Remember What I Told you about Obama 4 Years Ago?

[Locke4God]

Well where are the people who just knew he'd be so great. "Best President Ever" some of you said. I would have laughed then if I wasn't shocked, and I don't know how you're not laughing now, unless you're just pissed because you realize how stupid you were for voting for him. Or unless you're pissed like I am that the joke was taken seriously.

I told you his complete lack of any real world experience would be a problem. I told you his ideal but impractical social economic policy would be a problem. I told his Health Care theory wouldn't be wanted. But there you went out and voted on a guy because he was popular.

Never thought that would happen to that office, but there it is. A full on popularity contest president. And now nobody wants his health plan, nobody trusts him on economic policy, and all he can run on is trying to make you feel like an economic or social minority and that he'll save you from whatever oppression he can make you feel is happening to you/ whatever rights he can make you feel you're lacking. He can't solve your problem of course, he'll just want to make you think Romney hates you.

Most laughably incompetent, unqualified, and ideologically flawed president ever. He's a bitter bitter man, full of ego and no substance.

He's an embarrassment to human history.

[Alpha]

Ok so when he wins again, will you finally conclude that you're wrong; that maybe not everyone agrees with you; and indeed that you hold a minority opinion?

This a short post, but once again you have made a thread with absolutely nothing to discuss but your absolute lack of critical thought.

[Locke4God]

Oh but I don't hold a minority Opinion

You Do

All Stats below can be found at the most accurate polling center in the World Rasmussen Reports™: The Most Comprehensive Public Opinion Data Anywhere

1. For the first time in five-and-a-half years of regular tracking, half of voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to the economy. The GOP now has a 50% to 39% advantage on the economy. And, of course, that's the issue voters rate by far as most important this election season.

2. Currently, 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14.

3. Just 38% believe the president has done a good or excellent job on the economy.

4. Friday was a dismal day for Team Obama with the unemployment rate inching back up and throwing cold water on hopes for an economic recovery. It’s not the kind of news the president wants to hear as he campaigns for reelection.

5. (31%) of Likely U.S. Voters now say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, May 27.

6. Sixty-four percent (64%) of Likely U.S. Voters prefer a government with fewer services and lower taxes over one with more services and higher taxes. That's consistent with findings in regular surveys for years. Just 25% prefer a government with more services and higher taxes.

7. Most voters still want to repeal President Obama’s national health care law as they have consistently in regular surveys since it was passed by Congress over two years ago.

8. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% of Likely U.S. Voters at least somewhat favor repeal of the health care law while 39% are at least somewhat opposed.


You're just wrong dude. You are in the minority, and he is a disaster. Sorry. Facts are facts, and the fact is you are the one not critically thinking.

[Joxsjua]

Watch Fox News much?

[Sasquatch]

Ok so when he wins again, will you finally conclude that you're wrong; that maybe not everyone agrees with you; and indeed that you hold a minority opinion?

Actually, it's a majority opinion that Obama is a bad President. He may win, but only because more people might think that Romney would be a worse President -- and, of course, there's the cards Obama can play. Romney's not black, Romney's rich, Romney's religious, Romney respects the Constitution, etc. etc., all of which would be marks against him for some Americans.

Watch Fox News much?

Actually, FOX News is very fair in their reporting. Keep in mind, people like Bill O'Reilly are not reporters at all, but commentators. But don't let facts stand in the way of your ignorant bias.

Anyway.

It's very easy to see why Obama's approval ratings are so dismal. The economy is down, unemployment is up, prices are up, taxes are up, spending is up, and the national deficit is (way) up. He has increased tensions through things like speaking out on the Trayvon Martin case and insulting religion, disregarded the Constitution and ignored the Supreme Court, and shoved acts through as Executive Orders when he couldn't get them through Congress. Even his wife is participating in advancing the nanny-state ideology, and it's only spreading.

[Joxsjua]

When people portray their feelings or opinions when they broadcast news it has left the realm of actual being news. It's won't be the 1st time a 'political science review' by UCLA has been influenced by big-money lobbyists.
You understand Obama's having to clean up after the worst president in history.

I think the most understated fact that Sasquatch has mentioned is that Romney's religious ...he's "Mormon". Which personally doesn't affect my bias but for all those Conservatives that claimed Obama was Muslim(he's Christian) don't let it bother them now either. Which before the hardcore Conservative's belief was "no one non-christian should be president" it's fun to watch them now turn into hypocrites in addition to their bigotry.

[loaf]

I can imagine seeing this same thread. Except titled, "Remember what i told you about McCain 4 years ago?"

[Alpha]

So this thread is about Obama's unpopularity, yet if he wins, it'll only be because the Republican candidate is _even more_ unpopular? I mean, why waste all this time on elections and tours and straw polls when Americans will be choosing between two unpopular men?

Every poll I've seen has Obama ahead. The election proper hasn't started, but it flies in the face of this hypothesis. If Obama is unpopular for not addressing the deficit, yet is performing better than the candidate of the party who uncompromisingly (imo, dangerously) wants to cut the deficit, then Obama better reflects the popular will, no?

If Obama wins, as polling suggests he will, how can his policies still be unpopular?

[Sasquatch]

When people portray their feelings or opinions when they broadcast news it has left the realm of actual being news.

... which is why there's a difference between reporters and commentators, and why I even pointed that out. To claim that FOX News is biased in their reporting because they employ commentators is ... well, it's stupid. Bill O'Reilly's job is to give his opinions -- he doesn't tell news, he tells what he thinks.

You understand Obama's having to clean up after the worst president in history.

That sounds like such an informed, intelligent statement. Good one.

Of course, I'm sure that all the things you think made Bush "the worst president in history" have been greatly expanded by Obama ... but again, don't let the facts get in the way.

I think the most understated fact that Sasquatch has mentioned is that Romney's religious ...he's "Mormon". Which personally doesn't affect my bias but for all those Conservatives that claimed Obama was Muslim(he's Christian) don't let it bother them now either.

Obama claims to be Christian, yet follows most Muslim culture, restricts Christians from practicing their beliefs, and forces Christians to act against their (and supposedly his) religion.

Which before the hardcore Conservative's belief was "no one non-christian should be president" it's fun to watch them now turn into hypocrites in addition to their bigotry.

Ah, I see what's going on here -- you believe, falsely, that Mormonism is a religion unto itself and not simply a sect of Christianity.

And where did you get that conservatives believe that no non-Christian should be President?

So this thread is about Obama's unpopularity, yet if he wins, it'll only be because the Republican candidate is _even more_ unpopular?

Basically, yes.

The same thing happened with the Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry elections. A lot of people didn't vote for Bush because they actually liked the guy; they voted for him because it was the only way to keep Gore and Kerry out of office. A big theme in this year's primaries was "ABO", or "Anybody But Obama".

I recently read that only 19% of Americans believe that the two best candidates are the two most prominent.

Every poll I've seen has Obama ahead.

You must not have seen too many polls, then -- I've seen a few with Obama ahead, but the vast majority have Romney ahead by a slim margin. Even polls in most battleground states have Romney ahead.

If Obama wins, as polling suggests he will, how can his policies still be unpopular?

While most polling suggests that he will not win, an unpopular candidate can still win on the "lesser of two evils" vote.

Hell, I don't like Romney. I would have much rather had an actual conservative candidate. But I'll support him, because the only other candidate with a chance would be Obama.

[Alpha]

I understand the lesser of two evils point, but that's not what Locke suggested is the case, nor you for that matter. The lesser of two evils argument would require a Republican candidate who had similar policies to Obama, but supports them even more fervently, assuming one dislikes Obama's policies.

Locke listed some policies, implying that Romney would do the diametric opposite of each. Surely then, Romney cannot be the lesser of two evils in relation to Obama?

Assuming the polls I've seen are correct (they may not be, obviously), then Obama is simply more popular, and Locke is just going through the motions again.

[Joxsjua]

[QUOTE=Sasquatch;1333355]... which is why there's a difference between reporters and commentators, and why I even pointed that out. To claim that FOX News is biased in their reporting because they employ commentators is ... well, it's stupid. Bill O'Reilly's job is to give his opinions -- he doesn't tell news, he tells what he thinks.
Watch every program on Fox News(even the NEWS) and tell me they aren't showing emotion and opinions in every story they report.. I wasn't referring to bill o'riley


Of course, I'm sure that all the things you think made Bush "the worst president in history" have been greatly expanded by Obama ... but again, don't let the facts get in the way.
The facts are all there. Not trying to sugarcoat anything.

Obama claims to be Christian, yet follows most Muslim culture, restricts Christians from practicing their beliefs, and forces Christians to act against their (and supposedly his) religion.
Do you think his birth certificate was forged as well and question anything that is a "topic" on FOX NEWS?

Ah, I see what's going on here -- you believe, falsely, that Mormonism is a religion unto itself and not simply a sect of Christianity.
There is such thing as a non-Christian Mormon, yes. Go find me anything where Romney says "he's Christian". I never said Mormonism didn't stem from Christian ideals but there's a fine boundary when you see how the stereotypical practices differ.

And where did you get that conservatives believe that no non-Christian should be President?
I don't see any Jewish or non-Christ believer in the Republican party... I've heard of a few agnostic, but none of them have any political power or are in office of importance.

I'm not sure where all your anger stems from Sasquatch but please don't play the telephone game with what I say and tell me how I think. It's not until people can lose their emotion, anger, and hatred; the world can begin to heal itself. You try and pick every sentence I state with some smart-ass remark like you're some respectable cyber-bully with etiquette. And by simply saying "no" and calling people "stupid" doesn't make something "not true."

[Sasquatch]

I understand the lesser of two evils point, but that's not what Locke suggested is the case, nor you for that matter. The lesser of two evils argument would require a Republican candidate who had similar policies to Obama, but supports them even more fervently, assuming one dislikes Obama's policies.

Not necessarily. There are a lot of people in the middle or slight left, for whom Obama may be too liberal for, but Romney is too conservative for. There are also people on the extremes of either end, for whom Romney is too socially conservative for, but Obama is too fiscally liberal for. (Libertarians usually support liberals on social policies, but conservatives on fiscal policy.)

And then, of course, there are the voters who focus on one primary issue. Someone may be liberal, but Obama's stance on, say, gun control makes them vote against him. Another might be conservative, but pro-abortion, and that might make them vote against Romney.

Assuming the polls I've seen are correct (they may not be, obviously), then Obama is simply more popular, and Locke is just going through the motions again.

From what I've seen, they are pretty even in the popular vote (very even, or at least between the margin of error), and Obama has more projected electoral votes, but that is sure to change in the next five and a half months. Here's an editorial from Forbes, and here is a chart and a table concerning their respective poll numbers.

Watch every program on Fox News(even the NEWS) and tell me they aren't showing emotion and opinions in every story they report.. I wasn't referring to bill o'riley

Sure, in your opinion, they may show their bias. Now, do you have anything to back up that asinine claim, or only your own voicing of ignorant, unfounded allegations?

The facts are all there. Not trying to sugarcoat anything.

The opinion that Bush was a good or bad President is just that -- an opinion. But the facts remain, if you would stop avoiding them -- more money has been taxed, more tax money has been spent, more debt has been accrued, more threats have been ignored, more jobs have been lost, more corruption has been hidden, more favors have been given, more money has been spent on vacations, more dead-ends have been financed, more rights have been restricted, and more cultural and racial division has been caused by Obama than by Bush, even in Obama's three-and-a-half years in comparison to Bush's eight.

So -- other than all of those facts -- how do you measure success as a President? Actually, don't feel obligated to answer that -- I can easily get my comedy somewhere else.

Do you think his birth certificate was forged as well and question anything that is a "topic" on FOX NEWS?

Boy, you're really on this FOX News kick, aren't you, kid?

And I don't know if his birth certificate was forged. I haven't seen it. Neither have you -- what was released was a Certificate of Live Birth, not synonymous with a Birth Certificate. But no, I'm not a "birther" who thinks Obama was born in Kenya.

There is such thing as a non-Christian Mormon, yes.

A belief in Jesus as Messiah makes one Christian. Mormonism requires a belief in Jesus as Messiah. So, no, there is no such thing as a non-Christian Mormon.

Go find me anything where Romney says "he's Christian".

"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind."
-Mitt Romney

Anything else?

I never said Mormonism didn't stem from Christian ideals but there's a fine boundary when you see how the stereotypical practices differ.

And I'm sure that all conservatives come to you for your definitions of Christianity, right?

I don't see any Jewish or non-Christ believer in the Republican party...

You don't see it, so Republicans like Arlen Specter (Republican, Jewish) must not exist, I suppose.

I've heard of a few agnostic, but none of them have any political power or are in office of importance.

Since the vast majority of Americans claim to be Christian, it would only make sense for the vast majority of politicians -- Republican and Democrat -- to claim to be Christian. Which is why the vast majority of politicians -- Republican and Democrat -- DO claim to be Christian.

And by simply saying "no" and calling people "stupid" doesn't make something "not true."

I'm actually going to quote you on this one ... "The facts are all there. Not trying to sugarcoat anything.". I just calls 'em like I sees 'em.

[Joxsjua]

This whole twist and manipulation of words, not using the full context I said them in has gotten old. I've seen this tactic used many times before trying to gear the conversation to your liking.
I'll make this short and hit on the key points:
~If you think FOX NEWS is a credible source for information not having opinions and emotions swayed to gear for a Republican agenda. Get an education and look at the big picture; there are numerous sources explaining this.
~Obama is having to clean up after Bush's war so don't expect debt to flick off like a light switch.
If threats have been ignored, call a Waaahmbulance because all terrorist ploys have been stopped during this presidency and have not hit home again.
Obama has created more jobs in 1 year than Bush created in 8.
As far as more corruption being hidden ..you must have some awesome sources for that one.
For the dead ends, were you paying attention last summer when within 3 months the Republican party voted 'against' a bill 6 times to increase taxes on people making over $250K a year, the average increase would have been $500 a year per millionaire according to World News Now. I stopped caring after that because it's obvious Republicans in congress are working their best to stop real progress and work with the President(there's your dead ends).
I can't think of a greater time our 'Rights' were taken away than the Patriot Act, can you?
I'm not sure where you get the idea that Obama has racially divided our country even more.
If you could stop being afraid and hysterical, you'll understand this is not comedy.

~There is such thing as a non-Christian Mormon, feel free to research it.
Your straying from my original statement where I mentioned Romney is a Mormon. Christians go to Christian churches, and Mormons go to Mormon churches. They also believe in "The Book of Mormon" and it's founding. There are some other fundamentals that differ from a Christian church. They are recognized as 2 separate religions.

~Arlen Specter, the Jewish guy, he's a Democrat not Republican


You tactic to not use the full context of what I say is an old trick commonly used by people in slandering others. Get off your high horse ass-hat and chill the **** out! If you like FOX News that's your own deal, so vote however you want for whatever reason you need to believe in. If you calling me a "kid" or whatever insults you need to blacken the conversation helps you sleep at night, great. This is by no means an "intellectual discussion" when so much personal emotion and hatred affect your judgement. It's a lifestyle.

[Sasquatch]

This whole twist and manipulation of words, not using the full context I said them in has gotten old. I've seen this tactic used many times before trying to gear the conversation to your liking.

Please point out any injustices you believe I've committed by taking any of your quotes out of context and manipulating them.

~If you think FOX NEWS is a credible source for information not having opinions and emotions swayed to gear for a Republican agenda. Get an education and look at the big picture; there are numerous sources explaining this.

Supposedly -- none of which you have posted. The only credible source concerning FOX News that has been posted in this thread is the study I posted that showed that FOX News has an extremely slight bias.

~Obama is having to clean up after Bush's war so don't expect debt to flick off like a light switch.

Unfortunately for your argument, the facts get in the way again -- the vast majority of Obama's spending is completely unrelated to Iraq or Afghanistan, as military and contractor spending is a very small part of our budget.

If threats have been ignored, call a Waaahmbulance because all terrorist ploys have been stopped during this presidency and have not hit home again.

Nah, it's cool if we sit back and let Iran have nukes. They never claimed to slaughter us or push our allies into the sea or anything, right?

Obama has created more jobs in 1 year than Bush created in 8.

This statement is complete bullshit. If it wasn't so sad, it would actually be funny that some people believe this.

As far as more corruption being hidden ..you must have some awesome sources for that one.

If you had your head anywhere but your own ass, you might have heard of a few situations. Do you know what Fast & Furious is, other than a bad movie? It's a program by Obama's Department of Justice that forced gun shops in the Southwest to sell illegal firearms -- including fully-automatics -- to straw buyers, so that their route to Mexico could be tracked. Except the DoJ forgot to track them, letting 200-something Mexican civilians and one Border Patrol agent be murdered. Or Solyndra, the crappy solar panel company that Obama pushed more than half a billion dollars in loans to, shortly before they declared bankruptcy.

For the dead ends, were you paying attention last summer when within 3 months the Republican party voted 'against' a bill 6 times to increase taxes on people making over $250K a year, the average increase would have been $500 a year per millionaire according to World News Now.

I was a little out of the loop last summer -- do you have any credible source with which I could learn a bit more about this?

I can't think of a greater time our 'Rights' were taken away than the Patriot Act, can you?

The Patriot Act ... that Obama continued and expanded? What about NDAA? Obamacare? Forcing religious institutions to act against their religious beliefs? Banning parents from letting their kids take food from home to school? HR 347?

I'm not sure where you get the idea that Obama has racially divided our country even more.

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

If you could stop being afraid and hysterical, you'll understand this is not comedy.

But it's still very amusing. Please, praytell ... how do you measure the success of a President?

~There is such thing as a non-Christian Mormon, feel free to research it.

For cryin' out loud, kid. They believe in Jesus as the Messiah. That's the only belief necessary for one to be Christian -- if somebody believes that Jesus is the Christ, they are Christian. There is no such thing as a non-Christian Christian.

~Arlen Specter, the Jewish guy, he's a Democrat not Republican

Ah, my mistake. He was a Republican for thirty years, and switched to the Democratic Party in 2009.

Not so for George Allen, Eric Cantor, Norm Coleman, Ileana Ros, Linda Lingle ... All Jewish Republicans.

Oh, and by the way ... after Arlen Specter switched to become a Democrat, he lost re-election. By that alone, if either party has a problem with non-Christian candidate, it's the Democratic Party. After all, Republicans had no problem voting for him.

You tactic to not use the full context of what I say is an old trick commonly used by people in slandering others.

Again, please point out where I have manipulated something out of its original context, and I will correct myself.

This is by no means an "intellectual discussion" when so much personal emotion and hatred affect your judgement. It's a lifestyle.

You mean like your hatred of conservatives, Bush, FOX News, and facts?

[Order]

Obama wil not win because the popular culture hype over voting is gone.
There are no bands on the radio singing about war and evil and change.
America remembers now that neither party is very attractive.

This election is the same as every other election I've ever seen.
It comes down to a choice between douchebags who I have little in common with, I don't respect them, I don't want them in charge of my military and I don't agree with their stances on just about everything.

I want one president who's first words were "less spending, smaller government, less tax."

It hasn't happened since Regan and it may never happen again.

You can argue about conservative vs. Liberal,
But one cares too much about abortion and the other cares too much about taking more of my money.

They all suck because not one appologizes for being part of the system which wastes more money on stupid BS than MC Hammer. Not one mentions a plan to spend less money on shit that doesn't get results.
Cut congress pay in half for four years, and at the end of it, buy ourselves an aircraftcarrier, because at least those ugly hunks of steel scare shitty people out of attacking us or eachother which is exatly one positive thing more than congress has done in the past 8 years.

Political parties can kiss my ass.
Give me a candidate who drank and ****ed and fought, lived in the streets their trying to clean up, got robbed by the jobless douches their trying to give healthcare, knew the girl who wanted the abortion, met the useless college grad who wants his loan paid off, stepped foot on the country he's trying to ally with, watched helplessly the starving kids he provides aid to never get their food because the local guerillas are still alive.

Tell me which candidate you think that is.
Obama?
My ass. You don't get into senate and presidency without ever being heard of before. Who the **** was obama before his candidacy?
He was some indesicive douche who never saw the things he was talking about and blew pole until he could run a campaign.

They're all weasles, **** suckers, pencil neck lames who never left their bubble at the age of 50 and call themselves 'experienced'.

America wants John Mclane from Diehard, Callihan from Dirty Harry, Tony Stark from Ironman as a president, not Edward Cullin.

[Mystyrion]

There is such thing as a non-Christian Mormon, feel free to research it.
Your straying from my original statement where I mentioned Romney is a Mormon. Christians go to Christian churches, and Mormons go to Mormon churches. They also believe in "The Book of Mormon" and it's founding. There are some other fundamentals that differ from a Christian church. They are recognized as 2 separate religions.

Being LDS, we claim our selves as Christian and Sasquatch has been saying.
You don't have to go to a "Christian" church to be a Christian.
As he as already stated, the only thing you need to qualify as a Christian is that you take Jesus as your messiah.

The only thing that rejects the LDS religion from being a Christian religion is an actual church or person of Christianity. Not the actual term.
So its basically someone saying we aren't, when we meet the requirements anyways.

[Joxsjua]

Referring to Obama creating jobs; you aren't stupid for being educated.

Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In Eight - YouTube

here's another..

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/20...ore-jobs-bush/
I have more sources if 2 aren't enough.


Bias Redux, my original comment was stating that Sass left out the most exciting news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...E0U_story.html

He's the first Mormon president elect in history!!

Mormons and Christians both believe in Jesus Christ. Though Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, they are not considered so by the Protestant and Catholic Christians. Both the Mormons and Christians share many things in common but there are also many differences between the two groups.

Difference Between Mormons and Christians | Difference Between | Mormons vs Christians

1. Mormons as a religious group were formed by Joseph Smith, who is regarded to have restored the church. It was in 1820s that Mormonism was founded.
2. Mormons believes in the Book of Mormon or the Mormon bible, they  also have The Pearl of great Price and Covenants and Doctrines. Christians believe in the Holy Bible.
3. For Christians, Jesus is believed to have been born to the Virgin Mary, Â whereas Mormons believe that Jesus had a natural birth.
4. The Mormons believe in a heavenly father, who has a physical body. On the other hand, Christians believe in a Trinitarian God, who has no physical body.
5. For Christians, there is one God – the Trinity, with Jesus as messiah. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity or one God, instead they have three Gods  - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

I'm not trying to divide us Bias Redux, please don't be upset.


It's pretty clear FOX News has a republican agenda in the stories they chose to cover. If you're really skeptic we can observe the most trusted man in America Jon Stewart. This guy makes his living by discrediting the emotional unbalance that is 'Fox News'.

Order and Alpha both had very good points. Although I am very on board with all three of your choices Order. I am going to call this presidency a win for Obama because no president has ran for a second term and lost. Unfortunately this is a two party system for the majority, vote for the turd sandwich or the giant duesch bag.

As for the rest of this thread, I not going to dignify with a response. All my argument turned into was a hot-tempered conservative narcissist kicking and screaming and trolling me with PM insults and name calling.

~Stay classy San Diego

[Mystyrion]

Referring to Obama creating jobs; you aren't stupid for being educated.

Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In Eight - YouTube

here's another..

Obama Created More Jobs In One Year Than Bush Created In Eight | ThinkProgress
I have more sources if 2 aren't enough.


Bias Redux, my original comment was stating that Sass left out the most exciting news:

Mitt Romney’s nomination marks milestone for Mormon faith - The Washington Post

He's the first Mormon president elect in history!!

Mormons and Christians both believe in Jesus Christ. Though Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, they are not considered so by the Protestant and Catholic Christians. Both the Mormons and Christians share many things in common but there are also many differences between the two groups.

Difference Between Mormons and Christians | Difference Between | Mormons vs Christians

1. Mormons as a religious group were formed by Joseph Smith, who is regarded to have restored the church. It was in 1820s that Mormonism was founded.
2. Mormons believes in the Book of Mormon or the Mormon bible, they  also have The Pearl of great Price and Covenants and Doctrines. Christians believe in the Holy Bible.
3. For Christians, Jesus is believed to have been born to the Virgin Mary, Â whereas Mormons believe that Jesus had a natural birth.
4. The Mormons believe in a heavenly father, who has a physical body. On the other hand, Christians believe in a Trinitarian God, who has no physical body.
5. For Christians, there is one God – the Trinity, with Jesus as messiah. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity or one God, instead they have three Gods  - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

I'm not trying to divide us Bias Redux, please don't be upset.

Not mad.
But like I said, the LDS church meets the requirements to be a Christian.
The only way the term comes around is when a Church or Person claims that we are not.

The book of Mormon is an addition to the bible. They are companions, one is not better than the other. We use a modified version of the King James Version with tons of footnotes of Joseph Smiths "corrections".
I can't comment on 3. I honestly just don't know.
4 is correct.
5. Is not entirely true. There is a God Head. Which persist of God, Jesus, and the holy ghost. That doesn't literally mean they are all Gods (except for God of course) in a sense. Especially the fact that the holy ghost hasn't obtained a body yet.

[Order]

Order and Alpha both had very good points. Although I am very on board with all three of your choices Order. I am going to call this presidency a win for Obama because no president has ran for a second term and lost. Unfortunately this is a two party system for the majority, vote for the turd sandwich or the giant duesch bag.

I don't need your damn cosign!!

I get what you mean about the second term BS.
I didn't know that every president who ran for a second term won, but, yeah. Chances are pretty good that, if that's the case, you're right.

My vote is wasted either way. I'm flushing my vote down the toilet. I don't want to bear responsability for another embarassment, pencil-neck, ass-face president.
Too bad Clint Eastwood will probably never campaign.

Also,
Youtube and thinkprogress don't seem to be reliable sources.
The statistics and the graph on thinkprogress are actually somewhat tailored, but that's not to say that it is definately untrue. I don't really know.
However, there are lots of statistics which can be used to promote any political party.
For example,

CBS News) The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.

The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

I got this from National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

So, what I'm getting at is this:
Republicans spend less, but corporations tend to fire people.
Democrats spend more, but corporations hire more.
Is it related?
I can only think that it's through the groups which donate and who the polacies favor.
Obviously, corporations have it a little easier when a Rep is in office.
Unions have it better when a Dem is in office.

Personally, my ability to be employed has never been effected by the president. I don't know what type of person is, but they don't work in the same places I do.
However, the political affiliation of the president has always influenced my taxes (and when I was enlisted, my annual raise). When a Rep is in office, I get to keep more of my pay and the military gets a bigger raise. When a Dem is in office, I pay more tax and the military is threatened with pay being withheld.

That's what it comes down to as far as claiming a political party,
You want less tax and smaller government (rep)
Or
You want big government with lots of programs to save us from ourselves (dem)

I find that a lot of my ideas line up with republican beliefs, such as keeping the fed out of my daily life, paying less tax, letting capitalism do it's thing, allow me to work for what I want and keep what I earn.
The problem is that Republican candidates waste too much time talking about other things. The result is that Democrats start believing theirs is the one that wants less spending and stronger economy, which is not the fundamental beliefs of the party.

Now, there are liberals who actually do understand and believe in liberal ideals. I don't know why someone would think that shoveling money into hands of poor is going to solve their problems. Cash doesn't cure disorders, it doesn't motivate those who believe in entitlement and it doesn't get to children with neglectful parents.
I'm going to cool off from that point for a bit...

I want to point out that neither party lay down their core beliefs without reading it off a teleprompter.
For Rep, it always sounds fanatical and idealist.
For Dem, it always sounds condecending and idealist.
As if I could possibly believe that abortion is murder...
As if I need to be told how to spend my money...

Imagine if both parties could get what they wanted at the same time.

Money would be issued to you by the federal government after your employer had sent them your pay and they calculated and collected your tax.

Men would be blindfolded and women would wear chastity belts.

If you wanted to change jobs, you would have to pay a year's dues to each union and work double shifts for both companies for six months.

We would invade Palistine using only UAV's which can only be controlled by the president himself. (to clarify, palistine for the reps, presidential UAV's for the dems).

We would have our ambassidor to the UN tell each country to **** themselves and then immidiately follow up with a blow job.

We would be required to have exactly one child of each race, but we could only have intercourse with one partner ever.

It would manditory to eat a home-cooked meal every evening, but salt, sugar, caffine, carbohydrates, cholesteral, saturated fat, mayonese, bacon and lemonade would be illigal substances.

Every home would be required to fly the american flag, which would be a photograph of a tabby cat wearing a pink sweater cuddling with planet earth.

Cars would be abolished and public transportation would be the only transportation. Monorails would run on feelings of inadequacy, jets on the amputated sexual organs of corporate puppets.

Can you tell I'm having a blast with this?

[Martin]

I missed you Sassy. Claiming Fox News is fair in their reporting is like saying Hitler loved the Jews.

Claiming Obama is an embarrassment to human history is hilarious. Coming back here has just gone to show how little you all know about your own country. You're reliant upon polling websites, biased media and YouTube. YouTube. Intellectual Discussion - the mere title is laughable.

Order seems the only person here that actually has the vaguest grasp of the truth. Your nation is apathetic towards politics - you have people like Sasquatch who can't see past his own nose and has never been able to, in the many years I've been on here has been so anti-Democrat and so pro-Republican it's scarcely believable. One of your earlier points was proving to us through the results of a 'study' that FOX News only had a extremely slight bias. UCLA benefactors include FOX. How is that fair? And even having a SLIGHT bias ensures its total lack of credibility - if I quoted FOX in any intelligent argument/debate I'd be laughed out of the university.

As far as Obama is concerned - your country stifled any chance the Democrats had of reform when you buggered up and split Congress in the midterms. YOUR fault. You can't complain when unemployment rises, the economy stagflates and the job market collapses when you ensured centralised government had no control. Nothing would have changed had the Republicans been in charge. You just don't know good people when you see them. It's maddening.

[Sasquatch]

Referring to Obama creating jobs; you aren't stupid for being educated.

Do you have any sources that aren't youtube videos and liberal blogs? Hell, why not just post something from dailykos?

Yet, the facts remain: Unemployment under Obama has never been lower than the worst month of unemployment under Bush. More people are on food stamps and government handouts than at any point in American history.

...

As far as your anti-Mormon crap goes, I will remind you (and, more importantly, others who might be reading this thread, because it's apparent that you just won't get it) that the classification of "Christian" requires nothing more than a belief in Jesus as Messiah. The Church of Latter-Day Saints holds that belief, and as such, are classified Christian.

It's pretty clear FOX News has a republican agenda in the stories they chose to cover.

Yet, you have absolutely no credible evidence to support such an asinine claim.

I am going to call this presidency a win for Obama because no president has ran for a second term and lost.

Except for, you know, NINE OF THEM. You know, you might at least appear more intelligent if you did a quick Google search before spouting crap. Just off the top of my head, I was able to think of Ford, Carter, and GHW Bush. All three of them ran for re-election, all three of them lost. Ford lost to Carter, Carter lost to Reagan, and Bush lost to Clinton. (Ford might be a slight exception, since he didn't serve a full term and was only President after Nixon resigned.)

Claiming Fox News is fair in their reporting is like saying Hitler loved the Jews.

Except for, you know, the studies that show that FOX News is pretty balanced in their reporting, and the lack of any credible evidence showing otherwise.

But don't let the facts stand in your way. Seems to be a liberal theme.

You're reliant upon polling websites, biased media and YouTube. YouTube. Intellectual Discussion - the mere title is laughable.

Actually, the only biased media and YouTube links that have been made have been posted by the one person here who agrees with you. And you seem to be reliant on your own word, which is proving itself not only unreliable, but completely nonsensical.

Your nation is apathetic towards politics - you have people like Sasquatch who can't see past his own nose and has never been able to, in the many years I've been on here has been so anti-Democrat and so pro-Republican it's scarcely believable.

That's odd -- I was pretty sure that I was pro-conservative, not pro-Republican. And anti-socialist, not anti-Democrat. You know, since my two favorite politicians are Democrats.

But please, continue to ignore the entire point of this thread and instead attempt flaming.

One of your earlier points was proving to us through the results of a 'study' that FOX News only had a extremely slight bias. UCLA benefactors include FOX. How is that fair?

UCLA has thousands of benefactors, including FOX and many other media outlets. To claim that UCLA somehow manipulated their entire study to make one donating company look better, while making multiple other donating companies look worse, is extremely ignorant.

And even having a SLIGHT bias ensures its total lack of credibility - if I quoted FOX in any intelligent argument/debate I'd be laughed out of the university.

If you even tried to participate in any intelligent argument or debate, you'd be laughed out. Which is why you would rather have admins delete threads in ID than actually form coherent, credible arguments in them.

Oh -- and since all news sources have a slight bias, are absolutely no news sources credible?

Or do you just hate FOX News because its slight bias leans to the right, while the vast majority of other media has either a slight or an extreme bias to the left?

As far as Obama is concerned - your country stifled any chance the Democrats had of reform when you buggered up and split Congress in the midterms.

Actually, that is a credit, not a fault -- the policies Obama had pushed through before losing complete control of Congress have already proven detrimental to our economy, which is why Obama's primary opponent is gaining votes just by announcing that he will repeal many of Obama's policies.

[Martin]

This is all off topic until the first emboldened sentence. So please disregard until then if it need not concern you. Firstly, I have a few things to say - regards ID and this topic. Firstly - Sasquatch. I'm going to actually apologise to you. I've always seen what you have written as somewhat inflammatory but I'll be the 'big' man and admit I might have you wrong. We'll perhaps always disagree on a lot of topics, least of all politics. I wasn't intending to flame you or anyone else really, I was trying to be a bit light-hearted. After all there's nothing wrong with being jocular within a serious discussion, helps lighten the mood and whatnot. But perhaps I don't come across as that in the way I write things. I'll admit that, with the shield of anonymity the internet provides it's perhaps easier to write in a more sardonic or pseudo-aggressive tone that you would face to face. I will apologise if I come/came across as such, or to flame. It was a half-hearted attempt to be either way. As for Sassy, agree to disagree. No flaming, no ill-feelings. An apology and a ceasefire.

As such, the comment that I'm hiding or moreso unwilling to contribute in ID and that I want it cut or modified by administrators or moderators is not the point I was making. Merely that quite a few of these threads are getting on a bit and would be better served with being archived so that ID could be rebooted and perhaps engage more people than it does now, with the resumption of new topics that do not have a largely political bias. Before I left the website I used to love that I could argue, debate and reason with people with different backgrounds than myself, I am most certainly not infallible and whilst I have a largely academic background I am not always right nor would I claim to be. But no-one is. Such is life.

MORE OR LESS BACK ON TOPIC NOW. My main point of disagreement with you (Sasquatch) as I've said previously here is that I don't think you always see both sides of the picture. I was a little offended when you claimed I'd be laughed out of academic discussions because:-

1. It's simply not true, I've obtained a great education and degrees in history and American political science of which I spent nine years on, which I have myself funded and am very proud of;

2. I have real world experience in politics, and have a basic to moderate grasp of the worldwide political spectrum, and;

3. Because I don't really like to sit on either side of the fence in arguments. For example with regards to this topic I don't like nor dislike Barack Obama. But to be claimed he is an embarrassment to human history as the OP said not only goes too far but is just insulting which I cannot stand. What atrocity has your current President committed to be worthy of such a horrific misnomer, and why should he (the man) be at fault for any perceived slights his cabinet and party commit against you (the people)? He is merely a figurehead. I'm aware the same arguments could be levied against any leader in human history but that is not the debate here. If anything the argument should be whether or not the success of failure of the Democratic first term could be assessed by the relevant successes/failures of the party or by your President.

[Order]

Order seems the only person here that actually has the vaguest grasp of the truth.

You realize that I'm taking the middle ground and not really stating anything decisive about my opinion of Obama, right?
The closest I got to making a statement concerning Obama was that I dislike high tax and big government.
Which means I dislike Socialist ideals and, therefore, Obama.

if I quoted FOX in any intelligent argument/debate I'd be laughed out of the university.

How's breakfast?

I would be willing to bet that if you quoted a socialist-minded NPR host, you would be commended.
The system is designed to promote like-minded thinkers.
Bahh, sheep, bahh.

As far as credible sources, if it didn't come from census beaurau, DEA, DoD or ATF reports, it's probably not true. If it did come from one of those agencies, it's probably misleading at first glance.
One could argue that a professor at a prestigous university is a credible source. I'm pretty sure we've all met professors who are painfully single-minded.

stagflates

It what?

stagflates

Wait... What?

stagflates

Dude, that buzz word stopped being cool five months ago. The instant Rush Limbaugh used it, it stopped being cool.

job market collapses

You mean that people stopped working and got fired so they could suck up unemployment AND complain?
Because that's what that term means in america.
I recieve job offers about once a week these days. Last year, I was offered a re-enlistment bonus in a downsizing Navy.
The job market didn't go anywhere, it's just getting more skilled than many care to keep up with.

What has happened here is that you have been misled. You heard the doomsayers and they made you feel unsafe.
Bahh.

You just don't know good people when you see them. It's maddening.

Name a politician who is a good person.
I'm serious, one.
I'll tell you why they aren't.
It won't be some petty BS, either.

I seriously doubt that Sasquach is a poor judge of character.
He's seen a side of people you probably never will.

Except for, you know, NINE OF THEM. You know, you might at least appear more intelligent if you did a quick Google search before spouting crap. Just off the top of my head, I was able to think of Ford, Carter, and GHW Bush.

That answers that, I guess.

But don't let the facts stand in your way. Seems to be a liberal theme.

Facts don't hold a candle to slogan chanting and buzzwords, dude.
Didn't Greenday teach you anything?

Obama's primary opponent

Himself?
The unemployment leeches don't need to swarm the voting booths this year. They already have unemployment.
Now all they have to do is get a governer to provide extentions at the cost of the fed.

If you're really skeptic we can observe the most trusted man in America Jon Stewart.

You realize that not only is the daily show a comedy sketch, but it is written by a team of writers. Writers who work for a corporation.
A corporation which competes with channels like Fox for primetime viewers.
It doesn't mean that CNN, ABC, NBC, etc... etc... aren't poorly written, sometimes painfully biased and hosted by Micheal Jackson look-a-like women.



My point is,
Judging by the press coverage and the way the media is really focusing on republican efforts (good and bad), I'm placing my bet on a republican president.
Seriously, think about how many times a day you hear the word "republicans".
Now think about how many times a day you hear "Obama".
I say Obama, because it is a given that no news agency has used the word Democrat for at least a year. It seems like people are forgetting that the party exists because it's been eclipsed by Obama's half-assed, "I'm waving at the press now... sigh..." expression.

[Martin]

^ Fair enough. Also who cares if Rush Limbaugh said anything, stagflation is a term. I don't use it to be cool, I use it because it's the right word for the right situation. And if you'd read what I last put too, you'd realise I was taking the middle ground too. As for being a sheep, what are you, the shepherd?

As for Sassy being a good judge of character, there's no need to patronise me by saying I'm not either. So don't inflame when it's not necessary. You've judged me without knowing me so leave it out yeah

[Order]

I use it because it's the right word for the right situation.

I won't lie, I'm not even sure what it means. From how I heard reporters using it, I would assume it applies to any condition of the economy from 2000-2012.

And if you'd read what I last put too, you'd realise I was taking the middle ground too.

That was what I was getting at. It's easy to agree with someone when they exercize a balance when discussing politics. However, I don't believe that anyone really is a moderate. When someone puts enough thought into deciding their opinion on politics, there are pros and cons to conservatism and liberalism, but I think the vast majority of people pick a side.
Some are closer or further from the line, but I've never met or talked to someone who truely stands on the line. Most people who claim they do are simply indecisive about their own opinion.
(not to make that a jab at you, I'm knowingly overgeneralzing)

As for being a sheep, what are you, the shepherd?

Not a shepherd,
Not sheltered.
I ment to imply that you are conditioned to a specific culture where anything unpopular is disreguarded, if not insulted, and it has influenced your own personal philosophy.
The quote,

if I quoted FOX in any intelligent argument/debate I'd be laughed out of the university.

Sounds like something a person would say if the were either arrogant, or subject to the personal belifs of their peers.
I'm not positive, but I think it's reasonable to assume that a university student has actually quoted FOX in a debate and probably was not laughed out.
However, if it has litterally happened before, it is not because FOX is an unreliable source overall. In fact, if it has happened, the true cause of ridicule would probably be the fact that the people overseeing the debate were sheep, conditioned to a specific culture where anything unpopular is disreguarded.

there's no need to patronise me by saying I'm not either.

I didn't mean you aren't either. I mean that Sasquach is probably a decent judge of character and you are probably not. My evidence being that you stated that he is blind to good character (or something along those lines) of certain (this last word was implied) politicains.

You've judged me without knowing me so leave it out yeah

I'll be the 'big' man

No, seems like I wasn't too far off.

He (Obama) is merely a figurehead.

You don't know the kind of power the president of the united states has.
The Queen of england is a figurehead.
An American President is actually given a lot of influence over the nation. A quick example off the top of my head is that he is Commander in Cheif of the military. He says "Jump", they get themselves in the air and stay there until he wants them back on the ground.
That is not a level of control you give to just some figurehead.

If anything the argument should be whether or not the success of failure of the Democratic first term could be assessed by the relevant successes/failures of the party or by your President.

This is a point that I argree should be discussed more. I just don't think many news organizations have thought of it.
Like I said, nobody talks about the democrats anymore. It's Obama and his crew. I know that wasn't the case with Bush and I'm trying to wring out some memory from my brain about Clinton, but I didn't really care about politics back then.
I think the case is that every action of the entire spectrum of liberals in the united states have Obama's face eclipsing their own.
Even Clinton suddenly found a reason to support Obama recently. I think it's probably because his wife wants to continue to be Secritary of State, but who knows?

Anyway,
Any liberal-minded people feel like that is the case?
That the word Democrat has been replaced with Obama?

[Martin]

I'm not going to engage in an argument as to whether I'm a good judge of character or not because it's impossible to ascertain that based on a forum posting. I made a statement that you've assessed based on your own perception of its meaning. That's worthy of an intelligent discussion in itself. I'm only saying this because I've been told it but actually I'm a fairly decent judge of character - and what I wrote in my first post was at best rash which I've admitted. I'm a little overtly aggressive sometimes - it's nothing on a personal level and also the asking not to be judged was a mistake. I regret that. And the 'big' man was meant almost sarcastically, I don't agree with the phrase in itself as it doesn't require being 'bigger' to make an apology when you could be in the wrong.

I'm a middle grounder yes, but it doesn't mean I'm just bowing to popular opinion. I'm educated enough to be able to make my own decisions and philosophies. An amalgamation of left wing and right wing. I'm not opposed to conservatism but neither am I liberal. Probably center-left if I had to choose. Not fully supportive of socialism but some aspects appeal (the cutting of the rich/poor gap for example.)

As for not knowing the level of influence a President has, you're not fully grasping my point. The person is a figurehead, the office is not. The office of the President has power but one man has an advisory, that's what I'm getting at. He doesn't make all these decisions like the one you mentioned (the military) on a whim. The man is symbolic, the power of the Executive is not. I'm not that ignorant towards American politics - I majored in it and I wouldn't claim to know everything, because I don't live there and I don't see ALL the major day-to-day as you would. I accept that completely. But I can hold my own in a debate about the American political system.

Also stagflation is an economic term to describe a system of high inflation, with low economic growth and high unemployment. In other words crunched.

As far as whether Obama the man is becoming more influential than the Democrats, I think it's safe to say that he is on a worldwide level. The Nobel Peace Prize was a mistake I'd say - far too early and for far too flimsy a reason - nuclear non-proliferation? Whether or not the party would act is another thing entirely: they remain in power (at least for the time being) so why fix what isn't broken? You'd be able to tell me better, is he even well liked amongst Dems? Just with what you mentioned about Clinton I'm curious.

[Order]

As for not knowing the level of influence a President has, you're not fully grasping my point.

Oh, yeah. You're right, I did read it in a particular tone.

Also stagflation is an economic term to describe a system of high inflation, with low economic growth and high employment. In other words crunched.

Ah.
That about sums it up, actually.
Still don't like the term.

As far as whether Obama the man is becoming more influential than the Democrats, I think it's safe to say that he is on a worldwide level.

Well it's easier to picture a country's political system when you have a face to go with it, I guess.
(This is why it's hard for Americans to keep up with foreign politics. Who the F are these people?)

And yeah, the Nobel was a freakin joke.

is he even well liked amongst Dems?

That's the core question that nobody can answer.
This is the situation in the US right now...
Imagine you're in a room full of your fellow Liberals. You've all gotten along pretty well for years, now imagine there is a discussion about the president of the united states and someone asks you, point blank,
"Do you like Obama?"
Everyone else stops talking and stares at you.

That's what it's like in America right now.
It doesn't matter what your answer is,
it is the wrong answer.

That's the reason I don't think he's going to make a second term, reguardless of what the polls say, or the crowds, or the news.
Because they're all a room full of people waiting for you to answer that question.
The only positive part of this story is that once you are inside the voting booth, nobody gets to harass you for answering the question honestly.

Anyone who claims it isn't that way is probably just unaware of the tension over the subject, or lying.

EDIT:
No, I don't like Obama at all.
He's an arrogant, pencil-necked douche who wants to take even more of my money to establish a healthcare system I don't want.

I can say it here because I don't give a ___ how anyone will respond to it and none of you know where I live.

[Martin]

I typo'ed. It should read UNemployment as high employment would surely be a good thing, haha. Interesting point you raise about the state of worldwide politics though, there's a lot of names and no faces. Even my PM back home is a bit of a joke, especially on a statesmanlike level.

So it is literally boiling down to a debate of the lesser of two evils then? I mean Obama isn't a very liberal Democrat but from what I could grasp he basically ran unopposed through the 2012 primaries. Surely that would dictate confidence in his leadership in at least the party level, if not the entirety? And as far as it being a second term, no-one wants to suffer the ignominy of a single term. It's a devastating blow to your legacy. Makes you wonder how George Bush Sr. felt when his son was re-elected but he wasn't. (Well proud of course, but you see what I'm getting at.)

[Order]

The vote for a political office in the united states is always a question of the lesser evil.
You try to vote for the guy who isn't living in fantasy land, but thats usually not an option.
So, like I said, I'm more comfortable with my vote in the toilet.

Short post, don't kill me.

[Joxsjua]

Makes you wonder how George Bush Sr. felt when his son was re-elected but he wasn't. (Well proud of course, but you see what I'm getting at.)

Marty, George Bush Sr. was re-elected a second term. Like I said before, there has never been a president in history that ran for a second term and lost. The closest was Bush Jr. when it came to them having to re-count the Florida ballots. Or was that satire and I'm missing the joke?