and in fact, is unlikely to. More likely they're reacting to what you appear to be, and switching to a polo shirt and loafers would fix it.
Of course you're gonna get grief for wearing a polo shirt too, but again, not from anyone who matters.



Hozukimaru said:


> He just underestimates the size of racism currently in the US and says that classism is the real problem. Although I'm not sure if he means that rich people discriminate against poor people or the opposite. Truth is that both happen.


It's possible. I don't exactly spend a lot of time outside major cities and affluent areas.

But anyway, yes, classism cuts both ways. Obviously the rich discriminating is a bigger problem. I don't care if some hood rats laugh at me. I'll be seeing them washing my dishes the next day.


----------



## Lucaniel (Jul 4, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> If he did; shouldnt this be grounds for an automatic ban?



...no?

how do you think a forum works


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> lol no. No they don't.



All kinds of people wear hoodies, you're purposefully being oblivious and difficult.



> . More likely they're reacting to what you appear to be, and switching to a polo shirt and loafers would fix it.



Not all the times, and again, you're generalizing to support your argument.


----------



## EJ (Jul 4, 2014)

Thunder said:


> But dressing well and talking well doesn't completely erase the potential for racism. Because the main reason people  are racist is . . . your race I think. Besides "acting white" comes with it own set of annoyances. Hearing "you're one  of the good ones" accompanied by an equally condescending grin and pat on the shoulder gets old.
> 
> First world middle class black problems.



Yeah,

"You aren't like other black people" or "You're one of the cool ones"

Dressing well definitely doesn't get rid of racism, Blue is just showing how out of touch he is. haha


----------



## Black Superman (Jul 4, 2014)

I don't see what's so great about any of the presidents, Obama included.


Ronald Reagan= supported apartheid, escalated the war on drugs, is responsible for our sorry healthcare system, cut the funding out of our schools

G H.W. Bush= said he wouldn't raise taxes... did the opposite, got us involved in kuwait, vomited on the Japanese prime minister

Clinton=escalated the war on drugs, signed NAFTA trade agreements outsourcing american labour, blue dress

George W. Bush=too many to list

I don't remember these awesome presidents people idolize. Is it just about seeing someone you can relate to?


----------



## Hozukimaru (Jul 4, 2014)

Well where I live I think that xenophobia is definitely a greater problem than classism is. 



			
				Friend of mine said:
			
		

> You know, I'm not a racist, but Albanians are the only people on the world that rape little babies.



I don't have any friend that is really rich or really poor so I really haven't hear any rich snob person say anything bad about poor people or the opposite.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 4, 2014)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> I don't see what's so great about any of the presidents, Obama included.
> 
> 
> Ronald Reagan= supported apartheid, escalated the war on drugs, is responsible for our sorry healthcare system, cut the funding out of our schools
> ...


----------



## Hozukimaru (Jul 4, 2014)

NSA, Benghazi etc. There are certainly stuff that just went terribly under his watch.


----------



## Thunder (Jul 4, 2014)

Blue said:


> Well if someone is specifically targeting your race with insults, then  yes, it's certainly racism even if they're only expressing their  classism with racist terms.



I think get what you're  saying, but if you're expressing classiest believes via racism the end  result is still the same to the person on the receiving end of the  remarks: you're being a racist. 



> What I'm implying that  being treated like shit in general doesn't necessarily have to do with  the color of your skin, and in fact, is unlikely to. More likely they're  reacting to what you appear to be, and switching to a polo shirt and  loafers would fix it.
> Of course you're gonna get grief for wearing a polo shirt too, but again, not from anyone who matters.



Of  course not, but the opposite can be just as true (i.e. if you're black,  relatively well off, and consistently treated like shit, your skin  color may be part of the problem). So who's right? No one really.  Because it's just a matter of how you perceive the world around you and  your perceptions are molded by your experiences. 

If you're a  racial minority and you've never experienced much racism growing up then  you'll be more inclined to think racism has been stamped out. Whereas  racism is all the black dude growing up in the deep south will see  because that's all he's dealt with his entire life. 

How you  dress, how you talk, where you live, your wealth?all are factors. So I  wouldn't isolate one or two and just say "change that and you're good".  Depends on the individual.


----------



## Black Superman (Jul 4, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> @Seto- The white male is the most openly discriminated against.



You mean like on yahoo , youtube, college campus panties and stormfront? Lot of anti-white discrimination going on there


----------



## Black Superman (Jul 4, 2014)

Why is racism always contained to the deep south? I have an issue with that. Southern racism is just more open and matter of fact, but northern racism is just as bad, arguably worse imo. There was a lot of manufacturing and union racism that went on up north that doesn't get acknowledged. Housing as well. You got super segregated enclaves like Chicago and Detroit that are the byproducts of that type of housing/redlining/economic based racism that's just as bad.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jul 4, 2014)

Not sure if propaganda is NF's forte or not.

I wouldn't rely on U.S. polls if 46% U.S. believe in creationism.


----------



## Thunder (Jul 4, 2014)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> Why is racism always contained to the deep south? I have an issue with that. Southern racism is just more open and matter of fact, but northern racism is just as bad, arguably worse imo. There was a lot of manufacturing and union racism that went on up north that doesn't get acknowledged. Housing as well. You got super segregated enclaves like Chicago and Detroit that are the byproducts of that type of housing/redlining/economic based racism that's just as bad.



I don't know about anyone else but I only used the deep south has an example because of the well known stereotypes attached to the region. Racism up north is definitely there, it's just more subtle in some areas.


----------



## Orochibuto (Jul 5, 2014)

Lucaniel said:


> ...no?
> 
> how do you think a forum works



But it is; read the rules.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

If you're saying he's trolling, he's not. He at least believes 75 percent of what he's saying.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2014)

ZeroTheDestroyer said:


> Why is racism always contained to the deep south? I have an issue with that. Southern racism is just more open and matter of fact, but northern racism is just as bad, arguably worse imo. There was a lot of manufacturing and union racism that went on up north that doesn't get acknowledged. Housing as well. You got super segregated enclaves like Chicago and Detroit that are the byproducts of that type of housing/redlining/economic based racism that's just as bad.



Northern Racism exists, but I doubt it's just as bad.


----------



## Mintaka (Jul 5, 2014)

Orochibuto said:


> But it is; read the rules.


Nope.

Blue is very high up in the staff, and the staff half a fuck about the rules of this site.

Then again quite a few of the regular users don't either.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> NAFTA
> Easier Loans from Banks
> Tax increase of which speaking at a fund raiser in 1995, President Clinton said:  ?Probably there are people in this room still mad at me at that budget because you think I raised your taxes too much. It might surprise you to know that I think I raised them too much, too.
> 
> *Bush was just alright but I don't believe he did anything detrimental* and the only thing people have against him is the war on terror of which an Iraqi general has said they moved the chem weapons to Syria in 01 under the guise of relief aid to the civilians after a disaster of some sort. And to circumvent customs they put the cargo in the passenger compartments.



LOL WHUT. Dubya Bush started a pointless war that left thousands of US soldiers dead, wasted a trillion dollars, and destroyed the rather large amount of sympathy the US got after 9/11. He let Osama Bin Laden escape and then excused it by saying he wasn't important but that Iraq was. Then there's the fact that he staffed disaster relief organizations like FEMA with unqualified cronies that made the organization into a joke and the economy had its biggest crash since the Great Depression under his watch. 

Obama had to basically clean up his mess while facing the most obstructive GOP opposition in history, one which openly admitted that they want the president to fail even if it takes down the entire country down with him. In the height of the recession, he had to pass the stimulus bill without a single GOP vote. When the GOP regained control of Congress they tried to default on the national debt twice and shut down the government, which is the type of shenanigans that lead to the US credit rating being lowered. The GOP congress has failed to do basic ordinary tasks that used to be taken for granted like disaster relief. Just look at the shit that happened after Hurricane Sandy. Under Bush, FEMA was a joke that let New Orleans rot after Katrina, but Obama managed to bring the organization around so that it worked well enough to win praise from Chris Cristie. And remember that Christie actively stumped for Romney and called Obama a poor leader. Christie also called out the GOP for its callousness and incompetence for not funding disaster relief. How the fuck is Obama supposed to work with such incompetent partisan hacks?


----------



## Raiden (Jul 5, 2014)

I'm actually going to read into the Reagan years because of this.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

Blue said it a few pages ago.


----------



## Mael (Jul 5, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Who the fuck said that?



That'd be Blue.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2014)

Wow, so it would seem in his time away he's been storing up the racism and class-ism for his eventual return. That shit would probably get anyone else banned. That's at least as crazy as the stuff Kid Tony and JSJ spew all over the boards.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Wow, so it would seem in his time away he's been storing up the racism and class-ism for his eventual return. That shit would probably get anyone else banned. That's at least as crazy as the stuff Kid Tony and JSJ spew all over the boards.



I don't see how it's banworthy, considering people in this section get away with saying "kill yourself" and calling people dumbasses all the time.

He's just open about his flaws, but doesn't really realize it. He wasn't really saying it to anger anyone specifically, I just think (like others have stated) he's oblivious to how wrong he is.


----------



## Blue (Jul 5, 2014)

CTK is trying to pretend I don't exist. It must be trying for him.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2014)

Yeah, it's not racist, just an ignorant thing to say. Just a matter of being socially oblivious, exactly like Romney...although, unlike Romney he's still young enough to change that.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

Well, regarding the "racist" thing, that's for another topic. His comment was completely stupid tho.


----------



## Blue (Jul 5, 2014)

To be honest, most of the things I say in the cafe are to anger people. Obviously "You're just confused. Racism doesn't exist, you're just plebs" isn't calculated to calm anyone down.

But they're also things I honestly believe. 

I simply haven't experienced racism in my life. The only one thing I can point to and say "this was probably because I wasn't white" was getting accepted into a very prestigious university despite my not-perfect GPA in high school.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

How can you have gone to a prestigious university yet not accept racism exist?


----------



## Saishin (Jul 5, 2014)

*Obama worst president since WWII poll shows*



> Poll after poll has charted President Obama?s dipping approval rating in recent months, but Wednesday brought perhaps the cruelest cut to date: A new Quinnipiac University survey found that voters rate Mr. Obama as the country?s worst president since World War II.
> 
> With Mr. Obama deploying troops to Iraq, failing to find compromise with Congress and seeing major defeats in the Supreme Court, voters continue to sour on him. The new poll also revealed that more voters now say GOP nominee Mitt Romney would have been a better choice in 2012.
> 
> ...





See the poll here


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2014)

The reason I call it racist is because of the string two words together comment.


----------



## Saishin (Jul 5, 2014)

> *The Obama years: 'The trailers were great, the movie was horrible'*
> 
> As a poll of American voters ranks Barack Obama as the worst president of all time, Matt Lewis says his presidency has been a disastrous flop - talented and much-hyped but ultimately unsatisfying
> 
> ...


----------



## Kira Yamato (Jul 5, 2014)

At least check the first page of the section before posting a duplicate article.

*merges*


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 5, 2014)

hcheng02 said:


> LOL WHUT. Dubya Bush started a pointless war that left thousands of US soldiers dead, wasted a trillion dollars, and destroyed the rather large amount of sympathy the US got after 9/11. He let Osama Bin Laden escape and then excused it by saying he wasn't important but that Iraq was. Then there's the fact that he staffed disaster relief organizations like FEMA with unqualified cronies that made the organization into a joke and the economy had its biggest crash since the Great Depression under his watch.


In hindsight it was pointless(although not really since we got a bunch of advancements from that war) but everyone was on the boat. And yea a lunatic that has control over an entire country is more dangerous than some radical living in a fucking cave. Saddam was actively participating in genocidal campaigns.

The Dotcom bubble is what made the economy crash and Clinton sending jobs and corporations overseas didn't help him out at all. THen in 07 the housing bubble popped(Clintons' policy) and then banks started to fail(again Clintons policy) he did what he did to help stabilize it. 

GDP rose at an average annual rate of 2.12% and in 2007 the DOW peaked at 14,000.

And he did wahat he was supposed to in that situation. It isn't his fault that FEMA and other agencies didn't react to his call.  Do I need to list all the incompetent people Obama has appointed? Hell just his friend from Chicago are nothing but political thugs ripe with corruption through and through.



> Obama had to basically clean up his mess while facing the most obstructive GOP opposition in history, one which openly admitted that they want the president to fail even if it takes down the entire country down with him.


And yet Obama only addressed congress 1 time by the end of 2012. YOu can't just sit at home in your chair and hope your constituents are able to accomplish something that you want done without you talking to them at all, instead he just attacked them and their ideology. Clinton got shit done, Bush did as well, yet Obama can't...hell same motherfuckers in Washington.



> In the height of the recession, he had to pass the stimulus bill without a single GOP vote.


And Solyndra failed, as well as many other companies that were saved by the bailout.



> When the GOP regained control of Congress they tried to default on the national debt twice and shut down the government, which is the type of shenanigans that lead to the US credit rating being lowered.


And Obama voted against raising the debt liimit when bush was in office. Need I quote what he said?





> The GOP congress has failed to do basic ordinary tasks that used to be taken for granted like disaster relief. Just look at the shit that happened after Hurricane Sandy. Under Bush, FEMA was a joke that let New Orleans rot after Katrina, but Obama managed to bring the organization around so that it worked well enough to win praise from Chris Cristie. And remember that Christie actively stumped for Romney and called Obama a poor leader. Christie also called out the GOP for its callousness and incompetence for not funding disaster relief. How the fuck is Obama supposed to work with such incompetent partisan hacks?


Just as other presidents before him did. 


Of course NY, NJ and the north would get more immediate help then the South. Bush told FEMA to do it, not his fault people are incompetent. Hell Bush was in the effected areas just as help was getting there. And fuck everyone was telling people to get out of town, not his fault they are incompetent.

IF Obama would actually concede on certain matters like every other president did then he would get more passed. Also Congress has passed a lot of bills just for the Democratic senate to throw it down. So it goes both ways, its just the democrats hold 2/3 offices and thus incompetence falls on them.


----------



## Ram (Jul 5, 2014)

The US voting majority are now the 47%.
We'll never see a strong Republican government again in our lifetimes.
Poor US.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2014)

Blue said:


> But they're also things I honestly believe.



That's the tragic part.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 5, 2014)

Ram said:


> The US voting majority are now the 47%.
> We'll never see a strong Republican government again in our lifetimes.
> Poor US.



Lucky US, if this is true we can rejoice because it might make the Republican party actually do their fucking jobs for a change.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 5, 2014)

I would move to Russia


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

^Why not now?



Ram said:


> The US voting majority are now the 47%.
> We'll never see a strong Republican government again in our lifetimes.
> Poor US.



they brought that shit on themselves. haha


----------



## C-Moon (Jul 5, 2014)

Blue said:


> I simply haven't experienced racism in my life. The only one thing I can point to and say "this was probably because I wasn't white" was getting accepted into a very prestigious university despite my not-perfect GPA in high school.



Your experiences in no way indicate a centuries-old problem suddenly died off.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jul 5, 2014)

Blue...you don't say shit like that and expect people to waive it away. I don't know what kind of town you grew up in. But your experiences are definitely not normal to grow up and think its okay to say that kind of ignorant garbage about other people.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 5, 2014)

Flow said:


> ^Why not now?
> 
> 
> 
> they brought that shit on themselves. haha



Because democrats aren't in power and I don't feel like living in a country ruled by pussy liberalist that will restrict the American freedom.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

Shouldn't you start saving your money up right now, and start studying the language now in order to get a better grasp on the country you would be moving to besides simply saying

"I'd move to Russia"?


----------



## C-Moon (Jul 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:
			
		

> IF Obama would actually concede on certain matters like every other president did then he would get more passed.


Tell that to the Republicans who'd happily shoot themselves in the foot if it meant stopping him.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Because democrats aren't in power and I don't feel like living in a country ruled by pussy liberalist that will restrict the American freedom.



So you would move to a country with little to no freedoms just because you can continue with your hate fill trash?



> IF Obama would actually concede on certain matters like every other president did then he would get more passed.



You mean concede and compromise more times than can count just because something can go through.


----------



## Blue (Jul 5, 2014)

Inuhanyou said:


> Blue...you don't say shit like that and expect people to waive it away. I don't know what kind of town you grew up in. But your experiences are definitely not normal to grow up and think its okay to say that kind of ignorant garbage about other people.



Oh, I don't. Read, it get mad, and bitter.

And then look around and realize it's true.

Or... realize it's wrong.

Most likely both. A black man in a $2000 Polo Ralph Lauren suit will never, ever be discriminated against. 
Unless he's in rural Georgia. Why would he be in Georgia?

But the fact remains I suppose that rural Georgia exists.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

> Most likely both. A black man in a $2000 Polo Ralph Lauren suit will never, ever be discriminated against.







> Danny Glover
> The Lethal Weapon actor  filed a formal complaint with the Taxi and Limousine Commission in America after he grew sick and tired of cab drivers who would not let him into their cabs because of the colour of his skin. Danny feared that racist cab drivers could compromise the safety of his daughter and other people of colour if they did not want to stop for them at night.




Maybe Oprah and Danny were both wearing hoodies and not using profound words to impress the people.



> Yusuf Islam formerly known as Cat Stevens
> After becoming a Muslim, Cat changed his name to Yusuf Islam. The name change put him on a security watch list against terrorism.  Basically, the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S assumed that a person with an Islamic surname must be a terrorist or a safety threat for Americans. Therefore, he was denied access to a flight from London to DC.




The fuck was he thinking changing his name to that. right Blue?


----------



## Suzuku (Jul 5, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Obama ranked worst since WW2
> 
> Reagan ranked best since WW2
> 
> ...


bullshit like this is why the country can't get anything done in the first place. stop being a tool.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 5, 2014)

Blue said:


> Oh, I don't. Read, it get mad, and bitter.
> 
> And then look around and realize it's true.
> 
> ...



See, that's what makes it so tragic that you actually believe this. It's incredible ignorance. Plenty incidents of racial profiling occur, especially in affluent neighborhoods because again, there is a strong relationship of class and race in this society. Especially in regard to people's mindset of them. Even the president was derided of being an "affirmative action" president despite his academic accomplishments, just for one notable example. 

Being a black person or a latino person too, in an affluent mostly white neighborhood can result in a number of incidents such as being mistaken as an intruder prowling the premises, or when driving suspected of having stolen it. Because blacks and latinos are expected to be poor and live in poor areas. Vice-versa happens plenty too, as a white person is stereotypically expected to stick to rural and suburban areas. While the attitudes in generations tend to die down, that association with class and race is still going strong, no thanks in part to one such Ronald Reagan. Which is what you don't seem to get at all.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

Or how that one guy said Obama would become an Uncle Tom before he was officially in office...

Or the people saying he looked like a monkey but the argument against that was "Well, you guys said Bush looked like one!"


----------



## Suzuku (Jul 5, 2014)

Blue said:


> Obama really is one of the worst if not the worst president since WWII. His every policy has been disastrous, every single one of his appointments to every position cabinet level on down have been stooges, even Hillary Clinton, who despite being insanely competent and qualified was only SecState to get the Clintons and their voters on his side, refused to take responsibility for anything, his every public act is a media ploy.
> 
> You can say "oh but he let gays in the military" but _who fucking cares_. You or I could do that too if we were President. My 6 year old cousin could do that.
> 
> That Romney would have been a better choice should be totally fucking obvious by now, so I'll skip over that part.


Blue, you do realize that a) most of the policies he enacts that you see immediate results from are extremely watered down bills that aren't able to do anything by design and b) we won't be able to judge his bigger policies such as the health care reforms he made for another fucking 6+ years.

I'm not even a fan of Obama, but the bullshit shit slinging I see in this section from both sides is fucking ridiculous. Get your heads out your asses.

Saying Obama is the worst anything 6 years into his presidency is nothing more than sensationalism and hyperbole. People need to get a grip.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 5, 2014)

Nemesis said:


> So you would move to a country with little to no freedoms just because you can continue with your hate fill trash?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean concede and compromise more times than can count just because something can go through.



Russia has its own type of freedom and a deep seeded pride. I also like Putin as a leader. I just said Russia because its the archnemesis of the US. If I was realistically going to move somewhere it would probably be eastern Europe.



> Shouldn't you start saving your money up right now, and start studying the language now in order to get a better grasp on the country you would be moving to besides simply saying
> 
> "I'd move to Russia"?


I could learn their language rather quick, i use to study it from time to time and can say a few things that are helpfull in a plethora of situations.


Hell I just figured out that Russian civilians can own firearms...WTF Democrats, want to take our guns away while the commies have guns.


Understand what I am saying. I would rather be under the rule of oppressive Russian regimes as to have to abide by the liberals standard of morality in the USA. I was using it as an example of extreme. Im never going to leave the USA, for then you would have no one to be challenged by.


And Im sure Obama isn't the worse president realistically I would put him in the middle of the pack. There are a bunch of unknowns through peoples' presidency and most of it goes unrecognized or has little to no effect until the president's term is over.


----------



## EJ (Jul 5, 2014)

@nemesis, everyone in this thread knows IchLiebe is one of the typical people that says "I would move to ______" but never really do so. It's pointless to even engage into that discussion with him ahha.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 5, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Of course NY, NJ and the north would get more immediate help then the South. Bush told FEMA to do it, not his fault people are incompetent. Hell Bush was in the effected areas just as help was getting there. And fuck everyone was telling people to get out of town, not his fault they are incompetent.



National Geographic did a documentary on Katrina and it really seemed like the left hand of Fema didn't know what the right was doing. But they brought up an interesting point, thanks to 9/11 Fema was downgraded from being a cabinet level organization. It was merged with Homeland security and therefore didn't have direct access to the president, there's also the floundering of Kathleen Blanco the Governor and Mayor Nagin, both of whom contributed to the failure of Katrina as much as Fema. Nagin refused help from Amtrak to transport hundreds of people from New Orleans, Bush tried to get Blanco to approve a federal takeover of the situation but fearing recrimination she denied they ever had the conversation. 

I blame the stupid motherfuckers who didn't have the sense to get out of town. They played Russian roulette in staying, a lot of them lost. I feel they had an equal part of the blame as Fema did.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> @nemesis, everyone in this thread knows IchLiebe is one of the typical people that says "I would move to ______" but never really do so. It's pointless to even engage into that discussion with him ahha.



Nope sure the fuck aint' moving nowhere. Imma be buried in Mississippi with my guns and freedom in my backyard under my dogwood. And if I just conceded to your fucked up ideology than that is a win in your book. If democrats control the government for the next 3 presidential terms I predict a civil war.

Thank you Ceria, seems not everyone is ignorant.

If someone told me a cat 4 hurricane was headed my way and I lived on the coast, I would be gone a week ahead of time.


----------



## Fiona (Jul 6, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> If democrats control the government for the next 3 presidential terms I predict a civil war.



Do ever listen to yourself when you talk? 

Or do you just type whatever ridiculous notions and ideas come into your head at the time? 

I am by no means surprised, but it is always a bit jarring to be reminded just how crazy you actually are.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

Fiona said:


> Do ever listen to yourself when you talk?
> 
> Or do you just type whatever ridiculous notions and ideas come into your head at the time?
> 
> I am by no means surprised, but it is always a bit jarring to be reminded just how crazy you actually are.



Oh look typical Fiona comes in here and doesn't even debate OT.

Yea I do believe it. People are already talking about it, the government becomes increasingly oppressive and targets it political enemies on every level of society.


Would you believe Iraq would be in a civil and split three ways today if someone said it 4 years ago...no only a very few intelligible people would.

But democrats are going to lose the presidency this time around and the only thing that can sto pthe Republicans is if a tea party candidate ran as an independent and took some of the votes away from the republican party.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

It's funny that people have blind faith to a party and not actually go to the better option for the country.


----------



## αce (Jul 6, 2014)

*



Bush was just alright but I don't believe he did anything detrimental  and the only thing people have against him is the war on terror of  which an Iraqi general has said they moved the chem weapons to Syria in  01 under the guise of relief aid to the civilians after a disaster of  some sort. And to circumvent customs they put the cargo in the passenger  compartments.
		
Click to expand...

*You don't have a problem with the sky rocketing debt he piled up and the torture? Please don't divert this to Obama. Answer the question.


The over militirization of the United States is probably Reagans fault but Bush didn't exactly help either. To say that Bush was alright seems to me to be extreme bullshit. I don't care what you think of Obama, Bush was basically a shitter of a president. 


The best thing Bush ever did was his  in Africa and seeing as how I have a large part of my extended family living in countries where aids is a problem I will forever be grateful to him for that and I give credit where it's due. And in his defense he wasn't stupid - he's probably smarter than a large majority of the American population and he wasn't a racist.


But he piled up a massive debt, he allowed torture to go on in his administration and he continued an over expansive military that did not help political relations around the world and lead to the debt that I'm talking about.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 6, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Oh look typical Fiona comes in here and doesn't even debate OT.
> 
> Yea I do believe it. People are already talking about it, the government becomes increasingly oppressive and targets it political enemies on every level of society.
> 
> ...



You don't really say things worth debating.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 6, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You don't really say things worth debating.


Not to mention that both the Democrats and Republicans have had long periods of rule without a civil war.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

αce said:


> You don't have a problem with the sky rocketing debt he piled up and the torture? Please don't divert this to Obama. Answer the question.


the debt wasn't just his fault, he did pass a stimulus of his own plus financing wars. Torture, fucking please. Jail is used as a form of torture and it does lead to credible intelligence. Have you ever been waterboarded? Let me have a go at you and in 20 minutes I will have you spilling your darkest secrets.





> The over militirization of the United States is probably Reagans fault but Bush didn't exactly help either. To say that Bush was alright seems to me to be extreme bullshit. I don't care what you think of Obama, Bush was basically a shitter of a president.


And thats a bad thing, military leads the US innovation and is crucial for our country. I don't care what you think of Bush, a fucking monkey could've done better than Obama.





> The best thing Bush ever did was his  in Africa and seeing as how I have a large part of my extended family living in countries where aids is a problem I will forever be grateful to him for that and I give credit where it's due. And in his defense he wasn't stupid - he's probably smarter than a large majority of the American population and he wasn't a racist.


 I will say Bush was smart, but he just had his problems in front of a camera. Like I said the last great president we have had is Nixon. Bush was just a middleman as well as Obama, neither really accomplished much in the long run and people would argue that their policies were detrimental.





> But he piled up a massive debt, he allowed torture to go on in his administration and he continued an over expansive military that did not help political relations around the world and lead to the debt that I'm talking about.


Actually Bush was great at foreign affairs, Obama not so much. Massive...maybe, Obama's debt is ASTRONOMICAL is scale.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jul 6, 2014)

...



.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> It's funny that people have blind faith to a party and not actually go to the better option for the country.



There's so much irony in what you've said here, I wonder if you get it.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> .



Both images are stupid, the second you can't even judge until 5 years at the least. 



Ceria said:


> There's so much irony in what you've said here, I wonder if you get it.



How is it ironic to say that people blindly follow parties? Please, for once don't feed around the bush and say what you mean.

You know, sort of like how you were saying earlier in this thread that Obama portrayed "black stereotypes". You haven't explained that notion yet, and dodged out when I questioned you earlier.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> How is it ironic to say that people blindly follow parties? Please, for once don't feed around the bush and say what you mean.
> 
> You know, sort of like how you were saying earlier in this thread that Obama portrayed "black stereotypes". You haven't explained that notion yet, and dodged out when I questioned you earlier.



Black people always vote democratic yet once upon a time the DNC were former slave owners, who didn't want Black people to have the freedoms they have today. Democrats installed the Jim Crow laws and even created the KKK, yet the black community blames republicans for all of this, that's the irony. 

Obama had a unique opportunity, he could've been a shining example for black youths to stop killing each other, his wife could've at least attempted to put a stop to the ratchet behavior of the female community, for two parents raising two black girls you'd think it would behoove them to try to create a better world for those girls. Instead Obama makes himself out to be the most incompetent president of all time, Michelle hasn't said a god damn thing about any of the foolishness going on with black females today and even partook in some of it with Beyonce. 

Incompetence is a black stereotype, Obama only further illustrates it with every blunder he makes, people ask him why they can't keep their doctor with obamacare, ask him what's going on with fast and furious, what's going on with Benghazi etc, all he can say is "I don't know." He's a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck. 

He's made us look weak and has emboldened our enemies. What more can be said? 

We would've been better off with McCain and Romney, Democrats can't be trusted to look out for the best interests of this country.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]M_m8i--zQ4g[/YOUTUBE]

This man knows the truth,


----------



## Axl Low (Jul 6, 2014)

Obama aint that bad
he got a peace prize and has more drone strikes than bush

his affordable healthcare act monthly payments are 3/4 of what people on minimum wage make a month so they can be on food stamps and use the 1/4 to try to pay the rent or give it to a shelter

Now that is a real american president
hypocrite to the max


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria said:


> Black people always vote democratic yet once upon a time the DNC were former slave owners, who didn't want Black people to have the freedoms they have today. Democrats installed the Jim Crow laws and even created the KKK, yet the black community blames republicans for all of this, that's the irony.



Since you're generalizing an entire ethnicity of people, I'd say (hopefully) you have quotes or links to show that there are people who aren't educated on how and why the KKK was founded. 



> Obama had a unique opportunity, he could've been a shining example for black youths to stop killing each other,




What the fuck are you even trying to argue?  



> his wife could've at least attempted to put a stop to the ratchet behavior of the female community,



Again, what are you trying to say? Is Michelle Obama ratchet? To you, does she not display what "a professional person" should be? Like...



> for two parents raising two black girls you'd think it would behoove them to try to create a better world for those girls.




Ok... um...

Follow up with some reasoning behind what you're saying?



> Instead Obama makes himself out to be the most incompetent president of all time, Michelle hasn't said a god damn thing about any of the foolishness going on with black females today and even partook in some of it with Beyonce.



So Obama is suddenly the voice of reason as to every problem with the black community and should single out an entire ethnicty in order to "make things" better for them. I agree, he should do what's best for everyone in America, but what you're suggesting is that he dedicate his entire focus on one group of people when he is the President of United States. He should be supporting every single group of people within the country he leads.

The fact that you need this pointed out to you says a lot. On the flip side, I'm sure if Obama focused more on the black community within the US you would instead had changed your argument to "He only cares about black people"

Please, no on here is stupid. 


> Incompetence is a black stereotype, Obama only further illustrates it with every blunder he makes, people ask him why they can't keep their doctor with obamacare, ask him what's going on with fast and furious, what's going on with Benghazi etc, all he can say is "I don't know." He's a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck.




Please, go on about how Incompetent he is. You're grazing the ice and don't actually want to plunge deeper. You aren't going into "black stereotypes" at all. You just thew an insult out and piggy backed off of that to support your "argument"

Now, go into detail of how "Obama portrays black stereotypes". Other wise, admit that your claim was stupid. 



> We would've been better off with McCain and Romney, Democrats can't be trusted to look out for the best interests of this country.




I've found out how ironic the statement it was. You trying to spin the "irony" claim when it applied to yourself.


----------



## αce (Jul 6, 2014)

_



			Black people always vote democratic yet  once upon a time the DNC were former slave owners, who didn't want Black  people to have the freedoms they have today. Democrats installed the  Jim Crow laws and even created the KKK, yet the black community blames  republicans for all of this, that's the irony.
		
Click to expand...

_
Uh, equating pre 1980 republicans and democrats to their current counter parts simply because of name is kind of fucking retarded. Political ideologies don't stay consistent throughout the entirety of a parties life time. Your post would be implying that democrats still hold slaves. This would be like me saying that black people living in the south and supporting the southern state governments are blind because those states used to support slavery and they should just move to the north.

That democratic party _no longer exists._






> We would've been better off with McCain


Larry King: "If you were president and knew that bin Laden was in Pakistan, you know where, would you have U.S. forces go in after him?" 

Mccain: "Larry, I'm not going to go there and here's why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation."


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow, he's not making an argument he's race-baiting. Which I've seen about three people in this section do already...which was supposed to be blatantly against the rules.



αce said:


> Uh, equating pre 1980 republicans and democrats to their current counter parts simply because of name is kind of fucking retarded.



Yes, that's ignoring the very big matter of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, the support of Kennedy of it, the signing of the laws by Johnson, and of course Nixon's use of the Southern Strategy which Regan solidified.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria, you're the prime example of

"This guy is going to hate on Obama no matter what he does  because he's black"

Which I honestly hate doing because I feel that's a real lazy thing to do, and I like to give credit to people's argument and to pay attention to what they have to say. 

The way you generalize black people shows as much. Next thing you're going to do is post a video of Obama walking around with his shoelaces untied then say "By doing this, he's advertising for black guys to continue sagging their pants"


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> Ceria, you're the prime example of
> 
> "This guy is going to hate on Obama no matter what he does is because he's black"
> 
> The way you generalize black people shows as much. Next thing you're going to do is post a video of Obama walking around with his shoelaces untied then say "By doing this, he's advertising for black guys to continue sagging their pants"



No, I wanted to give him the chance to prove himself, despite his senate record of just voting present, I thought maybe things would change for the better. I was proven wrong. 

I just think it's sad that he's from chicago but he can't say a damn thing about all the violence there? The first black president you would think would actually make overt strides in helping his own race in addition to all the others in our country. 

I lost my healthcare coverage thanks to obamacare and now that i'm on it i'm afraid to go to the doctor fearing what the slightest cold will cost me now. 

Then this latest blunder trading five terrorists for a traitor, how can any sane person support a man who would circumvent congress and do something like this?


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria said:


> No, I wanted to give him the chance to prove himself, despite his senate record of just voting present, I thought maybe things would change for the better. I was proven wrong.



No, you weren't proven anything. Obama could of coughed out the cure to Aids and you would of found a reason to fault him for that. 


> I just think it's sad that he's from chicago but he can't say a damn thing about all the violence there? The first black president you would think would actually make overt strides in helping his own race in addition to all the others in our country.




And like I said, Obama should be supporting the entire nation out. If he seemed really dedicated towards helping just one group out specifically you would of been sitting here telling me

 "He only cares about black people, and won't do a thing for anyone else"

Again, stop trying to kid yourself.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Oh, and Ceria btw.

I'm still waiting for those quotes and links that I have asked for when you were generalizing black people being oblivious to how the KKK was founded, even though what you said youtself was idiotic within itself.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> No, you weren't proven anything. Obama could of coughed out the cure to Aids and you would of found a reason to fault him for that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are you twisting things around, why can't Obama say something to stop kids from killing each other, that goes without being said. His whole presidency has been about helping others and ignoring the black community. The black community needs help, stop the violence and the poverty. 

Think whatever you want about me, i just wish he'd help his own community instead of focusing on every other one.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria said:


> Why are you twisting things around,



What the hell have I twisted around?

You're the one who has been posting in this thread trying to paint Obama and Michelle Obama as "stereotypical black people" and have yet to go into basis about this and have just furthered to show why no one should take your critique of Obama's term as President seriously for the most part while generalizing black people about not understanding the foundation of the KKK.

You're the one in this thread dodging questions thrown at you left and right because you can't go into detail and you won't admit it. 





> that goes without being said. His whole presidency has been about helping others and ignoring the black community. The black community needs help, stop the violence and the poverty.




And I'll repeat what I've been saying: 

You'd be in this thread saying "Obama only cares about black people and won't do his job as the President of the United States"



> Think whatever you want about me, i just wish he'd help his own community instead of focusing on every other one.



Yes, I will trust me.

So you don't want Obama to do his job to the best of his abilities is what you're basically saying ? I'm glad we are clear on that. 

Go racebait somewhere else, I like how you ignored just about every response thrown at you besides mine and continued to ignore what I asked for.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Most likely both. A black man in a $2000 Polo Ralph Lauren suit will never, ever be discriminated against.
> Unless he's in rural Georgia. Why would he be in Georgia?
> .


----------



## baconbits (Jul 6, 2014)

Ah, the butthurt expressed in this thread is entertaining.

Yes, Obama is one of the worst presidents ever.  To those who object answer this: name three things he's accomplished that have been positive?  I thought of turning this into a debate thread a few weeks back because besides killing Osama I can't think of any policy or law he's passed that have had a positive impact.

On top of that he has some very serious scandals going on, the likes of which would bury any president not beloved by the media.


----------



## αce (Jul 6, 2014)

I agree that electing a black president means he should be representative of the black community but the problems in Chicago among the black youth are mostly gun issues. And in case you haven't noticed, anytime gun issues come up Obama is automatically declares some type of dictator trying to destroy the second amendment.

Not to mention that gun control will never get through congress and if he signs any sort of executive order congress is going to lose its shit.


I don't see what he can possibly do in regards to the Chicago problem.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 6, 2014)

baconbits said:


> Ah, the butthurt expressed in this thread is entertaining.
> 
> Yes, Obama is one of the worst presidents ever.  To those who object answer this: name three things he's accomplished that have been positive?  I thought of turning this into a debate thread a few weeks back because besides killing Osama I can't think of any policy or law he's passed that have had a positive impact.
> 
> On top of that he has some very serious scandals going on, the likes of which would bury any president not beloved by the media.


----------



## Blue (Jul 6, 2014)

αce said:


> I agree that electing a black president means he should be representative of the black community but the problems in Chicago among the black youth are mostly gun issues.



I will repeat the overused but extremely relevant fact that every adult Swiss has an assault rifle in their homes and their gun violence is fairly low

It is not a gun problem, it is a being stupid and poor problem.

Also guns are practically banned in Chicago


----------



## Sanity Check (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> Both images are stupid, the second you can't even judge until 5 years at the least.



Flow.  I will give you a response since I haven't had much opportunity to discuss topics like this with you in the past.

Let me break this down for you.

1.  Its been more than 5 years since Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy went into effect.

2.  Most people _don't remember_ Bush's tax cuts.  Much less are they in a position to accurately determine whether said tax cuts had a positive or negative impact.

3.  Reagan's tax plan increased taxes on corporations and the rich.  This shifted the tax burden from the poor and middle class onto the wealthy.  Bush's tax cuts did the opposite.  Bush cut taxes on the rich and shifted the tax burden from the wealthy onto the poor and middle class.  They were complete opposites, yet there are still countless people who fail to realize this.

4.  Its pointless to say we won't know if something had a positive or negative effect until 5-10 years in the future because most americans don't have memories that last that long.  Most americans don't remember the affordable care act was supposed to decrease the cost of healthcare.  They don't remember that Obama promised they would be able to keep their doctors and insurance plans if they liked them.  They don't remember the promises that were made a year ago, much less 5-10 years ago.

5.  Based on the above, it is pointless to claim time factor.  Time doesn't enhance peoples conception nor accuracy on politics.  It doesn't give them a better vantage point to gauge whether or not a political policy had a positive or negative impact.  Time has the opposite effect.  In a few years, no one will remember what they thought or said about something Obama did.  They won't remember that they supported the wrong thing.  And they certainly won't recognize the mistakes or errors they made and try to rectify them in the future.

In that sense, the idea that people are better equipped to understand things like healthcare or taxes in the future is an incorrect one.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria is arguing that Obama should be focusing on mainly the black community. I'm not going to fall for that notion because anyone could see how he'd be singing a different tune if this was the case:


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> What the hell have I twisted around?
> 
> You're the one who has been posting in this thread trying to paint Obama and Michelle Obama as "stereotypical black people" and have yet to go into basis about this and have just furthered to show why no one should take your critique of Obama's term as President seriously for the most part while generalizing black people about not understanding the foundation of the KKK.
> 
> ...



I can't believe you're this dense, I want him to actually do his job and help out all Americans, black people are among the " Americans" I spoke of. 

How is wanting black youths to stop killing each other and trying to implement laws that help the problem show favoritism towards blacks only? 

Getting the violence to stop would be good for all Americans, not just blacks.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria said:


> I can't believe you're this dense, I want him to actually do his job and help out all Americans, black people are among the " Americans" I spoke of.



No, you wanted something to complain about and "want" Obama to focus on the black community and not focus as much on the people of the _United States_. 



> How is wanting black youths to stop killing each other and trying to implement laws that help the problem show favoritism towards blacks only?





Or should he go out and say "The people of the United States has to do a better job when it comes to violence, on all sides"

You're calling me dense, yet you don't see how the first response could make it seem as if his priority is only towards black people and how it could cause other American citizens to lose faith in him.



> Getting the violence to stop would be good for all Americans, not just blacks.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> I will repeat the overused but extremely relevant fact that every adult Swiss has an assault rifle in their homes and their gun violence is fairly low
> 
> It is not a gun problem, it is a being stupid and poor problem.
> 
> Also guns are practically banned in Chicago



No they aren't, all attempts were ruled unconstitutional.


----------



## zenieth (Jul 6, 2014)

Can anybody remember as far back as lbjs presidency, much less ww2?


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> No, you wanted something to complain about and "want" Obama to focus on the black community and not focus as much on the people of the _United States_.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You keep trying to imply that I'd say Obama only favors the black community, if he did, if he got off his ass and actually did something to help the fellow members of his race, I'd give him a round of applause, they need help.


----------



## αce (Jul 6, 2014)

> To those who object answer this: name three things he's accomplished that have been positive?


Ok you can have your opinion on how good he is as president but this is pretty fucking easy. This is off the top of my head


1. Bin laden's death
2. Ended the ban on stem cell research
3. trade enforcement unit



And then of course, there's the ending of combat operations in Iraq, the draw down of troops in Afghanistan, the auto bailout. I was going to say the stimulus, because most economists agree that the short term benefits were definitely worth but there's still debate on whether it was worth it in the long run.

I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that he's amazing or anything like that. But there's so much being done that isn't being reported I'm sure you can find at least 3 things you agree on.



edit: oh and he's the first president to support gay marriage
although im not sure if you see that as a plus l00l


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria said:


> You keep trying to imply that I'd say Obama only favors the black community, if he did, if he got off his ass and actually did something to help the fellow members of his race, I'd give him a round of applause, they need help.



Even you don't believe this. Oh, still waiting for your reasoning as to "How Obama has been portraying black stereotypes" 



11, I'll soon respond to your post.


----------



## αce (Jul 6, 2014)

> I will repeat the overused but extremely relevant fact that every adult  Swiss has an assault rifle in their homes and their gun violence is  fairly low
> 
> It is not a gun problem, it is a being stupid and poor problem.
> 
> Also guns are practically banned in Chicago



Ok, well then he needs to address poverty and ignorance. Except most people living in poverty in the united states are white and so I don't see how he solely would focus on black poverty and not white poverty as well. He'd be ignoring a majority of the problem.

Ignorance and stupidity effects southern rural communities just as much as it does black and urban communities. It'd be better to simply focus on being poor and stupid for everyone rather than just black people. 


Sit here and criticize him for not focusing on that rather than him not doing anything for blacks in particular if guns aren't the issue.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

Flow said:


> Even you don't believe this. Oh, still waiting for your reasoning as to "How Obama has been portraying black stereotypes"
> 
> 
> 
> 11, I'll soon respond to your post.



Who are you say what i do or do not believe? 

You need only look through my other posts flow, i've already explained it. Incompetence and directing blame away from himself based on the color of his skin ie racism.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Ceria said:


> Who are you say what i do or do not believe?



Oh, the irony in this. You were just generalizing black people ob "what they know about the KKK" in this thread, then get offended when someone claims to know what you believe or wouldn't. 


> You need only look through my other posts flow, i've already explained it. Incompetence and directing blame away from himself based on the color of his skin ie racism.



Your use of the word incompetence is stupid, you can apply that towards any ethnicity as an insult. The problem is with you, you look at Obama purely by his ethnicity and not what he's doing as a president for the most part.

And this bring us back full circle. Obama has pointed out regards of what he's faced while being in office and you have a problem with it. But you were just in this thread telling people that "he should focus on his people more than other people in the United States"

So when Obama brings up problems within the black community and what it faces, it has to be about the complete negatives of what just black people do. It can't be about the racism he's faced while trying to get into office and while he's been office.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

Never mind the fact that you said I would call that video of that one guy talking bad about Obama an "Uncle Tom" or "race traitor" but yeah, it's adorable watching you get 'offended' when people bring up how you are.

You're being hypocritical.


----------



## Black Superman (Jul 6, 2014)

I'd love to see what herman cane or any of these black republicans would have done for the black community if they were elected in office instead. That would have been very interesting to watch.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

αce said:


> Ok you can have your opinion on how good he is as president but this is pretty fucking easy. This is off the top of my head


1. Bin laden's death- Anyone would've done that in his position, maybe not like he did, but certainly would've done something to kill him.

2. Ended the ban on stem cell research-Ended the Embryonic ban on stem cell research and that was only enforced due to sheer ignorance.

3. trade enforcement unit-





> These domestic content requirements discriminate against U.S. exports by requiring solar power developers to use Indian-manufactured equipment instead of U.S. equipment.


Sounds like business bullies to me. But if you look on the other side of the spectrum, Americans cry for American made products. THis was a good idea, but I think it has went just a little to far. Like God damn they can't even make their own products to build their own shit.





> And then of course, there's the ending of combat operations in Iraq, the draw down of troops in Afghanistan, the auto bailout. I was going to say the stimulus, because most economists agree that the short term benefits were definitely worth but there's still debate on whether it was worth it in the long run.


Yea, Iraq turned out real fucking swell didn't it. And Afghanistan is on the same path. The auto bailout was a must or the entire economy would collapse, still shouldn't have to bail out huge corporations because they don't know how to adequately manage their books. Then you have the lost money in failed subsidized companies.





> I'm not gonna sit here and pretend that he's amazing or anything like that. But there's so much being done that isn't being reported I'm sure you can find at least 3 things you agree on.


God I only dread what he does at his desk...atleast Clinton was busy with "other" affairs(that is a pun).



> edit: oh and he's the first president to support gay marriage
> although im not sure if you see that as a plus l00l


Which I see as absolute bullshit, just because it exist doesn't mean that we have to accept it as the normal or that its alright.


----------



## Black Superman (Jul 6, 2014)

Btw, there's no such thing as black on black crime. No one calls a white guy killing another white guy over a botched meth deal white-on-white crime or a white guy killing his wife white on white crime. So please stop with the disingenuous nonsense. If something were really done about concentrated volatile narco-communities , some of  these very same people would bitch about "those people" getting undeserved resources and such. You guys never gave a fuck about the black community, even when it was  and on the up-and-up. So why would you care now? What it comes down to is self-righteous posturing.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

Yet look at cities where the minorities are the majority. Detroit, LA, Houston, Vegas, Need I go on?

They do it to themselves and most of the problems come from drugs...I was watching drug inc the other day and they had Chicago on it...needless to say Obama lives right down the road from some big time thugs.


----------



## EJ (Jul 6, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Obama lives right down the road from some big time thugs.



Why do I feel that you said this in order to point at something in a subtle manner.


----------



## Blue (Jul 6, 2014)

αce said:


> And then of course, there's the ending of combat operations in Iraq





Arguably worst decision he made, and he's made some big ones.

Wish Romney was here


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Arguably worst decision he made, and he's made some big ones.
> 
> Wish Romney was here


So honoring an agreement that _Bush made on Iraq_ is a bad decision Blue? 

Tell me, what color is the sky in the world you live in, green? Since you keep spouting illogical Bizarro logic.


----------



## Blue (Jul 6, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> So honoring an agreement that _Bush made on Iraq_ is a bad decision Blue?
> 
> Tell me, what color is the sky in the world you live in, green? Since you keep spouting illogical Bizarro logic.



Well you have two choices here

You can take "combat operations" literally in which case you're correct, and it wasn't actually Obama's accomplishment, but Bush's

Or you can look past the political bullshit pretext and take "combat operations" to mean "active combat troops remaining in the country" which Obama tried and failed to have happen

He didn't try very hard, and the entire world is regretting it right now


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Well you have two choices here
> 
> You can take "combat operations" literally in which case you're correct, and it wasn't actually Obama's accomplishment, but Bush's
> 
> ...


Question: Since when is Obama omniscient, Blue? Syria hadn't even fallen to Civil War when we pulled out of Iraq (which is a good decision since no more of our soldiers are in the firing line there), and the current situation in Iraq is caused by the Syria Civil War _spill over_. ISIS itself originated in Syria, not Iraq.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

Yet everyone seen it coming in the intelligence community, yet Obama was supposedly surprised? yea no.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 6, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Yet everyone seen it coming in the intelligence community, yet Obama was supposedly surprised? yea no.


Since when?


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 6, 2014)

Yep everyone saw ISIS coming to Syria and spilling over.  Including Obama, which was one of the reasons why he wanted to get more involved than the US have done.  What stopped him, a little something called the GOP and their ever ongoing blocking of everything that IObama tries to do.

Hell at this rate obama could come up with a sure fire world peace plan, which turns everyone living in a utopia with no bad effects and the GOP would still block it because Obama.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

Prove it Nemesis.


THe Intelligence community knew as early as January as far as I know. Although reports have varied but they all point to the first 2 months of this year.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 6, 2014)

The burden of proof is on you, not Nemesis.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

NO the onus is on him. He made a statement that I haven't heard any claim...ever.


Most times its the war mongering Republicans.


I do know that Republicans are against sending a significant force to Iraq but not what he claimed.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 6, 2014)

I think you're wrong (as usual) Blue.

That was probably the best decision he made.

Because wouldn't it be grand to have US troops in the middle of a sectarian war, in between the Irainain Revolutionary Guard and Al Qaeda! 

Let those two fight it out. We can clean up after.


----------



## Blue (Jul 6, 2014)

Sunuvmann said:


> I think you're wrong (as usual) Blue.
> 
> That was probably the best decision he made.
> 
> ...



Thousands of people are dying while we sit atop our ivory towers and fiddle


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

I agree, we should fund and help Kurdistan maintain its borders and strengthen them to fight a proxy war against the Caliphate.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 6, 2014)

It sucks but what can you do, Iraq and Afganistan are untenable, the best we can do is let them fight it out and pick off a few here and there with drones.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Thousands of people are dying while we sit atop our ivory towers and fiddle



Sad as that is, it is the way of the world and few must die for many to prosper. 

Us going there isn't going to solve anything right now. We will just kill who the Iraqi government targets and discriminates against(brewing more hatred for the US) and help Kurdistan.

Shit's about to get deep and I would rather the US not be involved at this moment. And I even astound myself saying that because if any of you know, I love war and believe it to be something that propels humanity further than anything else...so far.


----------



## Blue (Jul 6, 2014)

Do you guys even have a concept of what you're condemning entire regions to?

Pacifism is immoral in the extreme without the will to fight when arms are called for. 

"Let these people in their hundreds and thousands die because it's not our problem, not our war" is intensely evil.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 6, 2014)

Letting the Iranians bleed themselves against ISIS is fun to see and laugh at, but it's not a good idea long-term. ISIS will be driven from their holds in Iraq eventually, they've made too big a name for themselves, have made too many enemies, and are threatening the Europeans precious oil. If the US does nothing and lets Iran play a key role in driving them out, than Iran will gain an even larger foothold over Iraq which is harmful to US strategic interests. 

The best thing to do would be to show the Iraqi's that Iran and their crappy Su-25's and glorified terrorist "elite" troops can't compare to the power of Murican Special Forces on the ground backed by A-10's and F-18's. The deployment of a US Army Special Operations group, some CIA SAD units, and Marine advisers with Iraqi units backed up by significant close air support would turn the tide quite fast. But alas, no decisive leadership.


----------



## Black Superman (Jul 6, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Yet look at cities where the minorities are the majority. Detroit, LA, Houston, Vegas, Need I go on?
> 
> They do it to themselves and most of the problems come from drugs...I was watching drug inc the other day and they had Chicago on it...needless to say Obama lives right down the road from some big time thugs.







We just destroy our own cities because we're just crazy like that. Nothing to do with having our shit undermined, or anything like that. There's never any sabotage going on to turn our communities into ghettos if they can't do that with planes and dynamite.. What you see is what you get. Detroit is the product of too many black people moving in. Damn, the jobs not being there. Damn, the banks not loaning us money to invest in our own communities. Damn, the zoning laws. Damn the predatory policies designed that keep our communities in a state of flux We've always been our worse enemy. 




> "Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure. We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue...that we couldn't resist it."
> *- John Ehrlichman, White House counsel to President Nixon on the rationale of the War on Drugs.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Mael (Jul 6, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> Letting the Iranians bleed themselves against ISIS is fun to see and laugh at, but it's not a good idea long-term. ISIS will be driven from their holds in Iraq eventually, they've made too big a name for themselves, have made too many enemies, and are threatening the Europeans precious oil. If the US does nothing and lets Iran play a key role in driving them out, than Iran will gain an even larger foothold over Iraq which is harmful to US strategic interests.
> 
> The best thing to do would be to show the Iraqi's that Iran and their crappy Su-25's and glorified terrorist "elite" troops can't compare to the power of Murican Special Forces on the ground backed by A-10's and F-18's. The deployment of a US Army Special Operations group, some CIA SAD units, and Marine advisers with Iraqi units backed up by significant close air support would turn the tide quite fast. But alas, no decisive leadership.



Because Mega, decisive leadership or not, one American life is worth five thousand Iraqi ones to the public.

Tell me you don't acknowledge that truth.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Thousands of people are dying while we sit atop our ivory towers and fiddle


Yeah but there aren't exactly any people you would want to support.

Current prime minister of Iraq? A puppet of Iran that Bush propped up. So if we help Malaki we're basically doing what Iran wants. If they want to do that, then fine, let them.

If they dump Malaki in favor of someone who is actually working for the whole of Iraq and not just a third of it, then hell, I'd be all for helping (short of US troops because they probably would be shot at from all sides). But otherwise its a bit hard to help them if they don't want to help themselves.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 6, 2014)

Mael said:


> Because Mega, decisive leadership or not, one American life is worth five thousand Iraqi ones to the public.
> 
> Tell me you don't acknowledge that truth.



But it's directly necessary and aligned with US interests and national security to stop ISIS, so...


----------



## Mael (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Thousands of people are dying while we sit atop our ivory towers and fiddle



Then how about you volunteer to fight?

I hate this sort of thinking, honestly...


----------



## Mael (Jul 6, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> But it's directly necessary and aligned with US interests and national security to stop ISIS, so...



I agree, but write a speech to the public.

Do it.

See if you can convince them...along with the obstinate Congress who actually has the greater power to mobilize forces.


----------



## Blue (Jul 6, 2014)

Mael said:


> Then how about you volunteer to fight?
> 
> I hate this sort of thinking, honestly...



Nobody would have had to fight. The mere presence of American troops would have made a conflict unthinkable.

As soon as you get into firing range of a single American soldier, the USAF comes out and turns your entire world into spicy guacamole.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 6, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> But it's directly necessary and aligned with US interests and national security to stop ISIS, so...


Well its more in Europe's interests than ours tbph.

What with there being far more joining up from Europe than the US.

And I'd think with all the money that's been sunk into the post 9/11 national security state, it could catch them.

So if it becomes a bit of a settled thing like Taliban Afghanistan, yeah then it'd be a problem. But as long as they're still on conquest mode, they probably would be too busy to try and attack the US. Or Europe.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Nobody would have had to fight. The mere presence of American troops would have made a conflict unthinkable.
> 
> As soon as you get into firing range of a single American soldier, the USAF comes out and turns your entire world into spicy guacamole.





Yeah like those other wars where no US Troops were fired upon?

Also without a Combat Controller within a unit ranks then your guys will be better off without air support from the USAF


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Nobody would have had to fight. The mere presence of American troops would have made a conflict unthinkable.
> 
> As soon as you get into firing range of a single American soldier, the USAF comes out and turns your entire world into spicy guacamole.


That is delusional at best.

You do realize ISIS was originally Al-Qaeda in Iraq? They'd been fighting Americans from like 2005-on. They would have been more than happy to fight them again.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Nobody would have had to fight. The mere presence of American troops would have made a conflict unthinkable.
> 
> As soon as you get into firing range of a single American soldier, the USAF comes out and turns your entire world into spicy guacamole.


...that didn't stop Iraqi Insurgents from fighting us for _years_ now did it? Nor did it stop the Taliban.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 6, 2014)

Blue said:


> Thousands of people are dying while we sit atop our ivory towers and fiddle



We are not Superman, nor should we have ever tried to be. It's what caused a lot of the mess to begin with. While we shouldn't have gone in Iraq to begin with, the fact remains that we did and we do need to tie up some loose ends. Or at the least contain the instability. 



Blue said:


> Do you guys even have a concept of what you're condemning entire regions to?
> 
> Pacifism is immoral in the extreme without the will to fight when arms are called for.
> 
> "Let these people in their hundreds and thousands die because it's not our problem, not our war" is intensely evil.



As Mael stated, then you fight then. Our military is overextended as it is. 



Blue said:


> Nobody would have had to fight. The mere presence of American troops would have made a conflict unthinkable.
> 
> As soon as you get into firing range of a single American soldier, the USAF comes out and turns your entire world into spicy guacamole.



An insanely naive thing to say. I guess the conflicts we've been involved in the past 20 years with 0 casualties is what you base your claim on?


----------



## Overwatch (Jul 7, 2014)

Obama may not be the worst, but he definitely is the most DISAPPOINTING political figure I've ever seen, at least as far as his foreign policy goes. I still remember how excited I was when he won back in 2008.

But I really don't understand how you can call him worse than freaking Reagan.


----------



## Blue (Jul 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> An insanely naive thing to say. I guess the conflicts we've been involved in the past 20 years with 0 casualties is what you base your claim on?


Because we're not talking about an insurgency funded and equipped by Iran fighting asymmetric warfare, we're talking a conventional military force that's rolling right across the desert in their ranks and their files completely unopposed.
If the USAF got involved, they'd all die out in the desert and never see an American (or Iraqi) soldier.



Overwatch said:


> But I really don't understand how you can call him worse than freaking Reagan.



Because Reagan was pretty decent overall?
Because you only hate him because he's a conservative icon and you've been duped into thinking he was the antichrist?

There are other conservative presidents worse than Reagan - like, all of them. Besides Eisenhower I suppose.


----------



## Overwatch (Jul 7, 2014)

Being a conservative has nothing to do with it. 

However, little things like expanding Operation Cyclone do, considering that a lot of the problems America is currently facing in the Middle East stem from it.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 7, 2014)

Blue said:


> There are other conservative presidents worse than Reagan - like, all of them. Besides Eisenhower I suppose.


But you have to admit there was some conspicuous things about Reagan and being the anti-christ.

Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6 again) Reagan(6again), after acting he moved to 666 St. Cloud Road, and his wife used astrology to make his calendar(Babylon relation) 

James Brady, press secretary to
Ronald Reagan
, was shot in the head during an attempt on the president's life. Hearing that Brady's wound was certain to be fatal, a
White House
staffer mistakenly informed the press that Brady had died. The major television networks announced the death of James Brady. The story traveled throughout the world at electronic speeds. Miraculously, Brady survived his surgery. The press revealed that the man they had been memorializing was still alive.? This has been taken by some to be the fulfillment of
Revelation 13
.

3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast.


Here is an alright post regarding it, but I didn't get nothing of what I said from here although it is on it.


----------



## Blue (Jul 7, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> But you have to admit there was some conspicuous things about Reagan and being the anti-christ.
> 
> Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6 again) Reagan(6again), after acting he moved to 666 St. Cloud Road, and his wife used astrology to make his calendar(Babylon relation)
> 
> ...


----------



## Black Superman (Jul 7, 2014)

> President Reagan ushered in the misguided era of massive deficits, bloated military spending and tax cuts for the very rich that America still struggles to this day to put to an end. Yet Reagan wrongly receives credit for the economic boom that began a few years into his presidency due to events entirely outside of his control. When Reagan took office, America faced double-digit inflation rates matched with a sharp spike in unemployment. Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee, chose to break the first problem by exacerbating the second ? driving up interest rates in a successful effort to break inflation. When Volcker finally took the brakes off the economy and ended the recession he created by lowering interest rates back to more normal levels, housing and auto sales took off, the economy boomed back to life, and Reagan rode the undeserved credit to a second term in the White House.
> 
> As Rosalynn Carter once said, Reagan made America ?comfortable with our prejudices.? Reagan infamously began the final leg of his presidential campaign by traveling to the Mississippi town where three civil rights workers were brutally murdered and proclaiming ?I believe in states? rights.? Reagan ignored the AIDS crisis for years. He gave us Justice Antonin Scalia. And he tried and failed to appoint another justice who once claimed that the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters is rooted in a ?principle of unsurpassed ugliness.?


----------



## Lucaniel (Jul 7, 2014)

reagan did shady stuff and his domestic legacy was pretty awful

i don't rate him

but he was probably not the antichrist


----------



## Lucaniel (Jul 7, 2014)

also nixon > reagan

i'll take shady stuff related to trying to wiretap the DNC and covering it up over shit like iran-contra any day


----------



## Mael (Jul 7, 2014)

Technically the Iran-Contra bit could amount to high treason, amirite Olly North?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 7, 2014)

Blue said:


> Because we're not talking about an insurgency funded and equipped by Iran fighting asymmetric warfare, we're talking a conventional military force that's rolling right across the desert in their ranks and their files completely unopposed.
> If the USAF got involved, they'd all die out in the desert and never see an American (or Iraqi) soldier.



Man, you are sheltered. 



> Because Reagan was pretty decent overall?
> Because you only hate him because he's a conservative icon and you've been duped into thinking he was the antichrist?



Extremely sheltered. Reagan started a trend of policies that eventually culminated into the issues we are facing today, not only domestically but on foreign affairs as well. He is the perfect example of how one can only truly measure the effectiveness of policy well after his term. The first Bush I sympathize with because he had to raise taxes, and the economic slump at the time of his re-election really was not his fault...that was simply the blowback from Reagan's economic policy reeling its ugly head at the worst time. Supply-side economics which has to one of the most stupid ideas we've implemented, his handling of the Middle East and Iran, weakening unions, and his slanted handling of the drug trade as it pertained to minorities, hell his southern strategy and race-baiting with it too. Oh, and he is the first president to fix the unemployment numbers the way we calculate them now, which is honestly ridiculous; we should be going back to the way we used to calculate it.

These eventually grew to be major issues that have become major problems today. Republicans like Bush that replicated such practices, and even unfortunately, Clinton taking some deregulatory measures like he did is what made that 2007 recession possible for example. 



> There are other conservative presidents worse than Reagan - like, all of them. Besides Eisenhower I suppose.



Conservatives were of a very different breed, economic conservatives at least before Reagan.


----------



## EJ (Jul 7, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> But you have to admit there was some conspicuous things about Reagan and being the anti-christ.



Do you really believe he could of been?


----------



## sadated_peon (Jul 7, 2014)

I am really not sure of the point of this thread. 
Republicans don't like Obama because he is a liberal this is not news, and it not something that has changed. 

That 33% of the country has voted him the worst president just means that republicans are topically focused on the current head liberal. 

Obama's approval rating has never dipped as low as Bush's approval rating.

So this really boils down to 
Republicans don't like when Obama enacts liberal policies. 
wow, such a revelation. 

Any criticism of Obama from conservatives other than "He is too liberal" is just complete and total horseshit. It is just a contradictory BS. 
He hasn't done anything vs suing him for executive orders. 
He is a pussy vs he is a worse dictator than Hitler.
He hasn't done enough to help jobs vs he is interferes too much in the economy.
He should ignore the constitutional rights of citizens vs he is trampling on the constitutional rights of citizens. 

In the end it all boils down to. Obama is a liberal and doing liberal things waaaaah, waaah.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 7, 2014)

Do I agree with sadated peon? 

Yes. Yes, I guess I do.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Jul 7, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> But you have to admit there was some conspicuous things about Reagan and being the anti-christ.
> 
> Ronald(6 letters) Wilson(6 again) Reagan(6again), after acting he moved to 666 St. Cloud Road, and his wife used astrology to make his calendar(Babylon relation)
> 
> ...



Well unless i missed something.

Ronald Reagan has been dead for some time now.

So not the Anti-Christ confirmed, and it was always a ridiculous notion.(And i do believe their will be one eventually)


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 7, 2014)

No Reagan couldn't be the anti-christ. Even though he damn near  fit the profile according to the two articles I glanced at.

I agree he wasn't a good president other than the Berlin Wall.

People are shaped by their environment, one of you have already admitted that you were raised to be a democrat because of your father's heavy influence. So you are more or less inherently have a liberal ideology.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 7, 2014)

It's funny how Europe, particular the former Warsaw Pact countries seem to have a fonder opinion of Reagan then his own countrymen do these days.


----------



## Blue (Jul 7, 2014)

Only dumb libs hate Reagan, because he's conservative Jesus.

Most reasonable people, including most non-frothing-at-the-mouth liberals, think of him as just another fairly decent president out of a number we've had.

None recently, unfortunately.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 7, 2014)

Wow, hey great job on dodging everything Blue. You used to at least try, you can't even seem to do that anymore. It's like you are going in deeper and deeper into that echo chamber the more you're proven wrong about these things.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> It's funny how Europe, particular the former Warsaw Pact countries seem to have a fonder opinion of Reagan then his own countrymen do these days.



Mostly because they think he is responsible for the Soviet's breakup.

When a more apt account would be the Soviet Union was beyond repair already and all Reagan did was bring bigger guns to point at USSR and watched as it collapsed on itself.


----------



## Blue (Jul 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Wow, hey great job on dodging everything Blue. You used to at least try, you can't even seem to do that anymore. It's like you are going in deeper and deeper into that echo chamber the more you're proven wrong about these things.



Oh, what, you're mad I didn't respond to your "sheltered" bait?

I might humor you if we're talking about welfare, but we're talking about fucking presidents, probably at least one of which I'm old enough to remember that you aren't.

gtfo.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 7, 2014)

Blue said:


> Oh, what, you're mad I didn't respond to your "sheltered" bait?
> 
> I might humor you if we're talking about welfare, but we're talking about fucking presidents, probably at least one of which I'm old enough to remember that you aren't.
> 
> gtfo.



You didn't respond to a single thing that proved you wrong, as you've been doing continuously. You just keep repeating what you've told yourself, as opposed to the facts of his legacy and economic and foreign policy; which has been brought up continuously in this section for years.

Age means nothing if you haven't used those years to learn anything, which you haven't. Furthermore, the age you'd have been at the time is irrelevant because it'd be highly unlikely you'd comprehend politics in general on a meaningful level at that time. I might be about 5 years younger than you IIRC, but honestly the sheltered attitude and comments you make it is really hard to tell.


----------



## αce (Jul 7, 2014)

> Only dumb libs hate Reagan, because he's conservative Jesus.
> 
> Most reasonable people, including most non-frothing-at-the-mouth  liberals, think of him as just another fairly decent president out of a  number we've had.
> 
> None recently, unfortunately.




Why do I think that if Obama raised taxes and was behind the the contra predicament, you'd have automatically declared him a shitter?


Was Reagan good? Not in my opinion. Guess I'm a foaming at the mouth liberal though. You boast about being old enough to remember certain presidents but apparently you haven't matured enough to the point where you don't feel the need to get satisfaction over intentionally getting people mad over the internet.


----------



## Overwatch (Jul 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> It's funny how Europe, particular the former Warsaw Pact countries seem to have a fonder opinion of Reagan then his own countrymen do these days.



Debatable. As a citizen of a former Warsaw Pact country, I can tell you that most people here either don't care or scorn American politicians the same way they scorned the old regime.


----------



## Bender (Jul 7, 2014)

Romney's dumbass went and made that 47% comment during the fucking election and made himself a walking target of mockery and verbal abuse. Yeah, lol no the US would plummet to untold levels of suck if Romney was elected.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 7, 2014)

Blue said:


> Because we're not talking about an insurgency funded and equipped by Iran fighting asymmetric warfare, we're talking a conventional military force that's rolling right across the desert in their ranks and their files completely unopposed.
> If the USAF got involved, they'd all die out in the desert and never see an American (or Iraqi) soldier.
> 
> 
> ...



The man who helped the contras and supported apartheid cannot be seen as good in the vast majorities of the definitions and connotations of the word.

Nixon was shitty too. There have been few Cold War US Presidents with some brain. If it's not Carter, FDR or JFK, odds are, they were a problem.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jul 7, 2014)

It's very much true that most people are taught to hate Reagan and can never really articulate why he's so evil beyond mouth-fed slogans like "he hated poor people" or "he hated black people".


----------



## Punk Zebra (Jul 7, 2014)

Well once his presidency is over, your going to here a whole bunch of shit come out about him, but it will be to late to do anything.


----------



## EJ (Jul 7, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> It's very much true that most people are taught to hate Reagan and can never really articulate why he's so evil beyond mouth-fed slogans like "he hated poor people" or "he hated black people".



Probably because it doesn't take that much research to find out why he was a shitty president.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jul 7, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> It's very much true that most people are taught to hate Reagan and can never really articulate why he's so evil beyond mouth-fed slogans like "he hated poor people" or "he hated black people".



How about he sold weapons to Iran less than a decade from when they violated our embassy and took our people hostage. 

Which makes him a traitor.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 7, 2014)

Bender said:


> Romney's dumbass went and made that 47% comment during the fucking election and made himself a walking target of mockery and verbal abuse. Yeah, lol no the US would plummet to untold levels of suck if Romney was elected.




But isn't this whole thread a what if situation? As such it's impossible to tell what factors might have contributed to Romney's success or failure as a president. They might not have even been the same as Obama, but I'll admit that I'm biased to republicans, while they are not perfect, in my opinion they are the lesser of two evils. 

[YOUTUBE]FlcngdW2Ju4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## EJ (Jul 7, 2014)

^ So the statement in which you said what I said was ironic, you agreed that my statement applied to yourself?


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 7, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> How about he sold weapons to Iran less than a decade from when they violated our embassy and took our people hostage.
> 
> Which makes him a traitor.


In the interest of fairness, how does that differentiate from say, what the GOP were saying of Obama regarding the Bergdahl swap?


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 7, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> It's very much true that most people are taught to hate Reagan and can never really articulate why he's so evil beyond mouth-fed slogans like "he hated poor people" or "he hated black people".


He is the progenitor of the delusion that has consumed the entire modern republican party. Mainly of trickle down economics being something that isn't complete bullshit.

So all the crimes against the country yielded from Newt and Bush Jr to the Tea Party are a result of him.


----------



## Blue (Jul 7, 2014)

Sunuvmann said:


> He is the progenitor of the delusion that has consumed the entire modern republican party. Mainly of trickle down economics being something that isn't complete bullshit.



It's not a delusion tho

Capital flight has a very immediate and very measurable effect on a country's economy

It's rock-solid, canon, ironclad truth, and the left just screams "LIE! LIE! LIE!" until people believe it's a lie.

Capitalist economies are nothing without capital and the more capital you take out of the system the shittier it performs. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

S'why capital gains taxes are a fraction of income taxes; to encourage people to capitalize. 

Of course raising income taxes on the top bracket 3% aren't going to hurt anything; Obama did just that and the apocalypse never came. That was the right call, even if it was populist bullshit. "Make them pay their fair share!" Yeah, their fair extra 2% of the budget good job Obama you've saved Christmas.

But anyway the point is that reversing what Reagan did - and restoring the top income tax to, what was it, 70%?

That's what France just did and they're going down in flames.

Reagan's economics were sound. That's why Clinton continued them, and moreover, balanced the budget while continuing them.


----------



## Ceria (Jul 7, 2014)

Flow said:


> ^ So the statement in which you said what I said was ironic, you agreed that my statement applied to yourself?



You really need to watch the documentary about the Jim crow laws.


----------



## EJ (Jul 7, 2014)

Ceria said:


> You really need to watch the documentary about the Jim crow laws.



There's a lot out there. 

I'm literally bewildered that you say "you're biased" towards Republicans then mock the statement stating that people blindly follow parties.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 7, 2014)

Megaharrison said:


> It's very much true that most people are taught to hate Reagan and can never really articulate why he's so evil beyond mouth-fed slogans like "he hated poor people" or "he hated black people".



"He dumped mines in Nicaraguan harbors" has a nice ring to it.


----------



## Blue (Jul 7, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> "He dumped mines in Nicaraguan harbors" has a nice ring to it.



Every single American president has done foreign policy things people question.

Ask KidTony what he thinks about drones. Obama loves drones.

(So do I, we need more, and we need terminators).


----------



## Ceria (Jul 7, 2014)

Flow said:


> There's a lot out there.
> 
> I'm literally bewildered that you say "you're biased" towards Republicans then mock the statement stating that people blindly follow parties.



I gave a reason for that bias though, I haven't been impressed with the democrat party as a whole. Not exactly a blind following as you put it. 

As i said, the GOP is the far lesser of two evils.


----------



## Hozukimaru (Jul 7, 2014)

Truth is that that when taxes get really high or really low revenues tends to get low as well. That's a fact. Ofc many republicans tend to incorrectly use the Laffer curve, as if it represents only the top bracket taxes or overestimate how deep overall cuts should be to raise revenue if the taxes are high. The Bush tax cuts are an example of this.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> In the interest of fairness, how does that differentiate from say, what the GOP were saying of Obama regarding the Bergdahl swap?



Are you missing the "sold weapons to Iran" part? 



Blue said:


> It's not a delusion tho
> 
> Capital flight has a very immediate and very measurable effect on a country's economy
> 
> ...



This would be relevant if it wasn't a complete strawman of what people criticize about Reagan's policies.



> Reagan's economics were sound. That's why Clinton continued them, and moreover, balanced the budget while continuing them.



No he didn't, definitely not how you are trying to basically lie about it. Clinton raised taxes on the top earners, relaxed taxes on lower income earners, and enacted significant welfare reform. His term saw a reduction in spending and increase in revenue. Reagan during his term in contrast lowered taxes on top income earners from 70% to 28%, and raised many of the taxes on middle-class earners. The country saw an increase in spending and deficit, contrast to Clinton by the time he left office. While average middle-class incomes increased under Reagan, so did poverty. Many of the jobs replacing ones lost being lower-paying then their predecessors. Reagan's economics was part of what cost the first Bush his re-election, because the ugly effects of his economic policies began to hit hardest at that time. Continued practice of them during W.'s years is what in part got us into the situation today. Although to be fair, some deregulations under Clinton contributed to that as well.


----------



## Gino (Jul 7, 2014)

As much as I dislike Obama this is simply not true.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 7, 2014)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Are you missing the "sold weapons to Iran" part?



How is that different from releasing the Taliban Five? 

I mean, both cases involved negotiating with terrorists or rogue state organizations in exchange for safeguarding the release of U.S. citizens, both Presidents had ulterior motives, Reagan wanted to sidestep Congressional roadblocks on supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, Obama was looking for the feel good story of freeing a captive soldier as we begin our withdrawal from Afghanistan. And in both cases, the opposing party cried foul when they heard about it and argued the President was acting illegally and deserved to be impeached.

What the GOP was saying regarding the Bergdahl swap really isn't that different from what the Dems were demanding during Ollie North's testimony.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Jul 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> How is that different from releasing the Taliban Five?



Because it was a prisoner exchange, not a selling of arms and using the profits to fund a guerrilla military Congress had previously cut funding from. 



> I mean, both cases involved negotiating with terrorists or rogue state organizations in exchange for safeguarding the release of U.S. citizens, both Presidents had ulterior motives, Reagan wanted to sidestep Congressional roadblocks on supporting the Contras in Nicaragua, Obama was looking for the feel good story of freeing a captive soldier as we begin our withdrawal from Afghanistan. And in both cases, the opposing party cried foul when they heard about it and argued the President was acting illegally and deserved to be impeached.



That is broadly generalizing the two situations don't you think? Prisoner exchanges are a standard practice, and there are clauses that necessitate and allow immediate exchanges if it is belief the POW has an immediate health risk. The issue with Obama is giving a five-hour notice, as opposed to a 30-day one. It's sketchy, but it's no Iran-Contra. A lot of Republicans, such as McCain notably, had entertained supporting such an exchange long before it occurred. 

The issue with Iran-Contra is that Reagan couldn't give notice at all because the act itself was illegal. 



> What the GOP was saying regarding the Bergdahl swap really isn't that different from what the Dems were demanding during Ollie North's testimony.



I'm aware, that doesn't make the two events equal to one another however.


----------



## EJ (Jul 7, 2014)

Ceria said:


> I gave a reason for that bias though,



Explain how the Republican party is better for the country, and focus more on the Republicans in your response please.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 7, 2014)

But I do go off the basis that its better to know what the third world country is capable of and the systems that they build their missiles on to better be able to counter them.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jul 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> In the interest of fairness, how does that differentiate from say, what the GOP were saying of Obama regarding the Bergdahl swap?



A prisoner exchange in full and public view that has been standard practice for millenia or warfare.

vs

A illegal covert arms sale with drug cartel to supply weapons to our enemy. 

That you think that there is a comparison to be made is fucking laughable.


----------



## Kagekatsu (Jul 7, 2014)

sadated_peon said:


> A prisoner exchange in full and public view that has been standard practice for millenia or warfare.
> 
> vs
> 
> ...



I was specifically referring to all the cries of "Impeachment" and "Treason" that came after Iran-Contra and that what we heard from that time was pretty much the same with Obama and Bergdahl. That's all.

Thanks for the passive-aggressive comment though.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 7, 2014)

Yes, but you don't exchange 5 enemies for 1 deserter.

He is a fucking coward.


----------



## sadated_peon (Jul 7, 2014)

Kagekatsu said:


> I was specifically referring to all the cries of "Impeachment" and "Treason" that came after Iran-Contra and that what we heard from that time was pretty much the same with Obama and Bergdahl. That's all.
> 
> Thanks for the passive-aggressive comment though.



Current republican bitching has no bearing on reality. Comparisons to reactions instead of to the actual events themselves is completely meaningless. 

There was nothing passive aggressive about my comments, I think you need to look up the definition.


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 7, 2014)

Nixon was hands down the indisputable worst - anyone claiming Obama or Bush or any other post WWII Prez beat Nixon on being worst needs to see a doctor for brain damage


----------



## Hozukimaru (Jul 7, 2014)

Meh, they're on the same league (Bush Jr and Nixon).


----------



## baconbits (Jul 7, 2014)

αce said:


> Ok you can have your opinion on how good he is as president but this is pretty fucking easy. This is off the top of my head
> 
> 
> 1. Bin laden's death



I already listed this one, myself.  His every other attempt at foreign policy has not gone well.  There isn't an alliance we had before he was elected that is better; there isn't an enemy we had before he was elected that is now weaker (I speak of groups and movements, not individuals).



αce said:


> 2. Ended the ban on stem cell research



There was no ban, only limits on Federal funding.  He allowed Federal funding for embryonic stem cells but everything else was already funded.



αce said:


> 3. trade enforcement unit


[/QUOTE]

What is this and how was this positive?



Nemesis said:


> Yep everyone saw ISIS coming to Syria and spilling over.  Including Obama, which was one of the reasons why he wanted to get more involved than the US have done.  What stopped him, a little something called the GOP and their ever ongoing blocking of everything that IObama tries to do.



Posts like this are what keep this thread so entertaining.  There was absolutely no plan to deal with Syria, hence the red line that wasn't a red line and the choice to do absolutely nothing.  The GOP had nothing to do with anything that Obama wanted to do but could not.  To use this as a contention is laughable since whatever Obama wanted to do would have found some support from some aspects of the right.

Doing nothing and firmly stating this was his intention would be supported by the Rand Paul crowd.  Acting firmly would have been supported by the McCain crowd.  Both sides of the right made their positions clear.  The only one that wasn't clear was Obama, with his imaginary red line and capitulation to Putin.



Mael said:


> See if you can convince them...along with the obstinate Congress who actually has the greater power to mobilize forces.



Actually this isn't the case.  Congress can authorize force and pay for military action but they cannot directly lead a war.  On the other hand Presidents can act unilaterally if they wish.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 8, 2014)

Darth inVaders said:


> Nixon was hands down the indisputable worst - anyone claiming Obama or Bush or any other post WWII Prez beat Nixon on being worst needs to see a doctor for brain damage


Nixon isn't the worst, not even close. As bad as he was, we were able to reach the moon under his watch, turn China against the USSR, and eventually withdraw from Vietnam.

The worst President? James Buchanan. After all...under HIS watch South Carolina seceded, did nothing to stop Bleeding Kansas, and the entire American Civil War began!


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 8, 2014)

Nixon was positively liberal by today's standards.

What with actually creating the EPA. And having proposed universal healthcare that was actually to the left of Obamacare. Which Ted Kennedy torpedoed for not being liberal enough. Which was extremely foolish and shortsighted on his part.

Nixon's big crime though (besides Watergate) was the war on drugs. And wrecking the deal that would have ended the Vietnam war 6 years earlier and on far better terms.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 8, 2014)

Blue said:


> Every single American president has done foreign policy things people question.
> 
> Ask KidTony what he thinks about drones. Obama loves drones.
> 
> (So do I, we need more, and we need terminators).



But then you think on which has done the least damage. I really want to know how the US would've fared had JFK remained in office and been more assertive about what he wanted. I believe the USSR would've collapsed earlier (or not at all) and a lot of people wouldn't have minded that.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 8, 2014)

Sleipnyr said:


> But then you think on which has done the least damage. I really want to know how the US would've fared had JFK remained in office and been more assertive about what he wanted. I believe the USSR would've collapsed earlier (or not at all) and a lot of people wouldn't have minded that.


Kennedy wasn't as great as people say. The main thing people remember is that he died young, but he's also the president which accelerated the Vietnam War.


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 8, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Nixon isn't the worst, not even close. As bad as he was, we were able to reach the moon under his watch, turn China against the USSR, and eventually withdraw from Vietnam.
> 
> The worst President? James Buchanan. After all...under HIS watch South Carolina seceded, did nothing to stop Bleeding Kansas, and the entire American Civil War began!



The problem with the poll this whole thread about is that conservatives are united in their choices (Reagan the Best, Obama the worst) whereas liberals have more choices in heroes and villains. 



> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Liberal voters were split for best between Clinton, Kennedy and Obama. And for worst with Dubya and Nixon.

Typically though, and they've done surveys like this before, whoever is the current president is voted as the worst. Because lo, thats who the opposition party currently hates. 

This is the poll that is far more relevant, what with it actually being historians whose jobs are to actually study this shit:


Buchanan is typically at the bottom of that for that very reason. However Warren G. Harding seems to average less than him. Due largely to being really fucking corrupt.

Of the modern presidents:
Obama: currently tied for #14 with LBJ and James Monroe
Bush Jr: #34
Clinton: #20
Bush Sr: tied for #22 with Taft
Reagan: #17
Carter: #27
Ford: #26
Nixon: #32
LBJ: #14
JFK: #11
Eisenhower: tied for #8 with Andrew Jackson
Truman: #7


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 8, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Kennedy wasn't as great as people say. The main thing people remember is that he died young, but he's also the president which accelerated the Vietnam War.


Well yes. But historians generally agree he would have deescalated it if he had lived.

LBJ (and the reason he is relatively low given his amazing domestic policy achievements) escalated 'Nam because he was rather unsure of himself on foreign policy so he deferred to the generals.

The reason JFK is given such high ranking is because he prevented WW3.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 8, 2014)

Ah, gotcha.

And Andrew Jackson...the man who did the Trail of Tears and dismembered the Bank of the United States should be put in the 'Worst' category. He's basically the US's own version of Hitler for god's sake!


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 8, 2014)

Which he could have done without the need to put the world on the brink of WW3.  A simple agreement to remove the nukes from Turkey.  You know the country that was on the border of the USSR on day 1 would have likely convinced the soviets to move back their nukes from Cuba.   Prestige is not worth nearly destroying the world for.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 8, 2014)

Weren't the nukes in Turkey about to be retired anyway due to being outdated, faulty, and otherwise dangerous to American interests?


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 8, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Ah, gotcha.
> 
> And Andrew Jackson...the man who did the Trail of Tears and dismembered the Bank of the United States should be put in the 'Worst' category. He's basically the US's own version of Hitler for god's sake!



Andrew Jackson was a fucking hero that went after corrupt banks, got rid of AMerica's debt entirely....he was a great president and an even better man...don't talk about my man Jackson. Ill get serious.


----------



## Nemesis (Jul 8, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Weren't the nukes in Turkey about to be retired anyway due to being outdated, faulty, and otherwise dangerous to American interests?



But the Soviets only knew they were there.  Not what state they were in.  It was pretty much win win if they came out from the start.


----------



## Mael (Jul 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Andrew Jackson was a fucking hero that went after corrupt banks, got rid of AMerica's debt entirely....he was a great president and an even better man...don't talk about my man Jackson. Ill get serious.



He was also quite fond of Native American genocide.

We all like Old Hickory's nature but the man was a through and through asshole and you unable to acknowledge that is fucking troubling, like Italian-Americans who refuse to acknowledge Columbus was an asshole.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 8, 2014)

Blue said:


> It's not a delusion tho
> 
> Capital flight has a very immediate and very measurable effect on a country's economy
> 
> ...



I should add that while decreasing taxes is never going to worsen income inequality (there's no bloody reason for it), lowering social investment does. Had Reagan spent what he spent in military escalation in improving social services further (he could've done it with a hand tied to his foot) he would've actually helped the country more than he did IOTL. It would've led to the Cold War ending faster (with a formal truce between East and West) and would still have taken less money than rearmament.



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Nixon isn't the worst, not even close. As bad as he was, we were able to reach the moon under his watch, *turn China against the USSR*, and eventually withdraw from Vietnam.
> 
> The worst President? James Buchanan. After all...under HIS watch South Carolina seceded, did nothing to stop Bleeding Kansas, and the entire American Civil War began!



That's a good thing how?

That said, I'd agree he isn't the worst, but he's firmly a bad president, even if by GOP standards he was rather liberal...

Still... Who the fuck supports Augusto Pinochet?



SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Kennedy wasn't as great as people say. The main thing people remember is that he died young, but he's also the president which accelerated the Vietnam War.



Alliance for Progress anyone?


----------



## Darth inVaders (Jul 8, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Nixon isn't the worst, not even close. As bad as he was, we were able to reach the moon under his watch, turn China against the USSR, and eventually withdraw from Vietnam.
> 
> The worst President? James Buchanan. After all...under HIS watch South Carolina seceded, did nothing to stop Bleeding Kansas, and the entire American Civil War began!



Buchanan wasn't post WWII, he was pre Civil War


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 8, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> Andrew Jackson was a fucking hero that went after corrupt banks, got rid of AMerica's debt entirely....he was a great president and an even better man...don't talk about my man Jackson. Ill get serious.


'Corrupt banks' according to Jackson. And way to ignore the Trail of Tears and the thousands of Native Americans he killed on his forced death march.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 8, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> 'Corrupt banks' according to Jackson. And way to ignore the Trail of Tears and the thousands of Native Americans he killed on his forced death march.



Yea the Trail of Tears was bullshit and he had the biggest ego of any president ever. I am mostly Native American(my first Uncle(moms sister is part of some Indian thing in the Dakotas) and its terrible that we still today limit them to reservations and whatever else. When you look back at the atrocities the American people did to Native Americans is far beyond anything else in more recent history. It was a clear cut case of invasion, occupation, and genocide that lead to total control of such a large land mass. We could've just influenced with them like the Spanish did Mexico and S. America and live together but in totally different environments(because thats their way of life).


I don't know if they were corrupt, but he did eliminate America's entire debt during his presidency and his policy had a direct effect on that.


And he was the most badass president we've had.


----------



## EJ (Jul 8, 2014)

How the hell can you say "Yeah, the stuff he did with the Native Americans was horrible and just disgusting but he was a badass president and he's my boy"

Do you read what you're typing before you post it?


----------



## haegar (Jul 8, 2014)

if anything, this thread proves how the excess of unreflected ideology, paired with a striking lack of broader political education is the supreme nail in the coffin of the sovereign of we the people acting in its own best interest. the number of people actually trying to be objective in this is like drops in an ocean.

as for my personal 5 cent, looking at the debate as a European outsider blessed with the equally disatisfying rule of Merkel: I cannot for the love of God understand how anybody  in this day could believe that either Bush or Obama (or Merkel or any other current president of whichever western state) were or are in a position to make individual, independent policy decissions to the amount you attribute to them. 

the initial fallacy is the assumption that the system at large would still work in a way to allow for any such actions of notable caliber. in the end, the varrying degrees of both idiocy or ability of individual political leaders are farily inconsequential and people would be far better of to consider influential groups of interest behind politicians of whichever colour.


----------



## Spencer_Gator (Jul 8, 2014)

The worst? No way. Not that he is great by any means, but there are much worse haha.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 8, 2014)

haegar said:


> if anything, this thread proves how the excess of unreflected ideology, paired with a striking lack of broader political education is the supreme nail in the coffin of the sovereign of we the people acting in its own best interest. the number of people actually trying to be objective in this is like drops in an ocean.
> 
> as for my personal 5 cent, looking at the debate as a European outsider blessed with the equally disatisfying rule of Merkel: I cannot for the love of God understand how anybody  in this day could believe that either Bush or Obama (or Merkel or any other current president of whichever western state) were or are in a position to make individual, independent policy decissions to the amount you attribute to them.
> 
> the initial fallacy is the assumption that the system at large would still work in a way to allow for any such actions of notable caliber. in the end, the varrying degrees of both idiocy or ability of individual political leaders are farily inconsequential and people would be far better of to consider influential groups of interest behind politicians of whichever colour.



I don't think that it's wrong of someone to claim that one of the large issues going on here is Republicans are saying they're not going to let anything get done. I mean they've stated and they've acted on it. We've suffered through a government shut down over it and almost defaulted on our debt. This isn't because of corporations or Obama being incompetent, this is a deliberate thing being done by one party and some Americans are too stupid to realize it.


----------



## martryn (Jul 8, 2014)

> this is a deliberate thing being done by one party and some Americans are too stupid to realize it.



Or rather, we Americans disagree with Congress' past chicanery and have elected officials to see that the country doesn't slip further down a slope we'll have trouble scrambling back out of.


----------



## haegar (Jul 8, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I don't think that it's wrong of someone to claim that one of the large issues going on here is Republicans are saying they're not going to let anything get done. I mean they've stated and they've acted on it. We've suffered through a government shut down over it and almost defaulted on our debt. This isn't because of corporations or Obama being incompetent, this is a deliberate thing being done by one party and some Americans are too stupid to realize it.



obviously it's deliberate. and behind the party doing it stand very obvious interest groups, no? don't see how anything I touched upon in a more abstract way clashes with that point of yours.


----------



## hcheng02 (Jul 9, 2014)

Blue said:


> Do you guys even have a concept of what you're condemning entire regions to?
> 
> Pacifism is immoral in the extreme without the will to fight when arms are called for.
> 
> "Let these people in their hundreds and thousands die because it's not our problem, not our war" is intensely evil.



This has nothing to do with pacifism. Its sound military strategy to allow to enemy forces to deplete each other if they are engaged in a conflict. Iran did the same to us when we invaded Iraq, now its our turn. There's an ancient Chinese idiom for this. 鹬蚌相争 渔人得利 (y? b?ng xiāng zhēng,y? r?n d? l?) literally means a snipe and a clam fought with each other, but the fisherman benefitted.

A clam was sitting out in the sun when suddenly a snipe flew down to peck at the clam. Suddenly the clam slammed the shell shut, gripping the snipe?s beak in between. The snipe said, ?If it doesn?t rain today, and it doesn?t rain tomorrow, I shall see a dead clam on the beach.? The clam said, ?If I don?t open today, and I don?t open up tomorrow, I shall see a dead snipe on the beach.? While they were still grappling with each other, a fisherman passed by and netted them both.

Snipe = ISIS
Clam = Iran
Fisherman = USA

There is nothing evil about this. Sound strategy is beyond good and evil. 



Megaharrison said:


> Letting the Iranians bleed themselves against ISIS is fun to see and laugh at, but it's not a good idea long-term. ISIS will be driven from their holds in Iraq eventually, they've made too big a name for themselves, have made too many enemies, and are threatening the Europeans precious oil. If the US does nothing and lets Iran play a key role in driving them out, than Iran will gain an even larger foothold over Iraq which is harmful to US strategic interests.
> 
> The best thing to do would be to show the Iraqi's that Iran and their crappy Su-25's and glorified terrorist "elite" troops can't compare to the power of Murican Special Forces on the ground backed by A-10's and F-18's. The deployment of a US Army Special Operations group, some CIA SAD units, and Marine advisers with Iraqi units backed up by significant close air support would turn the tide quite fast. But alas, no decisive leadership.



Iran can at most claim one third of Iraq because of their control and support from Maliki due to both of them being Shiites. Neither the Sunnis nor the Kurds are particularly friendly to them though given his rampant Shiite favoritism. And frankly, I don't see how Iran would get a lesser foothold when Maliki is around - he all but ignores the US and openly favors dealing with Iran. So let Iran defend his skin and pay the price. Furthermore, ISIS recent gains are similar to how the USA won a fast victory over Saddam's armies but were worn down by insurgents that lasted for years. Most of the oil produced in Iran is in the south at the hands of the Kurds and the Shiites. The Shiites have Iran to back them up. The most the USA should do is shore up the Kurds and the Jordanians who are our allies in the region. Other than that, it matters not which sect of Islam dominates.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 9, 2014)

haegar said:


> obviously it's deliberate. and behind the party doing it stand very obvious interest groups, no? don't see how anything I touched upon in a more abstract way clashes with that point of yours.



No, it's not even that they're working for other groups. They're working to make the President look bad, it's a completely different thing. The government shut down doesn't help anyone, for instance.


----------



## hedi slimane (Jul 9, 2014)

sounds like some people should get these


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 9, 2014)

The Republicans have reached "Captain Planet Villain" status. They're not even doing things to be logical or for greed. They're just out for destruction.


----------



## hedi slimane (Jul 9, 2014)

They seriously are out for blood. And its a shame people out there are actually buying these things


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 9, 2014)

hedi slimane said:


> They seriously are out for blood. And its a shame people out there are actually buying these things



Some people believe the guys on Duck Dynasty are just like them. Some people believe that the news has a liberal bias. Some people believe that telling someone to stop being a bigot is discrimination. All of these people believe that the Republicans are working for the greater good.


----------



## MYJC (Jul 9, 2014)

Recency effect. 

Let's wait 10 years and see what history says.


----------



## EJ (Jul 9, 2014)

So Ichliebe told me that

"The end justify the means" in regards to the killing of all the Native Americans.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> So Ichliebe told me that
> 
> "The end justify the means" in regards to the killing of all the Native Americans.



So what exactly was this glorious end they were trying to achieve according to him, that would be enough to justify this?

I have to know.
Because I can't even imagine thinking this type of bullshit.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 10, 2014)

I think the ends were "more lands for us."


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> So Ichliebe told me that
> 
> "The end justify the means" in regards to the killing of all the Native Americans.



We didn't kill all of the Native Americans we just forcibly relocated them thousands of miles after we tried to kill them all. It was horrible but America did become the best country this planet has ever seen and continues to be. There are going to be problems along the way and we could've handled it better no doubt, but it is what it is.


One party yet Obama himself counts as much as the entire congress.


----------



## EJ (Jul 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> We didn't kill all of the Native Americans we just forcibly relocated them thousands of miles after we tried to kill them all. It was horrible but America did become the best country this planet has ever seen and continues to be. There are going to be problems along the way and we could've handled it better no doubt, but it is what it is.



I didn't mean "All the Native Americans were killed off" 

I specifically meant the killing of all the Native Americans back then, but I see how the wording could of caused you to think other wise.

And no, you were in this thread saying the president responsible for all that stuff "was your homeboy" and "he was a badass" after all the shit he did. He went through fucked up means to get what he wanted. You can type all you want that "You're mostly native american" and use that as a means to support him but it's still fucked up regardless. 

I'm glad you posted that though, I know not to take what you say seriously for the most part.


----------



## ClandestineSchemer (Jul 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> We didn't kill all of the Native Americans we just forcibly relocated them thousands of miles after we tried to kill them all. It was horrible but America did become the best country this planet has ever seen and continues to be. There are going to be problems along the way and we could've handled it better no doubt, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> One party yet Obama himself counts as much as the entire congress.





Now i get it.
He can think like that, because he suffers from extreme stupidity.


----------



## Nordstrom (Jul 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> We didn't kill all of the Native Americans we just forcibly relocated them thousands of miles after we tried to kill them all. It was horrible but America *did become the best country this planet has ever seen and continues to be.* There are going to be problems along the way and we could've handled it better no doubt, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> One party yet Obama himself counts as much as the entire congress.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jul 10, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> We didn't kill all of the Native Americans we just forcibly relocated them thousands of miles after we tried to kill them all. It was horrible but America did become the best country this planet has ever seen and continues to be. There are going to be problems along the way and we could've handled it better no doubt, but it is what it is.
> 
> 
> One party yet Obama himself counts as much as the entire congress.



America hasn't been the best country on the planet for a while now. And the idea that those settlers could have known that they were making this is kind of a bullshit notion. It could have just become any number of other things too.


----------



## Pliskin (Jul 10, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> America hasn't been the best country on the planet for a while now. And the idea that those settlers could have known that they were making this is kind of a bullshit notion. It could have just become any number of other things too.



Well to be fair, best is subjective but any reasonable metric is going to have them in the top 5 or at least 10 (thats already stretching it imho). 
Anyway, your point about the deportations is solid.


----------



## IchLiebe (Jul 10, 2014)

Flow said:


> I didn't mean "All the Native Americans were killed off"
> 
> I specifically meant the killing of all the Native Americans back then, but I see how the wording could of caused you to think other wise.


Yes, Jackson was harsh and brutal to minorities. I had nothing to do with that and his policies helped America greatly although some were unnecessary. And the Natives were treated worse than anyone ever has been from the US government. Hell George Washington even commented on it, and it was a fore front issue of that time.



> And no, you were in this thread saying the president responsible for all that stuff "was your homeboy" and "he was a badass" after all the shit he did. He went through fucked up means to get what he wanted. You can type all you want that "You're mostly native american" and use that as a means to support him but it's still fucked up regardless.


 Even if that meant dueling someone for little to no reason, saved New Orleans(though technically the war was already over), and even about killed an assassin...kinda badass in comparison to what most president have done in their lifetime. Although we do get the occasional war hero in office from time to time.


> I'm glad you posted that though, I know not to take what you say seriously for the most part.


I don't care your just some liberal hippy.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 10, 2014)

Andrew Jackson's policies caused a recession and a War with Mexico after!


----------



## Sunuvmann (Jul 10, 2014)

SuperSaiyaMan12 said:


> Andrew Jackson's policies caused a recession and a War with Mexico after!


Yeahhhh, Jackson's face being on the $20 bill is pretty fucking ironic given his not wanting there to be a central bank.

Really, by modern standards his policies were pretty fucking terrible.

The only positive thing of note he did was a) He wouldn't let South Carolina do the nullification thing and b) Jacksonian democracy expanding the vote to all white men instead of just the landed.

But yeah, 19th century Democrats were generally horrible.


----------



## Blue (Jul 10, 2014)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> America hasn't been the best country on the planet for a while now. And the idea that those settlers could have known that they were making this is kind of a bullshit notion. It could have just become any number of other things too.



I mean, what is the best country on the planet?

It's impossible to say, nobody is #1 in everything. But America is top 5 in a lot of stuff that matters. Has been since WWII. Will be for the foreseeable future. It's gonna get even better in the short-term as America moves into being the #1 oil producing nation and continues to reap the economic benefits of being the most politically stable and militarily stable major country there is even as Russia reminds Europe and the rest of the world that they're still insane and China continues to lose their diplomacy textbooks even while heading towards an inevitable backlash against their corporate oligarchy government, thereby economically destabilizing their entire respective regions.

Also every country that's experiencing brain drains (India, Russia, etc) are losing 90% of their brains to the US. That's a virtuous cycle that's also going to continue into the indefinite future.


----------



## SuperSaiyaMan12 (Jul 10, 2014)

Sunuvmann said:


> Yeahhhh, Jackson's face being on the $20 bill is pretty fucking ironic given his not wanting there to be a central bank.
> 
> Really, by modern standards his policies were pretty fucking terrible.
> 
> ...


The sad thing is if Jackson had a lot more moral fiber and let the Native Americans keep their land or just integrated them peacefully, he'd be able to get away with his badassitude. Instead, he comes off as a stupid, arrogant, racist prick who didn't know he nearly _destroyed_ the country and triggered the Mexican War with his recession.


----------



## EJ (Jul 11, 2014)

IchLiebe said:


> .
> 
> I don't care your just some liberal hippy.



Save the insults for another day in this scenario. Once you're done praising your "home boy" on the slaughter of human beings and implying "the end justify the means" you can start teasing others. keep trying to twist your reasoning and what you said.


----------



## Rabbit and Rose (Jul 11, 2014)

I'm wondering why obama is claimed as the worst when that universal health insurance feels so good.


----------

