Obama

Banks couldn't do as much if you guys didn't live on credit

 

5 new updates; promises that became in the works


cyber security: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...p-a-comprehensive-cyber-security-and-respons/
i think that isnt too bad a thing, cyberattacks are getting more and more dangerous

energy conservation: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...463/require-more-energy-efficient-appliances/
i am very glad with this one, and i hope the standards will be a low energy usage, though i expect it to be slightly above average

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...21/appoint-an-american-indian-policy-adviser/
arent they called native americans now?
i dont know much about the native americans relation with the government and the rest of the country, so i am not pro or con

veterans: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-the-veterans-benefits-administration-claims/
what does backlog mean?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-robust-diplomatic-effort-with-iraq-and-its-/
aggresive diplomatic efforts? does this remind anyone of anakin in star wars 2 with his aggresive negotiations? i still think it is a good idea though, as long as they dont try to force their believes

 

You know whats funny is Obama originally said we would be out of Iraq in one month and then he said 6 months.... and then a year... and now just recently he said its gonna be at least two more years. I guess there it's a lot more complicated then he thought eh?

This is why I am of the opinion that it doesn't which President gets elected these days because the real problem is the government as a whole and the systems in place. Yea they might change a few policies and stuff but he is not some kind of savior that is gonna radically change America for the better and change how the world views the USA like everyone hopes and believes he will, but call me a pessimist I guess.

 

7 Broken Promises:

1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public (republicans shut out)
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You’ll know what’s in it (No one knew what was in it because no one was allowed time to read the bill before voting)
7. We will put every pork barrel project online

By the way that economic recovery package "we the people" were looking forward to gives only 10% to the economy. Everything else drives liberalism's agenda.

Thank you!

 

how can you win and fail?

The only thing he has for us is enslavement
It has turned from "we the people" to "we the government"
he making the heath program where they will give you a flu shot even though you don't want one if you refuse you no longer get heath cares.

they say its for free but some people will notice that the taxes are higher we are just trading freedoms with fake secerity.

pardon my mis-spells but i hope you get the meaning.

 

When precisely did he give the 1 month figure, outside of your head? He's always indicated that it has to be between 1 or 2 years, but that the main thing is to start a timetable.

The real problem is that people don't care about government, so it runs itself, which it does poorly. If you want government to run, you might actually have to care about it, rather than dismissing it as someone else's problem.

 

Yes, you know nothing about healthcare, that much is clear. Have you actually taken a look at to how universal healthcare systems actually work? They cost less, have shorter waits, give better care, and give the patient more freedom.

Also, Flu kills thousands of people in the US each year, you are not entitled to a choice as to whether or not you can be a harbinger of infectious diseases that are easily preventable.

 

Obama never promised those things, he promised to crack down on those problems, he never made the ridiculous claim that he could actually get rid of them.

So? Would not really make much of a difference.

Plenty of people read the bill. That's what politicians, their advisors, and their interns do.

Prove it. Spitting out hokey catch-phrases only shows that you have no real knowledge about what liberals advocate, only the strawman that poorly resembles them.

 

okay, this is just plain BS, he just got nominated for the nobel peace price due to something against racism, while the only thing he did was reap the benefits of racism going largely away, not actually fight it



this is just darn bs

 

Do you even live in the U.S.A?

If you mean this new heath care will prevent diseases that will kill thousands of people from dieing then think of how many lives will be lost from this if you feel sick you go to the docter not if someone sees that you haven't been there for 3 months they could give you something that will kill you instead of save you when all you needed was to be left alone.

maybe you should read this http://frwest.blogspot.com/2008/09/more-than-100-reasons-to-vote-against.html

 

Yes.

Diseases kill people by making them die? You are as illuminating as you are eloquent.

I apologize, but I don't understand what you are saying? Are you referring to the relatively rare occurrence of vaccinations causing disease, of which in the case of the flu would be easily be treatable even if it did cause?

Why should I read a source like that? It has no credibility, most of its links will not as well, and I don't care to comb through them. Not to mention most of it comes off as hating Obama because he is either A: a politician or B: a Democrat. If you care to make an argument, speak it yourself, rather than acting as a font for the garbage Republican Idealogues spew.

Also, reminder time. When it comes to politics, I will play rough, especially if you fail to offer any real argument for me to debate instead. I like fighting politics tooth and nail.

 

I think Obama's doing well.

Usually I facepalm a lot at Bush.

I've yet to do any to Obama.

 

you haven't read it how do you know it has no credibility or are you just saying that becuse you think it my actually have credibility?

 

I am willing to give Obama plenty of lenience due to the huge mess that's been put in front of him, but if he fails to handle the stimulus/bailout properly, I will probably have to facepalm.

I read some of it. I was able to determine two things. First, the author has a strong conservative bias. This can be determined based on his choice of words and how he frames situations, such as the implication that a highly liberal voting record is around the level of sodomizing puppies. This in turn indicates that he will at the very least cherry pick the evidence offered, but more likely he will take evidence from questionable sources or openly false sources. This clearly supported when even a brief glance at his sources shows that one of them is called Chicagoans against Obama, and many others have similar monikers, or are simply editorials. Its notable that the few that aren't make much less severe cases against Obama, if any at all.

 

http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/11/reasons_to_vote_for_mccain_rea.php

there are some cases that make sense against Obama

maybe you should look it up.

 

So you are telling me to look up an article that publicly indicates in the title that it is right wing, and thus belongs to a party which has a long and well documented history of lying constantly about just about everything, stuff which can be determined with ease through sources that are quite neutral?

No. Offer me some real sources and perhaps I will consider.

I'll go through the first section though:

"1. National Security. While Obama has run from the subject for a long time now, he had made it clear through his own speeches and those of his surrogates that he wishes to do two things that will turn America into a wounded deer, lying there to be savaged by rapacious scavenger nations."
Extremely biased language, check.

"First, he intends to remove America instantly from Iraq, despite the fact that we're finally winning."
Followed by a lie, then a meaningless statement. If you fall down a hole, then painstakingly dig yourself out, you have not won, you have survived. Second, what exactly are we winning? At the cost of over a trillion dollars, a million civilians, thousands of soldiers, and our international reputation, we've succeeded in deposing a weak dictatorship and replacing it with an unstable and ethnically turbulent democracy.


"While we all understand that even the best commanders sometimes have to conduct a strategic retreat ("he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day"), it's insane to back out of a fight that one is winning. I don't think it's ever been done at any place in any time. Second, at a time when America is disliked by her friends and loathed by her foes, he wishes to slash the military. He seems to be clueless that, in the real world, you first get people to become your allies, and only then do you lower your defenses."
This seems to be ignoring the fact that people like him were all for continuing the war when it got worse by the day, and that it is the actions committed with our military that are responsible for the world loathing us.

Also, what he fails to explain is why leaving when you are winning is a bad thing. Generally, that's the best time to leave. He fails to explain why leaving when you are winning turns that win into a loss. There is no reason to think that it will.

"McCain understands that the best defense is the promise that, should anyone attack you, you can and will go powerfully on the offensive."
Obama has said the exact same thing.

"His fundamentally cheerful personality makes it clear that he's not out there looking for trouble but if trouble looks for him, he's ready."
Cheerful? Even within his party McCain is infamous for his terrible temper.

"In any event, McCain's entirely successful take on the surge should in itself demonstrate that he understands warfare in the modern era and is the one most likely to be able to protect America from her stated and violent enemies."
McCain supported military action from the start, regardless of whether or not it was successful or failed. The surge was not responsible for the recovery in Iraq, the switching of command to a competent leader was.

 

Little slow there.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE
Also you should take a look at the Defense agenda. Quite a reversal!

Here are status reports straight from the U.S. Department of State. Also take a look at this article and this one as well.

Where is this fact? Please provide proof that actions from our military are responsible for the world loathing us. Don't remember the 2004 Tsunami? The U.S. Military played a major part in Tsunami relief. Ever hear of Operation Christmas Drop? Didn't think so. I could go on and on with the generous actions committed by our military.

Remember Vietnam? Somalia? What kind words were left by history?

Where?! It's definitely not in his upside down defense agenda.

Even Joe Lieberman said that his temper was not that of losing control. Also he is not the first U.S. leader to have a temper.

I just have to laugh at that defeatist comment. Also which competent leader are you talking about? General Petraeus? General Odierno?

 

And whats wrong with anything he said? He said that we shouldn't waste money and lives when it is not needed. Do you have a problem with that concept? Do you like causing American Soldiers to die on foreign soils? Do you like wasting billions on weapons systems whose only real use would be in the event of a Martian invasion?

A bunch of spurious nonsense that. The military has indicated quite clearly that it does not do bodycounts, and even a basic knowledge of statistics should tell you that convenience sampling is methodologically flawed anyway.

You could start by looking a polls of what other countries think about us. Or about what other country's leaders have said about us. It hardly matters whether they are justified or not in their attitude, it doesn't change the fact that they dislike us because of what we have done militarily, and they have indicated this quite clearly.

Why should they care about that? We give out less aid proportionally than most countries anyways. Put simply, we will be judged by our many misdeeds rather than our acts of kindness.

Um, you do realize we lost those conflicts, we never should have entered those conflicts, and if we had stayed, we would have only spent more time losing. You do understand the concept of cutting ones losses, or do you only care about such when it affects personal amenities and not US servicemen?

I wasn't referring to his agenda, but they do correlate. Obama made it quite clear that he will be tough on countries like Iran, but will refrain from acting idiotically.

Joe Lieberman is his BFF, so his opinion is irrelevant. The fact remains that Mc-Cain has temper tantrums.

Um, what defeatist comment? I was merely pointing out that McCain consistently supported the war independent of its success, and that saying that McCain is wise because he was vaguely right one of those times is like saying that a psychic is right because 1 out of their 5 predictions was.

Also, yes, it was Petraeus, who actually fought the war like it was this war, rather than last war.

 

I want to tackle this one first.
1. The western world doesnt loath America, it does agree with some points Which dont call loathing, rather then not being the greatest country in the world anymore.

2. The point is not the military, the military didnt decide to attack Iraq, the military didnt decide on operation christmas drop. If they did decide on these things, you wouldnt live in a democracy, would you? Both of these were descisions made by the US government at that time. Most countries provided a hellish lot of tsunami relief, so all of those countries just kind of raise in our "favorites list". But America goes down quite a lot due to the fact that the bush administration decided to attack Iraq cause it had nuclear weapons, but after a war with a lot of civilian casualties and expenses, bringing the country in a state of great unrest, causing even more civilian deaths, and then end up with finding out that OOPS, saddam had no nukes.