At 11/7/12 09:01 PM, yinyangman wrote:

At 11/7/12 12:27 AM, LemonCrush wrote: More killing, more debt, less freedom. Obama voters are clinically retarded.

Bush did miserably as president by embezzling our tax money on a war that didn't need to be started, in spite of 9/11. So I'll have to consider you clinically retarded.

What he said is true for every president not just any one president.

Gonna hit you with a hard exit poll. 42% of Obama voters believed the handling of Hurricane Sandy was a deciding factor! Unbelievable! There are cities still dealing with day 1 problems of that storm. Not to mention how easy it is to spend Federal money and show up and hug people. It's not a test of leadership, but of image.

I predict that the liberal excuse for Obama's lack of leadership in handling this recession in 2016 will be that "The House never agreed with him on anything."

It is the responsibility of the President, as a leader, to bring both sides to the table and compromise. This is what Romney did in Massachusetts. You know why this won't happen? Because Obama has already submitted his own budget that was rejected by his own party members, he can't even work with them on it. Unfortunately I see gridlock on major issues, and at a crucial time in our economy. If Obama wants a legacy to look forward to (Obamacare is not his legacy with 6 out of 10 fearing it), he will compromise. A narcissist would want a legacy.

At 11/7/12 10:59 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 11/7/12 04:09 PM, HiryuGouki wrote:

Proof please. Otherwise, you can shut the hell up and get out. Plus, if you don't like our President so much, move to Canada. It's right there.

I don't see why I'm bothering with this. You're simply put, too blind and stupid to realize it.

here. now, it's time for you to start bleating about how great Obama is and how this is somehow out of context.

Hey Korriken, I actually went back to this video today because I remembered him saying this. That once he's re-elected, he'll have more flexibility. "Whoa whoa whoa, what makes him think his record earns him a 2nd term?" I thought. Our only hope of a balance of power is in the House right now. Do Obama supporters even realize that a balance of power is one of the few things preventing us from becoming a complete dictatorship?

At 11/7/12 09:44 PM, JeremyLokken wrote: Gonna hit you with a hard exit poll. 42% of Obama voters believed the handling of Hurricane Sandy was a deciding factor! Unbelievable! There are cities still dealing with day 1 problems of that storm. Not to mention how easy it is to spend Federal money and show up and hug people. It's not a test of leadership, but of image.

That seems like a much bigger percentage, last I checked it was around 15% which pretty much decided the election anyway. But at the very least this was a rather crucial time, he could either continue campaigning or he could have gone back and provided relief and ignore the politics. Bush in the middle of his 2nd term had a chance to respond quickly to Katrina and instead he mishandled it in the worst way possible, this killed his popularity and in turn the popularity of his party (which by then was already declining to begin with).

I predict that the liberal excuse for Obama's lack of leadership in handling this recession in 2016 will be that "The House never agreed with him on anything."

Depends, the economy is largely out of his control and all he can do to fix it is make more regulations and safety nets. So who knows maybe by next year the economy will pick up.

It is the responsibility of the President, as a leader, to bring both sides to the table and compromise. This is what Romney did in Massachusetts.

I'd like to point out Romney narrowly won election as a 1 term governor and was hugely unpopular by the end of that term. By the end of his term Mass. was 47th in job growth nationwide, not that this was his fault since Mass.'s economy was based around technology and he was governor during the effects of the dot.com burst, but he certainly wasn't able to turn the economy around there.

You know why this won't happen? Because Obama has already submitted his own budget that was rejected by his own party members, he can't even work with them on it.

It's more complex then that. What happened was that he worked with House Republicans on a budget, that budget got passed in the House of course but then Senate Republicans presented the appropriations bill as one of their own budgets so that Senate Democrats would shoot it down, and they themselves shot it down, so it got no votes. I'm not entirely sure exactly why that happened though, you'd assume that the Senate leaders aren't THAT full of shit or stupid.

Unfortunately I see gridlock on major issues, and at a crucial time in our economy.

Not his fault anyway.

If Obama wants a legacy to look forward to (Obamacare is not his legacy with 6 out of 10 fearing it), he will compromise. A narcissist would want a legacy.

Obama has tried to compromise, in fact he did that with Obamacare when the Democrats held the majority in both houses.

At 11/7/12 08:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: What does that even mean? I said EQUAL. Neither one controlling the other.

Because it isn't really equal.

At 11/7/12 08:53 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Which is exactly why we shouldn't be starting/supporting wars that have literally nothing to do with us

He hasn't been supporting wars, in fact he's been leaving them.

blah blah blah people put that on every politician nowadays. Although I don't think he's the worst, since he's added more regulations.

Don't think he's the worst...what?

Worst corporate junky or whatever you were saying. My point was that his legislation wasn't too corporate-friendly.

A) It's not the difference in values or anything. It's that they let a non-issue like abortion decide their vote

You think it's a non-issue, it's not to everyone. It's like electing a racist, yah you can argue why it isn't that big of a deal BUT HE'S STILL A RACIST!

B) I didn't attack anyone

You were attacking Obama.

C) Romney outlined his plan and policy numerous times in debates. People didn't listen

I talked about them, he released some tax plan that was incomplete, his "plan" he talked about was pretty damn broad and just simple goals like get the economy going and Obama/Biden/Clinton shot them all down for that. Everyone listened.

D) If a "right to your own body" (btw, there is no right like that anywhere in the bill of rights or any amendment) is so damn important to, say democrats, why do they vote for a leader who won't touch the issue?

Because he's not the guy running on the platform of "ABORTION WILL BE ILLEGAL IN ALL CASES EVEN IN RAPE AND INCEST". The Tea party seems to have had candidates like that show killed their political careers such as Todd Akin and Murdouck.

E) People who look at the economy and say "Oh this is good" are retarded

Depends in which state you live in or your personal situation. Obviously it hasn't been that bad considering that Obama won re-election.

words

Romney is not far right dude lol. Obama is more like Bush than Romney is.

Oh he himself isn't, but during the primaries he positioned himself far right to get the nomination. This is mainly because of the witch hunt by the TEA party to weed out more moderate candidates. That was what I was referring to, the influence of too right wing forces on the Republican party is really holding them back in Presidential elections.

At 11/7/12 05:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote: They should be. The fact that they get away with so much is a reflection on the voting population, not the system itself.

What are they "getting away with" that you find unacceptable? I'm not suggesting their lily white, I just think specifics help us to work through issues and broaden understanding.

The system the Founders envisioned was a world where people had EQUAL power to the government (hence the whole damn bill of rights). That power is still in place, people just don't give a shit.

Uh no. The Founders only allowed white, male, land owners to vote initially. They wanted only the SMART people voting. I think an argument could be made that the Founders may actually be somewhat horrified by the idea of the system the way it is now. The book I'm currently reading on the subject that points to thoughts the Founders had on what expanded population does to our system (which is right in line with the Iroqouis who influenced it) seems to agree with this long held suspicion of mine.

Obama is a proven, admitted, and proud killer, and people still voted for him.

Huh what where how? If you're going to speak about the war, or ordered attacks, he's no more a killer then any other President whose done the same (and not gotten attacked), and less so then military Presidents (like Eisenhower) who served in the military and would have actually killed people in combat on their way up to their higher command positions.

He is a corporatist/crony capitalist in the worst possible way, and he still won.

Examples?

People care more about media portrayals, and feel good words than they do actual observed actions and history.

Some people also suck at facts and fact checking, and would rather stick to the lies and half truths their favorite pundits give them. Like the people who want to argue this President has done absolutely zero to get re-elected.

They vote with their emotions, not their brains.

Absurd over-generalization.

I've heard people actually say they didn't vote for Romney because of ABORTION.

I've heard people actually say they won't vote for Obama because he's BLACK. Or because he's a SOCIALIST (LOL!!!). Or because he wasn't BORN HERE (I can't lol...that one is just ridiculously sad). Or because he's a MUSLIM (totally not true).

Point is, there's retards on all sides, I'm tired of this one sided agenda based arguing. Dummies know no party boundaries.

An issue that no president, democrat or republican, even tries to touch.

Bullshit, they comment on it all the time in their primary campaigns. It's something they talk about all the time because they know that it is outside their bounds to touch or deal with, the Supreme Court ruled on it, game is over because of it. But since much of the electorate that gets fired up about the issue is ignorant of that fact, it's an easy hot button to push, and then never really have to be expected to do anything with.

Also, the direct flaming I'm seeing WILL stop. One ban has been handed out already, I'll do more, and I'll do them without hesitation or discrimination. Be civil and follow the forum rules or be gone. There's no reason to get personal with each other just because you disagree politically. Only warning.

At 11/8/12 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote: remember Herman Cain's supposed women that all suddenly came forward and sunk his campaign? of course you do, it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house"? of course you do it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Obama claiming he visited 57 out of 58 (of 60 total, couldn't visit alaska and hawaii) states? only if you saw it on youtube. why? because apparently Obama isn't a retard for not knowing there are only (currently) 50 states in the union, but Palin is a retard for cracking a joke about being able to see Russia from her house.

Palin never actually said that. It also wasn't meant as a joke. She was being asked in an interview about her foreign policy experience, and she responded by saying basically that Russia being so close that you could see it from some parts of Alaska was some kind of experience. All she managed to do was bring attention to the fact that she had absolutely no foreign policy experience, and using such a memorably dumb excuse of an example only cemented the perception of her as a foreign policy lightweight.

Obama's comment was clearly a misstatement. I don't think even you could make the argument that Obama ACTUALLY thought there were 57 states when he made that comment.

What you seem to be missing is the fundamentals of why some gaffes causes damage to the candidate and why some gaffes don't. It's all about whether or not the gaffe reinforces a negative perception of the candidate that is already there. Palin was already being questioned about her level of knowledge before she was ever asked this question in the interview, so when she gave her comical response, it prompted another news cycle focused on her stupidity. And it's not like this was the only instance of her showing off her ignorance; she kept making gaffes to this effect over and over and over, and seeing as the being able to see Russia was one of the most memorable and silly ones, that was the one that stuck in the minds of people, becoming the meme it is today.

By contrast, Obama is pretty clearly an intelligent person, as was evidenced by his eloquent speeches, his Harvard education, and the fact that he had written two books, so it would never even occur to anybody to question whether or not Obama knew the number of states in the Union. Thus, trying to paint Obama as someone with such an immense lack of geographical knowledge was an exceedingly tough sell, which is why it didn't stick.

At 11/7/12 11:53 PM, Warforger wrote: Bush in the middle of his 2nd term had a chance to respond quickly to Katrina and instead he mishandled it in the worst way possible, this killed his popularity and in turn the popularity of his party (which by then was already declining to begin with).

If you remember, Bush was clearly upset with the way Louisiana refused to handle Katrina responsibly. It was 3 days out, and the Governor had not started the process with FEMA. Bush contacted Blanco on requesting the proper process for Federal aid, and she refused, thinking it would be a state of martial law. All the mishandlings of Katrina in Louisiana fall upon the local officials.

Depends, the economy is largely out of his control and all he can do to fix it is make more regulations and safety nets. So who knows maybe by next year the economy will pick up.

Yeah, who knows, maybe unicorns will magically save the economy. It's regulations that are driving businesses out of CA, and preventing growth. Obama owns this economy, and he was in complete control of it from 2008-2009 with a full super majority. He did nothing to fix the economy. In fact, he jeopardized it with a radical healthcare plan. If you take the stance that Obama has almost no control over the economy, then you have to take the stance that Bush had almost no control over the economy. It's the same position handling the same job.

Unfortunately I see gridlock on major issues, and at a crucial time in our economy.

Not his fault anyway.

He is the leader of the United States and remains partisan. That is failure to negotiate and compromise. He demands the other side to go against their values and beliefs to get what he wants (example: public assisted abortion) without compromising his own, or sacrificing anything. This is not how government functions. That is a sign of narcissism and weakness.

If Obama wants a legacy to look forward to (Obamacare is not his legacy with 6 out of 10 fearing it), he will compromise. A narcissist would want a legacy.

Obama has tried to compromise, in fact he did that with Obamacare when the Democrats held the majority in both houses.

Obamacare was anything but compromise. Congress was pissed off they didn't have a chance to read the 2,000 pages in the few days given. Pelosi said, "we have to pass it before we know what is in it." It was reckless and radical. Very messy government. And it was rammed through in a partisan manner and still remains unpopular by the majority of Americans.

At 11/8/12 12:50 AM, Korriken wrote: remember Herman Cain's supposed women that all suddenly came forward and sunk his campaign? of course you do, it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL.

That sort of sexual harrassment IS a big deal.

Do you remember Palin saying "I can see Russia from my house"? of course you do it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL. Do you remember Obama claiming he visited 57 out of 58 (of 60 total, couldn't visit alaska and hawaii) states? only if you saw it on youtube. why? because apparently Obama isn't a retard for not knowing there are only (currently) 50 states in the union, but Palin is a retard for cracking a joke about being able to see Russia from her house.

Can you not seriously see the difference here? Obama makes a small number flop here and there. Palin was NOTORIOUS for completely making up history. She was the Dan Quayle of the 2000s. If Obama was known to make so many stupid, egregiously stupid, responses it would have been different.

Do you remember the media frenzy about Obama being lost when his teleprompter breaks? of course not. apparently that wasn't a big deal either.

That is not a big deal. Who cares if he's lost when his speech, written by very intelligent people, crafted specifically for the situation goes down. Why not claim a serious gaffe when the motorcade breaks down?

Do you remember the media frenzy when there were no WMDs found in Iraq? of course, it was headline news for a bloody month. it was a HUGE FREAKING DEAL that Bush lied (despite being given the same intel everyone else got).

Several trillion dollars, and thousands of American men down the toilet based on a political gambit.

do you remember the media frenzy when it was discovered that Obama lied about the Benghazi attack? of course not. there wasn't one. Apparently knowing there was a connection to an islamist militia within 24 hours and continuously harping on about a youtube video being blamed for it is not lying.

Some conservtives get miffed in a an attempt to stop the bleeding among the people of the Middle East.

See the difference?

What's the difference between extravagant parties and magnificent parties? simple.
Bush - $42 million for parties - Extravagant party
Obama - $41.4 million for parties- Magnificent party
who decided this? the media. Bush's inaugural parties were an extravagant party for the rich elite, attended by the rich elite, Obama's parties were a magnificent display.... attended by the rich elite.

I don't remember any big deal over the parties Bush had.

If the media gave Obama the same treatment Bush got, he would have never been elected and Hillary Clinton would be in the white house right now.

Seriously, Korriken, I know you're a die hard conservative, but could you at least TRY to inject some intelligence and rational thought into your ideas? You're scraping the bottom of the barrel comparing a Blood dealer to friggen Pablo Francisco and asking why the dealer isn't being treated as bad. It's pretty damn easy to see why.

Your media point may not be wrong, but the evidence you have provided has only served to prove your inability to properly assess evidence.

At 11/8/12 02:26 AM, JeremyLokken wrote: If you remember, Bush was clearly upset with the way Louisiana refused to handle Katrina responsibly. It was 3 days out, and the Governor had not started the process with FEMA. Bush contacted Blanco on requesting the proper process for Federal aid, and she refused, thinking it would be a state of martial law. All the mishandlings of Katrina in Louisiana fall upon the local officials.

Bush shouldn't have waited for the local officials. FEMA should have at least been moibilized and waiting right after they knew it was a Category 5. It wasn't.

Yeah, who knows, maybe unicorns will magically save the economy. It's regulations that are driving businesses out of CA, and preventing growth. Obama owns this economy, and he was in complete control of it from 2008-2009 with a full super majority. He did nothing to fix the economy. In fact, he jeopardized it with a radical healthcare plan. If you take the stance that Obama has almost no control over the economy, then you have to take the stance that Bush had almost no control over the economy. It's the same position handling the same job.

No Obama was NEVER in control of the economy. The economy is a complex web and there is very little the government can do to directly hurt it. Don;t give me the "tax hurts busienss" bullshit. The only way tax hurts business is that the greedy owners cut out money that would otherwise go to the business to make up for their own taxes. It is actually owners who hurt business, not the taxes.

He is the leader of the United States and remains partisan. That is failure to negotiate and compromise. He demands the other side to go against their values and beliefs to get what he wants (example: public assisted abortion) without compromising his own, or sacrificing anything. This is not how government functions. That is a sign of narcissism and weakness.

Failure to negotiate and compromise? WTF? Is your definition of compromise "bend over and let your opponents fuck you"? Obama offered numerous compromises to which the Republicans said "If it's not exactly what we wanted to begin with, it was not a compromise."

Obamacare was anything but compromise. Congress was pissed off they didn't have a chance to read the 2,000 pages in the few days given. Pelosi said, "we have to pass it before we know what is in it." It was reckless and radical. Very messy government. And it was rammed through in a partisan manner and still remains unpopular by the majority of Americans.

Obamacare was a compromise. Obamacare was the creation of Republicans, from the Romneycare to the healthcare plan by the Republicans under Clinton. The ONLY reason the Republicans didn't like it now is because of the name on it (Hint: OBAMA).

At 11/8/12 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: No Obama was NEVER in control of the economy. The economy is a complex web and there is very little the government can do to directly hurt it. Don;t give me the "tax hurts busienss" bullshit. The only way tax hurts business is that the greedy owners cut out money that would otherwise go to the business to make up for their own taxes.

Classic reasoning of Obama's ideal voter: taxes don't depress the economy, evil GREEDY businessmen do. You're chiding korriken for not making intelligent contributions to the discussion and here you are claiming that higher taxes don't negatively affect commerce.

Failure to negotiate and compromise? WTF? Is your definition of compromise "bend over and let your opponents fuck you"? Obama offered numerous compromises to which the Republicans said "If it's not exactly what we wanted to begin with, it was not a compromise."

Like what? When your starting proposal is totally outrageous, like raising taxes on anyone during a recession, watering it down a bit doesn't make it a compromise.

Obamacare was a compromise. Obamacare was the creation of Republicans, from the Romneycare to the healthcare plan by the Republicans under Clinton. The ONLY reason the Republicans didn't like it now is because of the name on it (Hint: OBAMA).

Created by republicans? As though "republicans" is one monolithic, homogenous group with no difference in opinion in its members?
Despite the similar goals, there's enough of a difference between what Romney helped bring about in MA and what Obamacare became to justify opposition to the bill, such as the dramatic cuts to Medicare reimbursements, the taxes on device manufacturers, the birth control mandates, the overreach into private companies' budgets, and the basic fact that the legislation, despite its trillion dollar price tag, does very little to actually bring down healthcare costs (the measures that could bring costs down cost relatively little to implement).

At 11/8/12 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Obamacare was a compromise. Obamacare was the creation of Republicans, from the Romneycare to the healthcare plan by the Republicans under Clinton. The ONLY reason the Republicans didn't like it now is because of the name on it (Hint: OBAMA).

Obama enjoyed a super majority for 2 years. Look at that picture, does that look like compromise? It looks like partisan politics. Many liberals are turning into zealots. They are completely committed to the cause, no-matter-what. They don't understand that power must be balanced and that people have to work together. Screw the other side and their beliefs. And they don't understand why thoughts of Hitler come into focus. He is an unchecked leader and gets a free pass on whatever he wants to do. Obamacare fucks EVERY American. And I'm glad the President finally accepted the term "Obamacare" during the debates. History will show that Obamacare crippled the country for decades to come.

A Real look at Obama's Health Care Plan

If compromises were made, there would be votes on both sides. Obama didn't give a shit.

At 11/8/12 02:29 PM, Profanity wrote:

What you just said is that the 45 million Americans without health insurance should be allowed to go without healthcare because they couldn't afford it.

13 key signifiers of Fascism.
#2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

Obama won because, while he isn't that good, the alternative is worse.

Most arguments made for Romney were actually arguments agaisnt Obama. Admit it, does anybody anywhere in any point in time ever knew exactly was were Romney's stances on anything? No; Romney was too inconsistent in his views in many major issues.

Related to that (get ready for some serious Looper style shit in this paragraph), Romney lost because he was basically running agaisnt himself. The Romney in the beginning of his campaign was not the same Romney at the end of his campaign. Thus, Past Romney essentially killed Future Romney, by way of changing his beliefs mid-campaign, thus Romney splitting himself into two separate quantic beings running against themselves-

Mind=Blown.

The fact that Romney went out of its way to fuck Ron Paul and his followers in the ass ultimately destroyed him. He and his party (more on that in a moment) were not aware of the slow but steady demographic shift that has been happening in the last couple years. 11 percent of voters were black, 10 percent Latino, and 19 percent young voters.

By fucking Ron Paul and followers in the ass ultimately destroyed his appeal to the three tiers mentioned above. (Yes, Paul was popular with the above mentioned).

And finally, Romney lost because of the Republican Party. On the last couple years, the Republican Party went way far right for their own good. What once was the Party of personal responsability, laissez-faire and the triumph of Capitalism, ultimately turned into a bunch of theocrats forcing their Catholic values on everyone else, war-crazy PTSD-struck psychopaths, racists, and Glenn Beck.

Unless the Republican Party goes out of its way to reevaluate itself and glance of the mess it turned into, like the Democrats did in the 90's with Clinton, they may as well cease to exist.

At 11/8/12 01:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: Classic reasoning of Obama's ideal voter: taxes don't depress the economy, evil GREEDY businessmen do. You're chiding korriken for not making intelligent contributions to the discussion and here you are claiming that higher taxes don't negatively affect commerce.

Wages get deducted from gross income. So if the wages are deducted from gross income, how exactly does higher taxes, which do not cover income that goes to employee wages, hurt jobs?

Like what? When your starting proposal is totally outrageous, like raising taxes on anyone during a recession, watering it down a bit doesn't make it a compromise.

So in order to compromise he has to give up the only point he wants? That's not compromise, that's submission.

Created by republicans? As though "republicans" is one monolithic, homogenous group with no difference in opinion in its members?

Pass the buck. Who needs personal responsibility when you're a Republican? Face it, Obamacare immitates the Republican proposal of a country 20 years more conservative, and now it's too liberal? Petty gamesmanship at its best. If things were different and the same exact legislation was called MCCaincare you can be damn sure that the Republicans would have cummed on it 100 times each.

such as the dramatic cuts to Medicare reimbursements,

If you had a shred of knowledge about the ACA you'd ralize those numbers are projected. Projected on what? Projected on less NEED to pay those reimbursements are a result of funnelling what is not dual medicare medicaid coverage into just one of the two programs.

the birth control mandates,

Because The Conservatives would rather pay hundreds of thousands per unwanted child than a few bucks here and there for a rubber... Penny pinchers only when they want to be.

the overreach into private companies' budgets,

By providing them a cheaper alternative?

and the basic fact that the legislation, despite its trillion dollar price tag, does very little to actually bring down healthcare costs (the measures that could bring costs down cost relatively little to implement).

So the attempt to shift the payment of healthcare from a procedure based (whcih rewards subpar and shoddy work) to a quaity based system, thus ncouraging proper procedures the first time isn't saving money? Encouraging people to get preventative care for simple things like exhaustion, constipation, toothaches, stomachaches and so on that are cheap to fix, but if left alone could become expensive problems such as intestinal rupture, absess, ulcers is more expensive?

What fucking business school did the GOP get straght Fs in?

At 11/8/12 01:03 PM, adrshepard wrote: Classic reasoning of Obama's ideal voter: taxes don't depress the economy, evil GREEDY businessmen do. You're chiding korriken for not making intelligent contributions to the discussion and here you are claiming that higher taxes don't negatively affect commerce.

Would you seriously make the case that if taxes were higher than they are right now for upper income brackets it would be bad for the economy? Because I'd love to hear it!

At 11/6/12 11:21 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/6/12 11:20 PM, koopahermit wrote: Obama is president for 4 more years!
Discuss.

Enjoy your new Dictator guy's.

I know, this is going to be awful, I think

At 11/8/12 04:54 PM, jimbobmuffincake wrote:

At 11/6/12 11:21 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 11/6/12 11:20 PM, koopahermit wrote: Obama is president for 4 more years!
Discuss.

Enjoy your new Dictator guy's.

I know, this is going to be awful, I think

Well that is up to Obama now as "the people" that voted him in, the people that don't give a shit, and the people that oppose him are all locked into a 4 year dictatorship in where Obama can do what ever he wants including start WWIII with China and Russia and there is fuck all anyone can do about it. Welcome to thew Republic Of America where you have the option to choose 1of 2 dictators but you do not have a say in anything else after that.

At 11/8/12 05:54 PM, JMHX wrote: >Someone has policies I don't like
>Dictator

What does Obama do when he talks on TV he "Dictates" to "The People" what is going to happen heck he even uses Rhetorical Bombast and talks down to people just like a Dictator. Modern dictators have usually come to power in times of emergency such as 9/11. A dictator is a ruler with total power or is someone who rules by force including Wars of Terror, Police state, Obsession with National Security, regardless of what others want or need Though I will admit Obama is quite a benevolent Dictator.

At 11/8/12 06:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: TV he "Dictates" to "The People" what is going to happen

I'm pretty sure the term "dictator" when used in the political context doesn't apply merely to "one who dictates".

At 11/8/12 06:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/8/12 06:05 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: TV he "Dictates" to "The People" what is going to happen

I'm pretty sure the term "dictator" when used in the political context doesn't apply merely to "one who dictates".

However when that person whom is doing the dictating was appointed by his people to do there thinking and decision making for them then this would be a Dictator. Obama is a Nationalist Dictator operating under a Peoples Republic for another 4 years term and in this time you will not have any say not even a little bit.

At 11/8/12 06:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: However when that person whom is doing the dictating was appointed by his people to do there thinking and decision making for them then this would be a Dictator.

Still not the definition of a political dictator.

At 11/8/12 02:26 AM, JeremyLokken wrote: Yeah, who knows, maybe unicorns will magically save the economy. It's regulations that are driving businesses out of CA, and preventing growth.

Living in CA that is not the case. Businesses are not leaving CA because of regulations, it's more because the economy had been declining since the dot.com burst.

Obama owns this economy, and he was in complete control of it from 2008-2009 with a full super majority. He did nothing to fix the economy.

Stimulus.

In fact, he jeopardized it with a radical healthcare plan.

It hasn't even gone into effect.

If you take the stance that Obama has almost no control over the economy, then you have to take the stance that Bush had almost no control over the economy. It's the same position handling the same job.

Right, I do treat Bush like that. Now the government does have influence, but it does not control the actions of businessmen that much, which are what's keeping things from going. For example, there's around 32 trillion in offshore accounts by US businessmen, this is of course contributing to the recession.

He is the leader of the United States and remains partisan. That is failure to negotiate and compromise.

You know i pointed out he did, and the fault was in the house and senate.

He demands the other side to go against their values and beliefs to get what he wants (example: public assisted abortion) without compromising his own, or sacrificing anything.

Um that's been the case for like decades in terms of family planning, but he hasn't done anything. Now if you count all forms of Birth Control as abortion then perhaps.

This is not how government functions. That is a sign of narcissism and weakness.

Alright, tell me, how is going to comrpomise when your party has the majority in Congress, having a Senate minority leader saying their #1 goal is to deny him a second term and one where even when he worked with Republicans on a budget it died in the Senate. Tell me what part of that is his fault?

Obamacare was anything but compromise. Congress was pissed off they didn't have a chance to read the 2,000 pages in the few days given. Pelosi said, "we have to pass it before we know what is in it." It was reckless and radical. Very messy government. And it was rammed through in a partisan manner and still remains unpopular by the majority of Americans.

lulz. Nope, originally it was a government option, it would have established a government run healthcare company. He went to the Republicans with this, they presented the idea of a healthcare mandate, an idea that originated back in the 90's from the Heritage foundation and something they presented as an alternative to Clintons healthcare reform and he accepted it and made it into Obamacare (hence why Romneycare is the same as Obamacare). The Republicans in response became hostile to even this and didn't vote for it. So someone was partisan of this case, it probably wasn't Obama.

At 11/8/12 07:14 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 11/8/12 06:45 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: However when that person whom is doing the dictating was appointed by his people to do there thinking and decision making for them then this would be a Dictator.

Still not the definition of a political dictator.

Dictator - one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator
Yup Obama's a Dictator for sure.

At 11/8/12 07:48 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Dictator - one ruling absolutely and often oppressively
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictator
Yup Obama's a Dictator for sure.

You have two things to prove here:

Absolute.

Oppressive.

Get on it. Sources. REAL sources.

At 11/8/12 07:51 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

You have two things to prove here:

Don't have anything to prove it's just the reality of things as they currently stand.

Absolute.

For another 4 years until the next Nationalistic Dictator under "The Peoples Republic of America" takes over the ongoing agenda of Oppression set forth by the Bush Admin ...

Oppressive.

9/11, War on Iraq, War on Drugs, War(s) of Terror, Obsession with National Security, Militarized police and Boarder control, SOPA/ PIPA, "Taxation Without Representation", Debt based FIAT currency, Oh and the single largest Oppressive Military force in the World. How's that for Oppression :-)

At 11/8/12 08:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: "Taxation Without Representation"

I don't think you understand the history and meaning of this phrase.

At 11/8/12 08:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Don't have anything to prove it's just the reality of things as they currently stand.

Yes you do. You're claiming he's absolutist and oppressive. No one else here agrees. Meaning, you must prove your affirmative claims.

For another 4 years until the next Nationalistic Dictator under "The Peoples Republic of America" takes over the ongoing agenda of Oppression set forth by the Bush Admin ...

Blah blah blah. Prove your claim, no bullshit.

9/11, War on Iraq, War on Drugs, War(s) of Terror, Obsession with National Security, Militarized police and Boarder control, SOPA/ PIPA, "Taxation Without Representation", Debt based FIAT currency, Oh and the single largest Oppressive Military force in the World. How's that for Oppression :-)

AT MOST, TWO of those things could even be tangentially considered oppression. Use sources and actually try. Spouting your conspiracy theory crap isn;t proof of anything at all.

Try again, with REAL proof this time. Like specific examples of how the American people are being oppressed by Obama specifically.

At 11/8/12 08:08 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 11/8/12 08:06 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: "Taxation Without Representation"

I don't think you understand the history and meaning of this phrase.

"Taxation Without Representation"
A situation in which a government imposes taxes on a particular group of its citizens, despite the citizens not consenting or having an actual representative deliver their views when the taxation decision was made. This situation was one of the triggering events that spurred the original thirteen American colonies to revolt against the British Empire.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax_without_representati on.asp#ixzz2BgSrr4zx
In short "Taxation Without Representation" is an illegal and illegitimate Tax Levy imposed upon the people o North America and Originally was imposed upon the USA from "The British Empire". "Taxation Without Representation" was not just when the British when doing it and likewise it is not just when the American Government does it.

At 11/8/12 11:21 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don;t give me the "tax hurts busienss" bullshit. The only way tax hurts business is that the greedy owners cut out money that would otherwise go to the business to make up for their own taxes. It is actually owners who hurt business, not the taxes.

Oh you're one of those "greed is bad" people. That explains a lot.

You're also one of those "I have no idea how running a business works" people