Be a Supporter!

Obama: Deserve re-election?

  • 6,409 Views
  • 130 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
CritcalOne
CritcalOne
  • Member since: Oct. 10, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 15th, 2012 @ 07:48 PM Reply

i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchy


Moved to new account.

BBS Signature
Korriken
Korriken
  • Member since: Jun. 17, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 15th, 2012 @ 07:53 PM Reply

At 1/15/12 07:48 PM, CritcalOne wrote: i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchy

or it might have something to do with his complete lack of leadership.


I'm not crazy, everyone else is.

Ravariel
Ravariel
  • Member since: Apr. 19, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 12
Musician
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 15th, 2012 @ 08:22 PM Reply

At 1/15/12 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote:
At 1/15/12 07:48 PM, CritcalOne wrote: i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchy
or it might have something to do with his complete lack of leadership.

Or perhaps it's slightly more nuanced and includes both of those factors.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 21st, 2012 @ 05:16 PM Reply

At 1/15/12 07:48 PM, CritcalOne wrote: i facepalm at the fact that people aren't realizing Obama couldn't get shit done because you ignorant fucks elected tea party people who do nothing but turn america into an anarchy

And I face palm at the fact that you don't know that for up to 66% of his presidency to this point: he had a Democratic supermajority in the US House of Reps and his first year he had a fillibuster proof-Democratic majority in the US Senate, and then he still had a sizable majority (and when Sen Brown was elected; they still had a 58% majority.)

In other words: Obama is so inept at governing that he couldn't get shit done WITH his own party fully in power!


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 21st, 2012 @ 05:19 PM Reply

At 1/15/12 08:22 PM, Ravariel wrote: Or perhaps it's slightly more nuanced and includes both of those factors.

I think the lack of leadership is the MAJOR factor. I mean if he can't be effective with his own party holding huge majorities in both Congressional Houses for his first two years as president...why would he do better with a opposition House?

Face it...the Dems thought they were electing someone far more capable than he really was. The hype covered up the vast short-comings of the man.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 21st, 2012 @ 06:41 PM Reply

I don't get anyone on here. Obama did so much DESPITE not having a congress fully in power.

Gays are now allowed to serve in the military. THAT'S A BIG DEAL!

The U.S now has a federal mandate for healthcare (pending Supreme Court decision). Whether you agree with the actual law is not the concern. IT'S A BIG SOMETHING!

Osama bin Ladin is dead. THAT'S HUGE!

Getting out of Iraq. BIG!

The recession is over and the recovery seems to be working now. ENORMOUS!

According to Politifact, he has outnumbered his promises kept vs. promises broken 3 to 1. Which means that the overwhelming majority of his presidential campaign in 2008 wasn't based on lofty promises that he could not keep, but on lofty promises he's been fighting for and has been able to accomplished.

I'm not saying the sun's shining out of his ass, because he has failed at ending partisanship in Washington, but it's frankly ridiculous to say he hasn't brought many of the changes he proposed in '08 to fruition.

That's why I'm giving him four more years.


BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 22nd, 2012 @ 02:29 PM Reply

At 1/21/12 06:41 PM, EKublai wrote: I don't get anyone on here. Obama did so much DESPITE not having a congress fully in power.

Factually incorrect. For the first two years he had a supermajority in the House of Reps and for the first year a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. When he lost the fillibuster-proof majority he still had a 58% Democratic majority.

The problem wasn't Republicans. It was Obama would rather be right than govern (the opposite of Clinton), so he couldn't even keep the various parts of his own party together on major issues like Healthcare.


Gays are now allowed to serve in the military. THAT'S A BIG DEAL!

This was pushed through while he had Democratic control. Furthermore, it's not as huge as you think. As someone who joined the military in 2000 and supports gays serving in the military OPENLY (they could serve, in the closet, since the 1990s)...it was gonna happen. Conservative opposition to it was starting to wane. The military was discussing it amongst ourselves.

It just so happens Obama was the president when it did happen.


The U.S now has a federal mandate for healthcare (pending Supreme Court decision). Whether you agree with the actual law is not the concern. IT'S A BIG SOMETHING!

A huge something that he had to fight his own party for! It also remains wildly unpopular with the public, with people on both sides of the argument. Let's say Romney wins in November and the Republicans take the Senate. Congress could repeal it and Romney could sign the repeal...with very minimal political backlash.


Osama bin Ladin is dead. THAT'S HUGE!

Not really. The "bin-Laden bounce" in Obama's approval rating is over. Furthermore, it was not like a) he actually pulled the trigger or b) his anti-terrorism policies led to discovering where he was hiding. In fact the intel trail started with Bush...using techniques Obama opposed.

I mean he did give the go-ahead...but let's not pretend it was all that couragous of a political decision.


Getting out of Iraq. BIG!

Again...not big for Obama but Bush. The timeline was established under Bush...all Obama had to do was...well do nothing. So why would he deserve credit for inaction? I mean we're not talking Nixon making unpopular decisions with both the left and right to end Vietnam.

Obama did nothing.


The recession is over and the recovery seems to be working now. ENORMOUS!

* GDP is only growing at 1.8%, far below what it should be to really count the recession over.
* Unemployment is also very high even though it is dropping. Right now it is 8.5% (15.2% when you include those who are discouraged from looking or underemployed), it had a bump going into Christmas. The question is will it continue past February? If the unemployment rate settles at 8.3-8.5% Obama is in trouble. If it goes up...he's out of office. He needs to consistently trend down from now to the election and get to 8.1-8.2% at least.
* While the government says the recession is over...the median income of US households have dropped while Obama has been in office.

As far as recoveries go...this one is pathetic.


According to Politifact, he has outnumbered his promises kept vs. promises broken 3 to 1. Which means that the overwhelming majority of his presidential campaign in 2008 wasn't based on lofty promises that he could not keep, but on lofty promises he's been fighting for and has been able to accomplished.

That's because he didn't really promise much. He took FDR's campaign tactic of being "not-Hoover" (Obama of course being "not-Bush")...and ran on "hopes and dreams". He didn't lay out how he was going to transform America...he just said he was gonna make things better. People like me hoped he'd turn-out to be like Clinton: a moderate Democrat whose going to 'triangulate' to the center. Others hoped he'd be the messiah of the Left and usher in a radical progressive agenda.

The thing is...he is neither. He is a community organizer whose never produced anything and is used to be an advocate (ie: adverserial) instead of building consensus. He doesn't know how to make public policy work in the real world.


I'm not saying the sun's shining out of his ass, because he has failed at ending partisanship in Washington, but it's frankly ridiculous to say he hasn't brought many of the changes he proposed in '08 to fruition.

The main promise he made in '08 was to turn the economy around. Under his plan unemployment was not going to get over 8.0%...it got over 10%. The rest of his "green jobs", healthcare and community organizing agendas were not and are not relevent to the direction most people want for this country. That's why he's losing the independants and having to tack left to energize his base and pursue a minority coalition campaign strategy.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 22nd, 2012 @ 02:40 PM Reply

At 1/22/12 02:29 PM, TheMason wrote: Again...not big for Obama but Bush. The timeline was established under Bush...all Obama had to do was...well do nothing. So why would he deserve credit for inaction?

Isn't a lack of action how he got a Nobel Peace Prize?

TotalN
TotalN
  • Member since: Sep. 28, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Gamer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 25th, 2012 @ 05:47 PM Reply

I personally don't like the republicans, so I'm all for Obama.


Jus' keep on rockin', ya'll. Keep on rockin'.

s0und
s0und
  • Member since: Apr. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 21
Melancholy
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 27th, 2012 @ 11:05 AM Reply

What was it that compelled millions of young voters to support Baraku Obamu's race for the Presidency?

Was the notion of a brilliant, articulate, utterly decent candidate enough to inspire a heretofore apathetic group to vote? Not just vote but really participate.

Or was it the prospect of a compassionate, worldly alternative to the most belligerent, aggressively ignorant administration in our lifetime?

Now were are starting to see the pieces of the puzzle come together Baraku was not ready to be president and when the USA finally drops from being a first world country to a second or who knows maybe even third world country who are we going to put the blame on? one person I know will not be blamed for this and that is me I was a McCain fan from the start.


Wade Fulp replying to me = greatest day of my life

BBS Signature
EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 27th, 2012 @ 12:36 PM Reply

At 1/22/12 02:29 PM, TheMason wrote:
At 1/21/12 06:41 PM, EKublai wrote: I don't get anyone on here. Obama did so much DESPITE not having a congress fully in power.
Factually incorrect. For the first two years he had a supermajority in the House of Reps and for the first year a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. When he lost the fillibuster-proof majority he still had a 58% Democratic majority.

Notice I said that I didn't say "Democratic Congress" in power, but speaking of congress as a whole. Congress as it stands, is composed of individuals who spend 30-70% of their time campaigning. Money in politics guaranteed that the filibuster-proof majority meant nothing and a simple majority vote doesn't do anything these days. It's irrelevant what party any one is affiliated with. Congressional Dems fled from being identified with Obama come midterms not because they didn't support is views, but because they had no chance in hell in getting reelected if they did show such signs.


The problem wasn't Republicans. It was Obama would rather be right than govern (the opposite of Clinton), so he couldn't even keep the various parts of his own party together on major issues like Healthcare.

Gays are now allowed to serve in the military. THAT'S A BIG DEAL!
This was pushed through while he had Democratic control. Furthermore, it's not as huge as you think. As someone who joined the military in 2000 and supports gays serving in the military OPENLY (they could serve, in the closet, since the 1990s)...it was gonna happen. Conservative opposition to it was starting to wane. The military was discussing it amongst ourselves.

Actually, they could serve in secret at anytime. And I don't see how you can be so sure about its inevitability since one of the most hysterical critics of the repeal was none other than John McCain. Obama made the repeal a priority in his campaign and first days in office. I can't see the alternative presidency doing the same.


A huge something that he had to fight his own party for! It also remains wildly unpopular with the public, with people on both sides of the argument. Let's say Romney wins in November and the Republicans take the Senate. Congress could repeal it and Romney could sign the repeal...with very minimal political backlash.

I'm not satisfied with what-ifs, especially any what-if that includes Mitt Romney. Romney is a businessman whose healthcare system in Mass. reflects a business mindset and has very important similarities to Obamacare.


Osama bin Ladin is dead. THAT'S HUGE!
Not really. The "bin-Laden bounce" in Obama's approval rating is over. Furthermore, it was not like a) he actually pulled the trigger or b) his anti-terrorism policies led to discovering where he was hiding. In fact the intel trail started with Bush...using techniques Obama opposed.

I'll "not really" you there as well. The last two years Bush-era terrorist-hunting were characterized by Bush's very words "Bin Laden isn't important anymore". Obama was the once who reinvigorated our efforts.


Getting out of Iraq. BIG!
Again...not big for Obama but Bush. The timeline was established under Bush...all Obama had to do was...well do nothing. So why would he deserve credit for inaction? I mean we're not talking Nixon making unpopular decisions with both the left and right to end Vietnam.

But in fact, that was part of the reason we elected a democrat, because the democrat promised to follow the timeline while the republican did not. War timelines are often compromised during the exchange of power from one hand to the other. Inaction, long-term planning more like, is the kind of consistency required of successful governments otherwise every election would be the equivalent of a policy-driven coup.


Obama did nothing.

The recession is over and the recovery seems to be working now. ENORMOUS!
* GDP is only growing at 1.8%, far below what it should be to really count the recession over.
* Unemployment is also very high even though it is dropping. Right now it is 8.5% (15.2% when you include those who are discouraged from looking or underemployed), it had a bump going into Christmas. The question is will it continue past February? If the unemployment rate settles at 8.3-8.5% Obama is in trouble. If it goes up...he's out of office. He needs to consistently trend down from now to the election and get to 8.1-8.2% at least.
* While the government says the recession is over...the median income of US households have dropped while Obama has been in office.

I won't touch this anymore, we need to see what happens in the coming months. I have high hopes.


That's because he didn't really promise much. He took FDR's campaign tactic of being "not-Hoover" (Obama of course being "not-Bush")...and ran on "hopes and dreams". He didn't lay out how he was going to transform America...he just said he was gonna make things better. People like me hoped he'd turn-out to be like Clinton: a moderate Democrat whose going to 'triangulate' to the center. Others hoped he'd be the messiah of the Left and usher in a radical progressive agenda.

The thing is...he is neither. He is a community organizer whose never produced anything and is used to be an advocate (ie: adverserial) instead of building consensus. He doesn't know how to make public policy work in the real world.

WIthout any of understanding of what a community organizer is and does, I don't get how you can characterize his presidency as a "community-organizing" agenda.


BBS Signature
Iron-Hampster
Iron-Hampster
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 10
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 28th, 2012 @ 01:38 AM Reply

At 1/27/12 11:05 AM, s0und wrote: What was it that compelled millions of young voters to support Baraku Obamu's race for the Presidency?

Was the notion of a brilliant, articulate, utterly decent candidate enough to inspire a heretofore apathetic group to vote? Not just vote but really participate.

Or was it the prospect of a compassionate, worldly alternative to the most belligerent, aggressively ignorant administration in our lifetime?

It would mostly the second part, it didn't matter if you liked Obama or not, a lot of people were voting for him to spite the Republicans for giving them bush.


Now were are starting to see the pieces of the puzzle come together Baraku was not ready to be president and when the USA finally drops from being a first world country to a second or who knows maybe even third world country who are we going to put the blame on? one person I know will not be blamed for this and that is me I was a McCain fan from the start.

no matter, the only people who are being built up as potential candidates by the media are Gengrich Romney and Obama, all of these people are claiming to be moderates, but the reality is that they are all maniacs who are telling people what they want to hear as opposed to what they need to hear.

Obama thinks he can hand out more tax credits and increase deficit spending to create unprofitable jobs, Gengrich wants to cut taxes, invade Iran and build a base on the moon, Romney wants to cut taxes, invade Iran, and give America the biggest army the world has ever seen.

ALL of these choices will lead to bankruptcy, but people don't want to believe that, they wan't to keep living in their dream world where these issues will never touch them and the world is perfect now, we are invincible in our ivory tower after all. Whether the intrest becomes so high that America can not borrow enough money to pay for it, or the production rate of oil reaches peak and the price sky-rockets as supply can no longer meet demand, the good times are coming to an end and people just don't want to face it.


ya hear about the guy who put his condom on backwards? He went.

BBS Signature
Ihatedapatriots
Ihatedapatriots
  • Member since: Oct. 12, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Programmer
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 28th, 2012 @ 12:21 PM Reply

I can't imagine the thought process that would lead to an answer of yes. Dems despise him because he flaked out on all his promises and the GOP hate him because he's the enemy. Hope candidates rarely get re-elected because they make promises that Jahweh would have trouble keeping. Really, if you think he deserves re-election then you have extremely low standards.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 28th, 2012 @ 01:45 PM Reply

At 1/28/12 12:21 PM, Ihatedapatriots wrote: Really, if you think he deserves re-election then you have extremely low standards.

Or just a thorough understanding of politics, and how much power the President has.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 30th, 2012 @ 12:40 PM Reply

At 1/15/12 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote: or it might have something to do with his complete lack of leadership.

;;;
What i don't understand, is how can the President of the US swear to uphold the Constitution. Then not do so,
How can the President sign the National Defense Authorization Act into law. Which allows the US Government to suspend due process of the law & use the military to arrest & detain Americans on vague & opportunistic "suspicions"
Then your Presdident goes on to publicly state " He nor his administration would allow this part of the law to be carried out"

WHICH IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE for the President of the USA to publicly state he will refuse to enforcing the laws of the USA !
Obama-" This Administration will not carry out these specific provisions of the NDAA "
But he just signed it into law !?!?!?!?!
SO why isn't there an impeachment charge making its way through Congress ??

The USof A has no leadership, your own President is (like the rest of your Legislators) out of touch with reality . Doesn't even know what his own duties & obligtions are. You are being run by a small group of corrupt banking /business elites, who fund these so called leaders of the US. Which is becoming more & more apparent to those of us outside it all looking in & not allowing the US popular "media" spin, to blind us to reality.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 30th, 2012 @ 02:14 PM Reply

At 1/30/12 12:40 PM, morefngdbs wrote: WHICH IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE for the President of the USA to publicly state he will refuse to enforcing the laws of the USA !

How so? This isn't the first time you have made claims like these. Will this be the first time you make an attempt to prove them?

Which is becoming more & more apparent to those of us outside it all looking in & not allowing the US popular "media" spin, to blind us to reality.

But those outside the US have no real grasp of the US legal system, or the realities of having a Code that requires over 20 textbook sized volumes just to house.

EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 30th, 2012 @ 02:49 PM Reply

At 1/30/12 12:40 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 1/15/12 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote:
How can the President sign the National Defense Authorization Act into law. Which allows the US Government to suspend due process of the law & use the military to arrest & detain Americans on vague & opportunistic "suspicions"
Then your Presdident goes on to publicly state " He nor his administration would allow this part of the law to be carried out"

WHICH IS AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE for the President of the USA to publicly state he will refuse to enforcing the laws of the USA !
Obama-" This Administration will not carry out these specific provisions of the NDAA "
But he just signed it into law !?!?!?!?!
SO why isn't there an impeachment charge making its way through Congress ??

What the hell are you talking about? The law you just quoted even says that it's not a requirement. It grants the authority, does not demand that the authority be used.


BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 30th, 2012 @ 04:20 PM Reply

At 1/30/12 02:49 PM, EKublai wrote:
At 1/30/12 12:40 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 1/15/12 07:53 PM, Korriken wrote:
Then your Presdident goes on to publicly state " He nor his administration would allow this part of the law to be carried out"
What the hell are you talking about? The law you just quoted even says that it's not a requirement. It grants the authority, does not demand that the authority be used.

;;;
I can't believe you guy's are actually Americans.
You don't even know the Presidential oath for fucks sakes !
As a Canadian I know more about your damn government than you do ! ! ! How fucking sad is that ?

Presidential oath,
"I -name- do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect & defend the Constituion of the United States."
"Art 2 sec 3, clause 4 - The President must take care that the laws be faithfully executed ."
Do you see anywhere in the Constitution where the President can pick & choose at a whim what laws & or part of laws are to be enacted ?
You won't because there isn't any clause that states that !

IF the President had any concerns or objects to a bill, he doesn't have to sign it into law. He can retun it with his objections, he can veto it. He has 10 days .
But once he signs it into law, his office states he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed "

Let us also not forget the declaration of Independence, says " All men are created equal" under the law.
"The Principal requires that all men stand equally before the law. Giving any preference or priority to, or imposing any deprevation or suspension on any class of persons before the law, contravenes the pricipal of equality "

THIS WAS UPHELD by the Supreme court of the USofA.

Quote " The theory upon which our Political Institutions rests is, is that all men have certain inalienable rights- that amoung these are life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness: and that in the pursuit of happiness, all avocations ,all honours, all positions, are alike open to everyone, and that in the protection of all these rights all are equal before the law. Any depravation or suspension of any of these rights for past conduct is punishment, and can be in no otherwise defined "- unquote

I get tired of you & Carmohuskey spewing your vast knowledge of the US & your laws....yet you seem to be blissfully unaware of something that can be found on any internet search with Presidents duties/oath of office ....you guy's need to brush up some.


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Nintharmed
Nintharmed
  • Member since: Jan. 18, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 03
Audiophile
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 30th, 2012 @ 05:24 PM Reply

QUICK LETS ALL BLAME OBAMA FOR THE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT, NOT BUSH FUCKING WITH A TAX SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD SO HE COULD GIVE MORE MONEY TO HIS RICH BUSINESS FRIENDS!

^Typical argument by every person who mindlessly hates on Obama after him being in office for such a small time.

PROTIP: Obama isn't doing shit because the Congress is split between Democrats and Republicans, a split which Obama was not responsible for causing so early in his Presidency- he's just unlucky, not incompetent. Also, Obama isn't socialist or a bleeding-heart liberal; he's one of the most moderate Presidents you Americans have had recently.


BBS Signature
djack
djack
  • Member since: Aug. 10, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 27
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 30th, 2012 @ 08:09 PM Reply

At 1/30/12 05:24 PM, Nintharmed wrote: QUICK LETS ALL BLAME OBAMA FOR THE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT, NOT BUSH FUCKING WITH A TAX SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD SO HE COULD GIVE MORE MONEY TO HIS RICH BUSINESS FRIENDS!

^Typical argument by every person who mindlessly hates on Obama after him being in office for such a small time.

PROTIP: Obama isn't doing shit because the Congress is split between Democrats and Republicans, a split which Obama was not responsible for causing so early in his Presidency- he's just unlucky, not incompetent. Also, Obama isn't socialist or a bleeding-heart liberal; he's one of the most moderate Presidents you Americans have had recently.

QUICK!! LET'S BLAME BUSH FOR THE UNSUSTAINABLE DEBT AND MASSIVE RECESSION INSTEAD OF CLINTON AND THE MULTIPLE TIMES WHERE A DEMOCRATICALLY CONTROLLED CONGRESS FUCKED WITH SOCIAL PROGRAMS FOR THEIR OWN DESIRES.

^Typical logic of the people who blame Bush for everything to exempt Clinton and Obama from the blame they rightfully deserve.

When Obama first entered office the Democrats held a majority and they could have pushed through numerous bills before the balance shifted. I've already pointed out in the past that Congress screwed over the social security system when the majority was held by Democrats and that Clinton caused the housing bubble by pushing the housing market and making it so that banks are forced to give out loans to people who can't afford them (it's also been pointed out in the past that Obama acting as an attorney encouraged the policy that forced banks to give everyone a loan regardless of their financial status. There's plenty of blame that can be passed around but Obama is the current president, Obama is the one looking for re-election, and Obama is the one who failed to do anything productive to help out the situation. He had the opportunity to do something and in that time he mimicked the policies of Bush and only succeeded in making things worse, then when nothing got fixed his supporters blame Congress for his failure despite the fact that 8 years ago the same people who support Obama were prepared to attack Bush for everything he did even though he was "in office for such a small time."

Me-Patch
Me-Patch
  • Member since: Apr. 18, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Melancholy
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 31st, 2012 @ 02:48 AM Reply

Obama gave me health insurance. He's got my vote.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 31st, 2012 @ 02:42 PM Reply

At 1/30/12 04:20 PM, morefngdbs wrote: "Art 2 sec 3, clause 4 - The President must take care that the laws be faithfully executed ."
Do you see anywhere in the Constitution where the President can pick & choose at a whim what laws & or part of laws are to be enacted ?
You won't because there isn't any clause that states that !

You don't need to. The President has discretion as to where he spends the limited resources of the Executive branch. If the President deems a certain law as not worthy of the precious resources he has the right to use his resources elsewhere


IF the President had any concerns or objects to a bill, he doesn't have to sign it into law. He can retun it with his objections, he can veto it. He has 10 days .
But once he signs it into law, his office states he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed "

Many of these laws are extremely long and 99% useful. With the striking down of the line-item veto the President must either reject the bill as a whole, including the useful 99%, or accept the 99% that he likes and accept the 1% he doesn't.

Let us also not forget the declaration of Independence, says " All men are created equal" under the law.
"The Principal requires that all men stand equally before the law. Giving any preference or priority to, or imposing any deprevation or suspension on any class of persons before the law, contravenes the pricipal of equality "

And? The Declaration of Independence was nothing other than a fancy declaration of war and a rallying tool. It has no legal authority.


THIS WAS UPHELD by the Supreme court of the USofA.

quote

The case you quoted is actually about due process. It involved a preist who went afoul of a law that made an end run around evidence and criminal due process. Also, it was from 1867. Cummings v. Mo., 71 U.S. 277

Oh, and FYI. There is a great deal of case law that indicates the President does not have to enact any portion of a law that they believe to be unconstitutional. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991). Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983).

If it were so abhorrent to the Constitution, the Supreme Court when dealing with the issue at least 4 times had ample opportunity to say so.


I get tired of you & Carmohuskey spewing your vast knowledge of the US & your laws....yet you seem to be blissfully unaware of something that can be found on any internet search with Presidents duties/oath of office ....you guy's need to brush up some.

Or perhaps you need to start looking deeper. You scratch the skin, find some quote, or out of place document, and claim that it is law. Next time, take the effort needed to look at the history, the future, and the interpretations of those words before you start claiming they are binding.

morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Jan. 31st, 2012 @ 04:24 PM Reply

At 1/31/12 02:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote: You don't need to. The President has discretion as to where he spends the limited resources of the Executive branch. If the President deems a certain law as not worthy of the precious resources he has the right to use his resources elsewhere

;;;
First of all the framers of the declaration of independence & the Constitution said
" Politicians may not substitute their personal views for the Constitution "
The writings of Thomas Jefferson are quite clear & the US Government at the federal level has long since over stepped itself & IMO should be forced to go back to the ideal of the Founders (& its why I framed the throw the Constitution in the Garbage thread)
" Whensoever the general government (Federal Government) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unathoritative, void & of no force "T. Jefferson 1798

"What has destroyed liberty & the rights of man in every Government which has ever existed under the sun? The Generalizing & concentrating all cares & powers into one body " T Jefferson -1816

And? The Declaration of Independence was nothing other than a fancy declaration of war and a rallying tool. It has no legal authority.

;;;

Oh, and FYI. There is a great deal of case law that indicates the President does not have to enact any portion of a law that they believe to be unconstitutional. Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926). Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991). Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 942 n.13 (1983).

;;;
Nothing that violates the Constitution is legally binding or even allowed. So the President is not free to vote his Conscience. He is bound by his oath of office & Congress is suppose to make sure he does so.

Or perhaps you need to start looking deeper. You scratch the skin, find some quote, or out of place document, and claim that it is law. Next time, take the effort needed to look at the history, the future, and the interpretations of those words before you start claiming they are binding.

;;;
I have been looking deeper & the more I look the more I realise the US Federal Government all 3 branches have lost sight of what their duties are & how they are suppose to act for the good of the Nation. Now they act for the good of themselves & have twisted the concepts of the Constitution, which makes it difficult for them to do what they please (which is exactly why the founders of the Constitution framed it that way)

Feb 26/10 Greta asks Charles Krauthammer
Whether people we send to Congress should vote their conscience or ours (their constituents)
Krauthammer answers - "That's the great question since Edmond Burke. He thought you should vote your conscience or conception of what the National need is "
Krauthammer went on to say,"He thinks Obama is allowed to go forward with health care reforms & respects the Presidents right or ability or notion that he needs to act int he Nations interests as he sees fit"

None of them understand That it is a politicians Sworn Duty to obey the Constitution reguardless of what he thinks or what his constituents want.
THere has been no appeal of the Constitution & it is why it is still being used to swear elected officials to office.
This is what is meant by an "existentialist mindset" These politicians BELIEVE they have the right to act in a subjective way.

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHY ,The US Constitution was designed to protect the citizens of America from, Individual men imposing their subjective views on the American people. That is why the powers granted to the 3 branches of the federal government in the Constitution - legislative, judicial & Executive- are strictly limited & defined.

All the bullshit pulled by politicians over turning this documents limitations & allowing subjective opinions to rule is why your nation is in the mess its in!

As long as they still swear to uphold it, is bullshit & IMo way past time for the cowards presently in the Federal Government really need to be called to task on it. The only way that will ever happen is another revolution or the possibility that those with vision like Ron Paul get a chance to fix it ( chances are I'll win all lotteries in Canada next week first!


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

Halberd
Halberd
  • Member since: Aug. 22, 2008
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 30
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Feb. 1st, 2012 @ 01:32 AM Reply

At 1/31/12 02:48 AM, Me-Patch wrote: Obama gave me health insurance. He's got my vote.

Obamacare = evil


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NguTypiXqqY
ILLEGAL MARIJUANA RELATED ACTIVITIES
The hand I killed your children with masturbates to the memory of it

EKublai
EKublai
  • Member since: Dec. 13, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Animator
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Feb. 1st, 2012 @ 03:35 AM Reply

At 1/31/12 04:24 PM, morefngdbs wrote:
At 1/31/12 02:42 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
First of all the framers of the declaration of independence & the Constitution said
" Politicians may not substitute their personal views for the Constitution"
The writings of Thomas Jefferson are quite clear & the US Government at the federal level has long since over stepped itself & IMO should be forced to go back to the ideal of the Founders (& its why I framed the throw the Constitution in the Garbage thread)
" Whensoever the general government (Federal Government) assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unathoritative, void & of no force " T. Jefferson 1798

The basic tenant of modern governing is that the central government is given the ultimate power of keeping itself in check. In our representative democracy, we elect those who we think will best perform this duty. But in fact, the central government is the protector of the constitution as well as protector of the rights of individual states. The government can change the constitution. The fact that states must ratify the passed proposal only suggests the further submission of states to the protection of the central government. If three-fourths of the state legislatures ratify the amendment, the other fourth has to deal with it.

the good of themselves & have twisted the concepts of the Constitution, which makes it difficult for them to do what they please (which is exactly why the founders of the Constitution framed it that way)

Absolutely not. The constitution was framed with vague language in order to be a living document.


Feb 26/10 Greta asks Charles Krauthammer
Whether people we send to Congress should vote their conscience or ours (their constituents)
Krauthammer answers - "That's the great question since Edmond Burke. He thought you should vote your conscience or conception of what the National need is "
Krauthammer went on to say,"He thinks Obama is allowed to go forward with health care reforms & respects the Presidents right or ability or notion that he needs to act int he Nations interests as he sees fit"

None of them understand That it is a politicians Sworn Duty to obey the Constitution reguardless of what he thinks or what his constituents want.
THere has been no appeal of the Constitution & it is why it is still being used to swear elected officials to office.

Again, that's because it is a living document and subject to change. We have processes in this country dealing with this issue.


All the bullshit pulled by politicians over turning this documents limitations & allowing subjective opinions to rule is why your nation is in the mess its in!

that those with vision like Ron Paul get a chance to fix it ( chances are I'll win all lotteries in Canada next week first!

consistency is the only aspect of Ron Paul's "vision" that is worth admiring. His political mindset is to deny the role the central government had in molding the country (like mandating healthcare and gun ownership back in the 1790s). And then to further discredit himself, he claims to be a student of economics while championing the gold standard, give me a break.


BBS Signature
Globex
Globex
  • Member since: Nov. 9, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Feb. 1st, 2012 @ 04:46 PM Reply

The only reason Obama was elected in the first place was because he's black, so far all he's succeded with is making the world hate the US even more than it did before he came, I mean the peace prize? really? ...

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Feb. 1st, 2012 @ 07:07 PM Reply

At 2/1/12 04:46 PM, Globex wrote: The only reason Obama was elected in the first place was because he's black, so far all he's succeded with is making the world hate the US even more than it did before he came, I mean the peace prize? really? ...

Show me your sources, because you're very wrong.

Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 20th, 2012 @ 10:34 PM Reply

Bumped due to popular demand.

Anyone care to continue the musings from the other Obama thread in their proper venue?

n64kid
n64kid
  • Member since: Aug. 27, 2001
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 06:32 PM Reply

At 18 hours ago, Camarohusky wrote: Bumped due to popular demand.

Anyone care to continue the musings from the other Obama thread in their proper venue?

Ok, let's get to it.

http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/M

I'm assuming you're accepting some of the information on profits from the other thread as fact.
Supply and demand, aka the markets determine oil prices based on the current and future economic landscape. Politics shape those landscapes.

Everything's connected. Teacher orders a ream of paper in Nevada, and a tree gets chopped down in Georgia. Riots going on in India and production of canola oil drops in Canada.

I don't buy this one bit at all. If this were really the case gas prices would have shot up a while ago. Obama's rhetoric and stance toward energy has not changed since he became President. I seriously doubt the oil companies somehow just woke up to these long standing opinions and policies on New Year's Day.

Oil companies didn't just wake up and alter the price of fuel to gouge us. As a history major, I'm not sure how financially literate you are or what experience you have in business. Not that it's a bad thing though, just means your train of thought might not be the right one to make arguments on economics and global markets. Did you take M&A or taxation in law school?

The sanctions on Iran and Iran threatening to cut oil off from basically Europe caused the spike this year. War on Iran is obviously not what I'm suggesting, but negotiations with Iran aren't working and that's all Obama is doing. Turning his back on our ally Israel while appeasing Iran in negotiations is only giving Iran more leverage and making the crisis worse. Like it or not, President Obama is President of the free world and has the responsibility to protect our interests, which is cheaper oil.

You can argue that it's not his responsibility to meddle with Iran, be passive, whatever. But when and oil producing country like Iran comes out with a threat, oil prices will go up, as they have. If Obama doesn't come up with a solution, oil prices will stay high. So far I've only heard him make speeches where he assumes the GOP's plan is drill baby drill, and then bashes them for it. Saying green energy will save us isn't a concrete solution for our short and long term energy needs.

This is just one factor where Obama's actions, or lack of action has led to higher prices at the pump. I'm highlighting this as you seem to only bring up the most recent spike earlier this year.


Tolerance comes with tolerance of the intolerant. True tolerance doesn't exist.

BBS Signature
Camarohusky
Camarohusky
  • Member since: Jun. 22, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 09
Movie Buff
Response to Obama: Deserve re-election? Mar. 21st, 2012 @ 11:12 PM Reply

At 4 hours ago, n64kid wrote: Supply and demand, aka the markets determine oil prices based on the current and future economic landscape. Politics shape those landscapes.

I don't doubt that. But in reality, market prices are driven by the market. It's extremely rare that government action, even heavy government action, has any substantial effect on market prices.

Everything's connected. Teacher orders a ream of paper in Nevada, and a tree gets chopped down in Georgia.

Likely.

Riots going on in India and production of canola oil drops in Canada.

Too attenuated to make your point. Better example? Oil refining productivity in the US is lowered by 5% and gas prices raise by close to 80 cents in three months.

Oil companies didn't just wake up and alter the price of fuel to gouge us. As a history major, I'm not sure how financially literate you are or what experience you have in business. Not that it's a bad thing though, just means your train of thought might not be the right one to make arguments on economics and global markets. Did you take M&A or taxation in law school?

I have taken several contracts course, two classes of business entities, a class on international arbitration, one on International business (taking two classes to focus solely on international oilfield contracts), and a course on securities.

I know the oil companies didn't decide to gouge us. There's likely some gouging going on (see how prices are quick to rise and extremely slow to fall), but that has been for quite a while. I understand that two things control the price of more than antyhing else: International supply, and Domestic Capacity to refine and ship. The cause of the most recent spike is a result of recent changes in the latter, not of anything that Obama has done.

The sanctions on Iran and Iran threatening to cut oil off from basically Europe caused the spike this year. War on Iran is obviously not what I'm suggesting, but negotiations with Iran aren't working and that's all Obama is doing. Turning his back on our ally Israel while appeasing Iran in negotiations is only giving Iran more leverage and making the crisis worse. Like it or not, President Obama is President of the free world and has the responsibility to protect our interests, which is cheaper oil.

Alternative to diplomacy? War? We saw how the Iraq war affected oil prices. Diplomacy is the exact right thing to do. It attempts to preserve trade line and oil infrastructure while affecting change int he region that would provide more stability thus providing better ability to exploit the oil.


Saying green energy will save us isn't a concrete solution for our short and long term energy needs.

But green energy is the long term solution. Oil will run out. It's only a matter of time. I know we have a good deal of time, but when it's gone it's gone. Oil isn't just used in gas either. How many things do we use that are made of plastic? We need to find some other renewable way to replace oil for no other purpose than our energy and national security in the future and for the sake of our economy. Once oil is gone the world economy will not only hurt, it will likely dissolve completely. Frankly, we Americans do need to get used to more expensive energy, because that will be the way of the future once the oil tit has been suckled dry.

On the larger point, what caused prices to rise when beeligerence happens is uncertainty. The uncertainty we have with Iran has nothing to with Obama. The uncertainty rests with Israel. They are a ticking timebomb waiting to go off and drag us into what would wuickly become a holy war. All Obama could really do is physically stop israel, but that would be its own can of worms.

This is just one factor where Obama's actions, or lack of action has led to higher prices at the pump. I'm highlighting this as you seem to only bring up the most recent spike earlier this year.

The reason I only bring it up is because before it spiked no one was saying anything about how Obama is doing bad because of gas prices. I am contesting that Obama has really had anything to do with the recent jump because it is specifically that jump that the Republican candidates are blaming him for.