I Just Don't Get Obama

[Locke4God]

He was the great communicator right? The one that could pull everybody together. Make us understand his great vision of the future? He could even pull countries together?

• 54% now Dissaprove of his performance, just 46% approve. That's an improvement over yesterday believe it or not
• 42% think he's doing an absolutely terrible job, and that's almost as many as the total who think he's a least doing just ok. Listening to the news would you even realize that half the country thinks he's awful? Would you realize that the 54% total who dissaprove at all is more than the 52% of people that actually voted for him?
• And check out the approval index. -15% for 2 days, and it's been in the negative double digits for 11 days.
• All of that can be found here Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports

And what about his "great" ideas.

• Just 38% favor his healthcare plan and 56% oppose it. Again more than half the country against him Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports
• 55% oppose his signing off on holding the terrorist trials in civilian NY courts 55% in New York Oppose Civilian Terror Trials - Rasmussen Reports
• 51% say canceling the rest of the stimulus money would be better than spending it 51% Say Cancel Stimulus Spending to Create Jobs - Rasmussen Reports
• and just 33% say we're headed in the right direction Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports

I could go on for hours about why most of what he's doing are just terrible ideas, but suffice it say that for those paying attention before the election it's not suprising to see that none of his major policies have support. And that doesn't count how bad off Cap & Trade is.

You might wonder though why a President who's number one priority was Heatlhcare has never written even a portion of the Healthcare bill. Or if it was his idea, why there would be 7 bills floating around in the first place. If it was his idea, why wouldn't there just be one? You might wonder why they're trying to pass it anyway when a significant majority say they don't want it. This is a country of the people isn't it? Are they listening? I guess not.

You might wonder how raising taxes in the middle of a recession could possibly be a good idea. And you might wonder how it is that unemployment is at 10.5% when he swore passing the stimulus would keep us from going above 8%. That's a 7 million job miscalculation! You might wonder why it's taken almost a year to close Guantanimo Bay if that was such a good idea. Could it be the prison actually served a good purpose? No that couldn't be, so he decided to release some prisoners. Anybody support that? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5594272.ece

You might wonder why his first reaction during the altercation between the professor and the cop earlier this year, was to blame the cop, admittedly before he knew what was going on.

You might wonder why the head of his VP search commity, his Treasury Secretary, and Tom Daschel were all investigated for tax violations or other fraud, and there are others.

You might wonder why Vaan Jones, and Anita Dunn have been forced out of his cabinet when they each process love for the political philosophies of Mao and Karl Marx. Communists in the White House? No that can't be? Why would Obama hire such people?

You might awe at his embarrasing effort to get the Olympics or his laughable win of the Noble Peace prize. Why not send Hilary, or Bill, or Carter? Why stick your neck out for the Olypics? To get money for your hometown people who bankrolled your campaign? And how does one win the Noble Peace prize, when the cutoff for nomination was less than 3 weeks into his presidency? What did he do in 3 weeks to surpass all those who may have qualified over the previous year? He'd done nothing but run for president. Hardly a peace prize qualification.

One of the great quotes of Ronald Reagan went as follows. "The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." (Ronald Reagan) Does the second half of that quote not mirror Obama's campaign slogan?


These are just a few things, but I just sit and wonder why we ever decided to elect a man who's entire repitoire of ideas are not approved by the majority of Americans, who hires admited communists to be his presidential advisors, who hires tax cheats to run his office, who goes to church with a preacher who literally says he hates America, who doesn't stand up for cops, and the list goes on.

Was Bush great? No, but this man Obama is a terrible terrible terrible president whose only qualification is that he seems like a nice guy. And that's the worst kind.

[smurphy]

I cant say I understand how people feel in America but apart from looking at polls how has his reign as president affected you? Its unfair to judge a man on others opinions.From an outside viewpoint it looks like he is actually trying hard to turn his country away from its biggest slump in 80 odd years.

His stance on terrorists and his way of tackling them is what really impresses me.Apart from some obvious decisions his backers in Chicago have made him choose he still seems like a morally upright man.

Anyway he and Biden have to be better than McCain and PALIN. Palin as vice president. The thought makes me shudder.

[Josh_R]

This is a country of the people isn't it?

But of course Locke

Are they listening?

not really...

You might wonder how raising taxes in the middle of a recession could possibly be a good idea.

I am assuming that there is some sort of plan in action that has yet to be mentioned these things do take time Locke. Remember he's not Bill Clinton he is not magic..

And you might wonder how it is that unemployment is at 10.5% when he swore passing the stimulus would keep us from going above 8%.

I actually have wondered this. If I am not mistaken wasn't part of Obama's plan before the elction to create new job's to get this unemployment rate down. What the hell happened to that idea...

You might wonder why it's taken almost a year to close Guantanimo Bay

Because they needed somewhere else to put all of the prisoner's i'm assuming...

if that was such a good idea.

Hellz no bad idea, Guantanimo is there for a reason closing it is Bad with a capital B...

Could it be the prison actually served a good purpose?

Call me stupid but I always thought it was a nice resort for terrorist and war lords and people of that nature...

Anybody support that?

This I cannot support if you are in Gunatanimo you are there for a damn good reason, he should not be letting the f*ckers out...

Communists in the White House?

This end is f*cking near run!!!!

Why would Obama hire such people?

No reason to hire these people unless Obama himself is in fact a communist...

These are just a few things, but I just sit and wonder why we ever decided to elect a man who's entire repitoire of ideas are not approved by the majority of Americans.

Well I think one of the main reasons Obama won the election is cause he actually had a plan, granted it was not a good plan. McCain had no plan therefore no one wanted him...

who hires admited communists to be his presidential advisors, who hires tax cheats to run his office, who goes to church with a preacher who literally says he hates America, who doesn't stand up for cops, and the list goes on.

There is no excuse for giring the communist but I don't really see your point about the religion just cause his preacher hates america doesnt mean he does. I know plenty of muslims who love america, and Obama is from Chicago born and raised so he can't hate america too bad..

Was Bush great?

Bush had his moments but no he was not great in any shape or form...

No, but this man Obama is a terrible terrible terrible president whose only qualification is that he seems like a nice guy.

And you say he is terrible based on what his short amount of time in office. These things take time who knows in a couple of months you could be saying he is a great president...



I personally voted Obama because he had a plan. This plan could take time to become affective he said that. You cannot critacize him to harshly based on his short time in office. You he f*cked up at times but we are human we all do that, unless of course you are Bill CLinton then you are a raging sex bot capable of anything...

[Che]

I haven't really seen a perfect presidential candidate come up, ever. Wanna know why? They're all politicians. At least our current politician makes the other countries hate us less, and that's kind of what America needs right now. A nice ****ing guy.

Guaranteed that if McCain was president we wouldn't be getting the same appreciation and cooperation of other countries. Yes, it is important. We need to cooperate and work together, etc. It also makes us less likely for another terrorist attack if less people hate our president. <-- I strongly believe that, yes.

If you're going to sit there and nitpick every single little thing Obama does, you're gonna be wasting a huge portion of your life for nothing. Most of the things you said (investigating fraud issues, etc) have happened to every single president. Obama is no different, and he's not a bad guy.

Step back for a second and instead of looking at all the statistics like it's a NFL football game and you're John Madden, look at the big picture. Are we going to be okay? Are we going to get through this impending Great Economic Recovery?

I'm glad you're letting your hate out though, Locke. I really am.

[Andromeda]

Being a nice guy though to people that want to kill us isn't going to improve our situation. They hate us not because of who's president but on a much deeper level than that. It goes down to beliefs and religion. If you're looking to start a fight with someone who's going to look the better target? The guy that looks mean and stands tall not backing down or the nice guy trying to make friends with everyone? I'm pretty sure you're going to second guess fighting the mean looking one, you'll probably wait until you're sure you can win.

But also I was actually under the impression that the world leaders are actually embarrassed by Obama and the way he has acting. That he has actually been hurting our international relations and not improving them. When he was in Japan he bowed deeply and shook hands with the Japanese Emperor or Prime Minister, I forget which is actually the head of state. In Japanese society you only bow that deeply to someone who is your superior. Obama is our President, or head of state. Obama for how much I disapprove of what he does, is an equal to the Japanese head of state. All country's heads of states are equals they are all in the same highest possible position. There is no one higher than them, religions excluded. The Japanese head of state was actually embarrassed by Obama's actions as well.

Obama acts as though America is inferior to everyone. At least the way he is acting with other world leaders. America is an equal in this world with everyone else. We are a strong country and Obama should not be embarrassed to be in this country. Saying we're better or the best, I'm not going to debate since I think that falls more into national pride more than anything else. And so I don't think most can be very objective about it. But even still we are equals in the world with everyone else.

And you hear about the War Tax they are considering to put up. They are going to tax everyone to support the war. It's like wait a minute, isn't the federal income tax we have already supposed to be doing that in some part? Its all money the government receives to spend on its various needs, like the war. Why do we need a separate tax specifically for that? And what happened to Obama saying that's not going to raise the taxes, this is just an indirect method. It's still a tax because everyone is going be forced to pay this.

I'd asked everyone to try to think objectively, but this is politics after all. There's nothing objective about politics.

[Alpha]

He was the great communicator right? The one that could pull everybody together. Make us understand his great vision of the future? He could even pull countries together?

Without a doubt he is one of the best orators in the world.

Yes, he can be considered an idealist. So? Every reality was at one stage an ideal.

Yes, he can 'pull countries together'. Try looking at statistics for his approval abroad: sky high.

You might wonder how raising taxes in the middle of a recession could possibly be a good idea. And you might wonder how it is that unemployment is at 10.5% when he swore passing the stimulus would keep us from going above 8%. That's a 7 million job miscalculation!

Do you really think that the recession will be solved in one country, by one president? China is probably the biggest reason why unemployment is still falling in America. If you want jobs, people will have to buy products. This means giving money to people who will spend it instead of saving it (poor people), and praying day and night that people who import your products recover from the global recession.

You might wonder why it's taken almost a year to close Guantanimo [sic] Bay if that was such a good idea. Could it be the prison actually served a good purpose? No that couldn't be, so he decided to release some prisoners. Anybody support that? Freed Guantánamo prisoners taunt US as closure plan falls apart - Times Online

Did you just defend Guantanamo?! Holy shit, where is your moral compass?! Imagine Obama saying this: "Yes, America! I support torture! I support people being imprisoned indefinitely without charge and without access to legal counsel! I support hate and prejudice!" Strangely, that's what Republicans would want to hear.

And if you have an easy solution to fixing the mess that Bush got you guys into with this prison, the world is waiting. Stop blaming Obama for this: he's doing the right thing. The right thing is never the easy thing.

You might wonder why Vaan Jones, and Anita Dunn have been forced out of his cabinet when they each process [do you mean "profess"?] love for the political philosophies of Mao and Karl Marx. Communists in the White House? No that can't be? Why would Obama hire such people?

Sure, Marx made commentary on the social effects of industrialisation. So what? Better than referring to anything non-productive as a "wasteland", as per Adam Smith, or, as Locke did, claiming anything that you add your labour to as "your property". That doesn't mean I'm a Communist. It means I'm left of centre, like many, many, many others. If Obama really had Communists in his cabinet, then you would have to surrender your house to the government, and take a big sip of Victory Gin.

You might awe at his embarrasing effort to get the Olympics or his laughable win of the Noble Peace prize. Why not send Hilary, or Bill, or Carter? Why stick your neck out for the Olypics? To get money for your hometown people who bankrolled your campaign? And how does one win the Noble Peace prize, when the cutoff for nomination was less than 3 weeks into his presidency? What did he do in 3 weeks to surpass all those who may have qualified over the previous year? He'd done nothing but run for president. Hardly a peace prize qualification.

He didn't choose to win the Prize. Don't blame him for things out of his control. And by the way, do you think McCain would have won? (Answer: no).

One of the great quotes of Ronald Reagan went as follows. "The most terrifying words in the English language are, I'm from the government and I am here to help." (Ronald Reagan) Does the second half of that quote not mirror Obama's campaign slogan?

One of Alpha's great quotes goes as follows: "Only in America: a democracy that doesn't trust democracy."

...but I just sit and wonder why we ever decided to elect a man who's entire repitoire of ideas are not approved by the majority of Americans.

Why, then, was he elected? Surely if a majority do not support his ideas, then an even larger majority would not support McCain's ideas? After all, that's how it works. Maybe you'd be better off with a few more major candidates, as per most other countries.

Was Bush great? No, but this man Obama is a terrible terrible terrible president whose only qualification is that he seems like a nice guy. And that's the worst kind.

So, being a nasty guy is a good thing?

[Govinda]

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by calling this I Just Don't Get Politics and then moving on. Go out, do research, and you'll get answers to the questions you've asked. You may even learn to stop abusing phrases like 'You may wonder', which are patronising and smug.

[RagnaToad]

He was the great communicator right? The one that could pull everybody together. Make us understand his great vision of the future? He could even pull countries together?

He has outdone most US presidents in that respect, and definitely the previous one, although no comparison to Bush Jr. is really relevant for any other president.

• 54% now Dissaprove of his performance, just 46% approve. That's an improvement over yesterday believe it or not
• 42% think he's doing an absolutely terrible job, and that's almost as many as the total who think he's a least doing just ok. Listening to the news would you even realize that half the country thinks he's awful? Would you realize that the 54% total who dissaprove at all is more than the 52% of people that actually voted for him?
• And check out the approval index. -15% for 2 days, and it's been in the negative double digits for 11 days.
• All of that can be found here Obama Approval Index History - Rasmussen Reports

And what about his "great" ideas.

• Just 38% favor his healthcare plan and 56% oppose it. Again more than half the country against him Health Care Reform - Rasmussen Reports
• 55% oppose his signing off on holding the terrorist trials in civilian NY courts 55% in New York Oppose Civilian Terror Trials - Rasmussen Reports
• 51% say canceling the rest of the stimulus money would be better than spending it 51% Say Cancel Stimulus Spending to Create Jobs - Rasmussen Reports
• and just 33% say we're headed in the right direction Right Direction or Wrong Track - Rasmussen Reports

What the hell is this supposed to mean?
Is it a president's job to make sure everyone agrees with him?
If everyone would would agree with him, but he wouldn't do shit for his civilians, you would be criticising that (and you'd be right to do so).

I could go on for hours about why most of what he's doing are just terrible ideas

Wow, where is this coming from?
Civilians not agreeing suddenly equals bad ideas?

You might wonder though why a President who's number one priority was Heatlhcare has never written even a portion of the Healthcare bill. Or if it was his idea, why there would be 7 bills floating around in the first place. If it was his idea, why wouldn't there just be one? You might wonder why they're trying to pass it anyway when a significant majority say they don't want it. This is a country of the people isn't it? Are they listening? I guess not.

Dude, really, what is this?
Obama is an elected president, so don't be complaing how he's not listening to the people.

Isn't that the core of the democracy in the US? You elect a president and trust him to do what is necessary.

and about health care: He's trying to achieve something that is a basic right in most Western countries: free or next to free health care.

You might wonder how raising taxes in the middle of a recession could possibly be a good idea.

Yes, one who doesn't see that economics isn't black and white might indeed wonder.

There's always an excuse to not raise taxes.

And you might wonder how it is that unemployment is at 10.5% when he swore passing the stimulus would keep us from going above 8%. That's a 7 million job miscalculation!

7 million jobs? That's peanuts.

If I recall correctly, you were the one saying that ONLY 32 million people in the US don't have health insurance. So why should we care about 7 million people not having a job?

I'm not commenting on the rest, because I think you'll pay less attention to what I've already said if my post gets too long.

[Sean]

Unemployment is well over 10.5%. That number only counts recently unemployed people who are drawing benefits. The real number is well over 15%, and counting people who are part-time but can't find work full-time, that number gets higher.


Remember: he inherited this. The economy was already going downhill and unemployment was going up before he was even sworn in. You act like all was sunshine and ****ing rainbows in the US under the previous administration and then out of nowhere big bad Obama comes tearing in and ****s everything up.

What's not to say we wouldn't have an even more grim picture painted of the US economy if not for some of the actions taken up to this point? One of the worst problems facing this country is the fact that it's hated by so many other nations across the world and the fact that we dumped an absolutely ludicrous amount of money into a war that gained us nothing.

You also act like fixing a grievous amount of errors the previous administration made (Patriot Act, Gitmo, etc) would/should happen over night, and are blaming Obama because they haven't.

You need to stop, turn off Fox news, and think for yourself. Think of things a little more broad, everything I've ever read from you regarding politics is so damned one sided, blind, arrogant, and ignorant.



And everyone reports different numbers. Fox reports a much lower approval rating both for healthcare reform and Obama than, say, MSNBC, which puts both at over 50%. Welcome to the wonderful world of false numbers. They only show the opinions of the people polled, not the entire nation.

[Locke4God]

It's not going to take time, to those who said to keep giving his ideas a chance. They can't work. It's economically impossible.

If you need proof, just go look at what FDR did. His depression lasted 10 years and he kept trying to spend his ass off. 10 years.

The point is government spending doesnt work, not only because it's temporary, but because the government can only get the money from one of two places. Either they can print it, which makes the dollar's value drop, or they can tax it from those who already have it. And if you didn't know, the rich people of this country are not your enemy. They're the ones who hire, they're the ones who start businesses, and who grow them. Taxing the rich only serves to stagnate the economy, not jump start it. He's completely wrong.

That's why I say he doesn't need more time. Continuing what he's doing only prolongs an economic slump. Sure it'll float up a tad, but if you want real economic growth and fast recovery, you cut taxes accross the board, get real economic circulation going, and everything will take off.

And to those who say he inherited this. Yes that is true, however don't be so quick to blame the preceding president for the problem. The issue began in the housing market as we all know, and that was drawn down because of something called the Community Reinvestment Act, which was passed by the newly elected Democrat congress in 2007. It forced banks to lend to poor people who couldn't afford their loans. Did Obama cause this recession? No, but he did support that bill and others like it that promote giving things to people who can't pay for them, due to some sense of entitlement. That caused the housing market to fall, then the banks, then connected businesses, and then the larger economy.

The point is, that what he views as fair, his completely and utterly damaging to the economy. He shares the ideas that brought us to this point in the first place. Just look at cash for clunkers. Another way to get people who can afford something, into a car this time. Economists expect a massive amount of reposessions in the coming months due to that program.

So he doesn't need more time. He's wrong. His theories of economy are backwards and based on taking whatever he feels is fair from people who have it and giving it to whoever he thinks deserves it. That's just not a sustainable economic plan.

[Tiffany]

Remember: he inherited this. The economy was already going downhill and unemployment was going up before he was even sworn in. You act like all was sunshine and ****ing rainbows in the US under the previous administration and then out of nowhere big bad Obama comes tearing in and ****s everything up.

So true!

He knew going into office that he was going to be up the proverbial sh!t creek without a paddle. The previous administration mucked up a bunch of stuff and now its up to Obama's Administration to sort things out. How long has he been in office? Do you really expect that he's going to get everything right as rain by now?

It took the previous administration 8 years to fully send the US into a downward spiral. I think it'll take more than 10 months to fix everything.

[Govinda]

It's not going to take time, to those who said to keep giving his ideas a chance. They can't work. It's economically impossible.

If you need proof, just go look at what FDR did. His depression lasted 10 years and he kept trying to spend his ass off. 10 years.

The point is government spending doesnt work, not only because it's temporary, but because the government can only get the money from one of two places. Either they can print it, which makes the dollar's value drop, or they can tax it from those who already have it. And if you didn't know, the rich people of this country are not your enemy. They're the ones who hire, they're the ones who start businesses, and who grow them. Taxing the rich only serves to stagnate the economy, not jump start it. He's completely wrong.

That's why I say he doesn't need more time. Continuing what he's doing only prolongs an economic slump. Sure it'll float up a tad, but if you want real economic growth and fast recovery, you cut taxes accross the board, get real economic circulation going, and everything will take off.

And to those who say he inherited this. Yes that is true, however don't be so quick to blame the preceding president for the problem. The issue began in the housing market as we all know, and that was drawn down because of something called the Community Reinvestment Act, which was passed by the newly elected Democrat congress in 2007. It forced banks to lend to poor people who couldn't afford their loans. Did Obama cause this recession? No, but he did support that bill and others like it that promote giving things to people who can't pay for them, due to some sense of entitlement. That caused the housing market to fall, then the banks, then connected businesses, and then the larger economy.

The point is, that what he views as fair, his completely and utterly damaging to the economy. He shares the ideas that brought us to this point in the first place. Just look at cash for clunkers. Another way to get people who can afford something, into a car this time. Economists expect a massive amount of reposessions in the coming months due to that program.

So he doesn't need more time. He's wrong. His theories of economy are backwards and based on taking whatever he feels is fair from people who have it and giving it to whoever he thinks deserves it. That's just not a sustainable economic plan.

In America's Golden Years, the country's top 1% of earners had a 90% tax. They could still live happily, in luxury, and started many businesses. Take a guy who earns £5million a year. Let's say he gets taxed like he would in the UK, so roughly 50% (might have gone up). So he earns £2.5 million a year. How is that going to stop him?

Maybe you should take some time to research just how much the top 5% in America earn. It's a ridiculously huge amount.

Do you disagree with Bush's bailout too? Everything was falling apart when Bush was in; the banks started going before Obama was sworn in, and the housing market was already gone. He hasn't handled it in the best manner, no (giving Tim ****ing Geithner a job was his first mistake) but given what he started with, it's too much to expect miracles.

[Alpha]

Hey Locke: Keynesian economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Sasquatch]

Alright, I'm tired of the ignorant arrogance here, and I have some time to say something about it.

Do you really think that the recession will be solved in one country, by one president?

It would help if he didn't purposely enact policies that have proven to hurt economies.

China is probably the biggest reason why unemployment is still falling in America. If you want jobs, people will have to buy products. This means giving money to people who will spend it instead of saving it (poor people), and praying day and night that people who import your products recover from the global recession.

Wait ... rich people don't spend money? People with lots of money don't invest any of it? What, do they have giant mattresses in their mansions that they stuff all of their paper money into?

Did you just defend Guantanamo?! Holy shit, where is your moral compass?!

With the innocent civilians slaughtered by the people who are sent to Gitmo.

Imagine Obama saying this: "Yes, America! I support torture! I support people being imprisoned indefinitely without charge and without access to legal counsel! I support hate and prejudice!"

Torture? No. Hate and prejudice? No. Trying to claim those things only reveals your ignorance. As for holding people without trials -- what gives them the right to be tried? The United States Constitution does not apply to these people -- none of them are citizens. (No -- even the few that were U.S. citizens renounced their citizenship when they aided enemies of the United States.)

Strangely, that's what Republicans would want to hear.

Yes, because all Republicans hate brown people, love torture, hate Muslims, love prisons, and hate protecting rights. Wow.

So what? Better than referring to anything non-productive as a "wasteland", as per Adam Smith, or, as Locke did, claiming anything that you add your labour to as "your property".

If you contribute to it, you have earned part of it -- unless your are compensated for your portion with wages. Locke was right. And if it doesn't produce anything worth paying for, it's a complete waste and nobody should be forced to pay to support a waste. Smith was right.

If Obama really had Communists in his cabinet, then you would have to surrender your house to the government, and take a big sip of Victory Gin.

Because if he hasn't done it all at once, that means he's not moving in that direction, right?

Apparently, nothing moves, it only changes. If I wanted to get from my living room to my bedroom, I could only teleport there -- I can't walk. I would either stop being here and immediately start being there, or, with every step I take to get myself closer to my bedroom, I would have a bunch of morons following me, shouting that I can't be going to my bedroom because I'm not in my bedroom yet.

He didn't choose to win the Prize. Don't blame him for things out of his control.

No, he just accepted it. Which shows a complete lack of character.

And by the way, do you think McCain would have won? (Answer: no).

Hell no he wouldn't have. Because he's at least semi-conservative, and he's white. That doesn't mean that Obama actually earned it.

One of Alpha's great quotes goes as follows: "Only in America: a democracy that doesn't trust democracy."

America isn't a democracy, kid. It's a republic. And there's good reason not to trust democracy -- it quickly becomes mob rule.

Why, then, was he elected? Surely if a majority do not support his ideas, then an even larger majority would not support McCain's ideas?

The majority did support his ideas when he was elected. That's why he was elected. See, the approval ratings posted in this topic are not from last November when the election happened.

So, being a nasty guy is a good thing?

No. But being a nice guy -- or a young attractive charismatic black man with good speechwriters -- doesn't mean that the guy will be a good leader for more than 300,000,000 people and 14,000,000,000,000 dollars a year.

and about health care: He's trying to achieve something that is a basic right in most Western countries: free or next to free health care.

Also known as mediocre, low-quality health care that people are forced to pay for whether they utilize it or not.

Yes, one who doesn't see that economics isn't black and white might indeed wonder.

Raising taxes during a recession is bad. Period. Try to belittle others with "well you don't agree with me so you must be closed-minded and see everything in black or white" all you want. But when you want people to spend money, taking more money from them is not a good idea.

If I recall correctly, you were the one saying that ONLY 32 million people in the US don't have health insurance. So why should we care about 7 million people not having a job?

Those 32 million people weren't promised health insurance by the most powerful man in the country. And not having a job is a hell of a lot more important than not having health insurance.

Remember: he inherited this. The economy was already going downhill and unemployment was going up before he was even sworn in. You act like all was sunshine and ****ing rainbows in the US under the previous administration and then out of nowhere big bad Obama comes tearing in and ****s everything up.

That's the same thing people bitched about shortly after Bush started. But then, most of those people aren't smart enough to realize that Bush had a looming recession and an undefended country and underfunded, under-trained military dropped into his lap.

What's not to say we wouldn't have an even more grim picture painted of the US economy if not for some of the actions taken up to this point?

Common friggin' sense. When you want people to spend money, don't take their money from them.

One of the worst problems facing this country is the fact that it's hated by so many other nations across the world and the fact that we dumped an absolutely ludicrous amount of money into a war that gained us nothing.

Gained us nothing? I thought it was all about oil? We went in and invaded, and now we have all the oil we could ever want, right? Bush's buddies in the oil industry bathe in 10w40 every night!

You also act like fixing a grievous amount of errors the previous administration made (Patriot Act, Gitmo, etc) would/should happen over night, and are blaming Obama because they haven't.

Something about Obama promising that he'd fix some of those things overnight, you know. Whoops. (But wait, Obama actually EXPANDED the Patriot Act ... so who's to blame for it?)

You need to stop, turn off Fox news, and think for yourself.

Yay, another idiotic accusation of FOX News being biased, and again with absolutely no evidence of such.

And everyone reports different numbers. Fox reports a much lower approval rating both for healthcare reform and Obama than, say, MSNBC, which puts both at over 50%. Welcome to the wonderful world of false numbers. They only show the opinions of the people polled, not the entire nation.

All poll numbers posted are from Rasmussen. Not FOX, not MSNBC. Do you have any cites that say MSNBC puts approval ratings for Obama and for his healthcare plan at over 50%?

You could have saved yourself a lot of time by calling this I Just Don't Get Politics and then moving on.

Because if they disagree with you, they must not understand, right? And even in an ID topic, you're just fine with coming in, bitching for a couple lines, and leaving.

In America's Golden Years, the country's top 1% of earners had a 90% tax. They could still live happily, in luxury, and started many businesses.

Do you have any sort of credible cite for this?

Maybe you should take some time to research just how much the top 5% in America earn. It's a ridiculously huge amount.

Have you taken the time to research? The top 5% might take home $90,000 after all tax withholding. That's not "ridiculously huge" by any means. But oh, it's more than you make, so they must be evil and have their money stolen from them.

Hey Locke: Keynesian economics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because if it doesn't happen all at once, it doesn't happen at all, right?

[Govinda]

Because if they disagree with you, they must not understand, right? And even in an ID topic, you're just fine with coming in, bitching for a couple lines, and leaving.

Yes, because I tire of ignorance in much the same way that you do.


Do you have any sort of credible cite for this?

Yes. This is the first of many.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Missing $1,000,000 Tax Bracket


Have you taken the time to research? The top 5% might take home $90,000 after all tax withholding. That's not "ridiculously huge" by any means. But oh, it's more than you make, so they must be evil and have their money stolen from them.

Well, this one states that, in 2006 at least, all of America's 400 richest people were billionaires.

The 400 Richest Americans - Forbes.com

And here - "Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI [adjusted gross income], taxpayers with an AGI of $153,542 or more in 2006 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners. To break into the top 1 percent, a tax return had to have an AGI of $388,806 or more. The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers [have an] AGI over $64,702."



The Tax Foundation - Summary of Latest Federal Individual Income Tax Data

Also, it's not stealing if you're ok with the money being taken.

...yeah I can format

[Sasquatch]

Yes, because I tire of ignorance in much the same way that you do.

I tire of it and act upon it in the opposite, contrasting way -- not by contributing to it. Still, I don't come in, bitch for a few lines, and take off, especially not in ID where it violates the rules.

Yes. This is the first of many.

FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: The Missing $1,000,000 Tax Bracket

Ah. Point conceded -- at one point, the top tax bracket (NOT the top 1%, but the top tax bracket) had a nearly 90% tax.

Well, this one states that, in 2006 at least, all of America's 400 richest people were billionaires.

The 400 Richest Americans - Forbes.com

And since when is the top 5% of American wage earners made up of 400 people? The U.S. Census Bureau places the U.S. population at 304,059,724 in June of 2008. The top 400 would be the top 0.00013155%. That's about 1/7600th of a percent.

And here - "Including all tax returns that had a positive AGI [adjusted gross income], taxpayers with an AGI of $153,542 or more in 2006 constituted the nation's top 5 percent of earners.

And how much of it did they take home? If they made $160k, they'd be taxed at 33% -- which means they'd keep $107,200 after federal income taxes -- not state income taxes, not Social Security, not Medicare. SS and Medicare total close to 8%. And some state income tax rates are above 9%. Quick -- what's 33+8+9? It means that somebody making $160,000 a year might take home half of that, which would be eighty grand.

Also, it's not stealing if you're ok with the money being taken.

And if you're not? Or if it's taken by force or threat of force (which taxes are)?

...yeah I can format

Congrats. Me too. But I guess I'm wrong because I do it differently.

[Govinda]

I tire of it and act upon it in the opposite, contrasting way -- not by contributing to it. Still, I don't come in, bitch for a few lines, and take off, especially not in ID where it violates the rules.


I know, right? I'm such an asshole. Usually I act the same way you do, ie bustin' on in and trying to convince everyone else that I'm right. But every now and then I get a little pissed.

Ah. Point conceded -- at one point, the top tax bracket (NOT the top 1%, but the top tax bracket) had a nearly 90% tax.

Sweet. So things were better when Americans spread their wealth out, no? I mean, economically.


And since when is the top 5% of American wage earners made up of 400 people? The U.S. Census Bureau places the U.S. population at 304,059,724 in June of 2008. The top 400 would be the top 0.00013155%. That's about 1/7600th of a percent.

Yeah, I can like, count and stuff. I was just saying - the top 400 earners. Below was the 5% bit.


And how much of it did they take home? If they made $160k, they'd be taxed at 33% -- which means they'd keep $107,200 after federal income taxes -- not state income taxes, not Social Security, not Medicare. SS and Medicare total close to 8%. And some state income tax rates are above 9%. Quick -- what's 33+8+9? It means that somebody making $160,000 a year might take home half of that, which would be eighty grand.

Eighty grand is a fortune to people in the lower brackets.


And if you're not? Or if it's taken by force or threat of force (which taxes are)?


Then go somewhere where the voting majority don't think you should be taxed. Go find somewhere where the rich outnumber the poor or have somehow convinced the poor to defend their tax breaks. Or America.

Congrats. Me too. But I guess I'm wrong because I do it differently.

Oh, Sasquatch. You're just as bad, if not worse, as/than me and my other friendly liberals when it comes to shoving your opinion down other people's throats. I've made a point of never calling you a name, because I don't think that's what debate should be about. You don't think so. You talk big, I'll give you that, but it's snidey little comments like this one that really betray your tactics.

BTW, this is how Communists format. And you are completely wrong for doing it differently, like duh.

[Meier Link]

I don't mind the debate that is going on here for now but take everything else to PM / VM, all the filler crap is not needed so lets cut it out everyone. It will not be tolerated from this post on. I think it goes with out saying but I am going to say it anyways, warnings will be issued.

Don't let things get out of hand here people.

[Alpha]

It would help if he didn't purposely enact policies that have proven to hurt economies.

Because social democratic economies are hurting? That's why lefty New Zealand is out of the recession and employment is increasing. That's why Europe is poor and can't afford to pay the largest (proportionate) contribution to developing countries to try and achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2012.

Wait ... rich people don't spend money?

Yes. Rich people save money. They spend what they need, and then save much of the rest. If a man has only $50 currently, and he is given another $50, is he going to save that $50, or will he perhaps be able to afford a few more loaves of bread per week? If a woman has $50,000, and gets $50,000 more, she will spend some more money, but the majority of the increase will be added to her savings. It's simple income and substitution effects. If you're already poor, and get some more money, you will spend the majority of it. If you're already rich, and get some more money, then you will probably save the majority of it. $50,000 given to one rich person will take a long time to re-enter the money economy. $50,000 spread over 5000 poor people will re-enter the economy rapidly.

People with lots of money don't invest any of it? [Snarky comment deleted]

Sure they do, but they only invest it if they can guarantee a return. How does one get a return in a recession, when people have less money to spend? Answer: give the people money. There's little wrong with investment by the rich; of course it creates jobs, but if nobody can afford products (i.e. wealth is owned by a few, while the majority have little), then there will be little investment.

With the innocent civilians slaughtered by the people who are sent to Gitmo.

I'm not defending their actions. But I'm not going to defend the concept of Guantanamo, which is just as bad, or even worse.

Torture? No.

Water boarding? And probably more stuff we don't know about.

Hate and prejudice? No.

So Guantanamo is all about love and forgiveness?

Trying to claim those things only reveals your ignorance.

Thank you. All people who support human rights are ignorant.

As for holding people without trials -- what gives them the right to be tried?

Human rights? You know, like, "innocent until proven guilty" and other such fundamental concepts. What if you were imprisoned, and then never sent to court? You may or may not have committed a crime, but that's not relevant, as we are prejudiced and we are afraid of you, and heck, just hate you.

The United States Constitution does not apply to these people -- none of them are citizens. (No -- even the few that were U.S. citizens renounced their citizenship when they aided enemies of the United States.)

I'm sure it doesn't, just as it does not apply to me, and people who are in Cuba. However, why does America fly the banner of human rights -- in China, in developing countries (before aid grants), in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and then turn around and say it doesn't apply to them? The more Guantanamo is defended within America, the more dissent will grow against Pax Americana. I tell you, unequivocally, Guantanamo is the biggest factor in anti-Americanism.

Yes, because all Republicans hate brown people, love torture, hate Muslims, love prisons, and hate protecting rights. Wow.

As a generalisation, sure. That's why they don't support affirmative action, support Guantanamo (et al.), invade Muslim nations, support long-term incarceration, and only provide human rights to the rich (subjective statement, just ignore it in this thread).

If you contribute to it, you have earned part of it -- unless your are compensated for your portion with wages. Locke was right.

So when colonisers invaded the 'New World', it just became theirs because they 'did something' to it? So when I walk into the forest and cut down a tree, it's mine, and not everyone's like it was up until that point?

And if it doesn't produce anything worth paying for, it's a complete waste and nobody should be forced to pay to support a waste. Smith was right.

A forest protects from floods by reducing the rate of infiltration into the soil, which stops soil erosion, recharges groundwater aquifers, provides cycling nutrients for a rang of ecosystems (which incorporate humanity), regulates local (and sometimes global, as in the case of the Amazon) climate, and Smith insists on calling it a "wasteland". Nice one.

Oh, and 'natural capital' (i.e. the monetary value of services provided by the natural environment that benefit humans - e.g. flood protection by retaining a forest; detoxification; water purification) has been estimated in the trillions, and trillions larger than global GNP. If you are sceptical, I'll pass on the title of the journal article for you. The implications are immense: it would cost more to damage the environment than to 'enhance' it (in many, not all, instances). Wastelands indeed, Mr. Smith.

Because if he hasn't done it all at once, that means he's not moving in that direction, right?

Apparently, nothing moves, it only changes. If I wanted to get from my living room to my bedroom, I could only teleport there -- I can't walk. I would either stop being here and immediately start being there, or, with every step I take to get myself closer to my bedroom, I would have a bunch of morons following me, shouting that I can't be going to my bedroom because I'm not in my bedroom yet.

NO. NO. NO. Put it this way: America is currently at the front door, having a cigarette on the steps. Obama is stubbing out the cigarette, and walking inside, perhaps to make a sandwich in the kitchen. If he were indeed a Communist, he would walk right past the kitchen, and out the back door to have another cigarette. You're right; it doesn't happen at once, but that doesn't mean he's going out the back door.

Answer yes or no. Do you think Obama is a Communist?

No, he just accepted it. Which shows a complete lack of character.

Perhaps. I'm not a fan of it either, but I wouldn't snub the Nobel Commission. It could perhaps suggest that anyone who has won in the past is not so deserving. But again: not so important, he never planned this.

Hell no he wouldn't have. Because he's at least semi-conservative, and he's white. That doesn't mean that Obama actually earned it.

I find it odd. If my Prime Minister won the Nobel Peace prize, I would be happy, and I didn't vote for him.

America isn't a democracy, kid. It's a republic. And there's good reason not to trust democracy -- it quickly becomes mob rule.

Democracy in the modern sense: ballots. And I was commenting on the fact that Obama was democratically elected, and now we are hearing complaints about how he's 'not listening'. Hello? He kind of explained his principles during the campaign. We can't have elections everyday.

No. But being a nice guy -- or a young attractive charismatic black man with good speechwriters -- doesn't mean that the guy will be a good leader for more than 300,000,000 people and 14,000,000,000,000 dollars a year.

However, possibly a better leader than an old, uncharismatic white man with a dunce for a running mate.

[ViveLaVive]

Okay, lets get one thing straight: ALL politicians ARE BAD. No matter what,candidates will lie to you to get votes. What happened to taking my cousin out of Iraq? Oh yeah we'll just send him off to Afghanistan. What about the American dream of self improvement and becoming a self-made success? Oh yeah, well instead of educating the poor so they can get jobs lets just get them money so they can go buy more booze. What about the right to have your own health care, the way YOU want, or the right to have NONE? Oh yeah, well you now need to have health care, we'll just make the middle-men pay for it, even if they already have health care. Thanks, Obama. And What about that Nobel Peace Prize? He had done NOTHING at the time( and still hasn't done much). That was just plain racism. The only reason we don't point it out is BECAUSE he is black. I have nothing against him. His Ideas?....yes, I do.

[Josh_R]

What happened to taking my cousin out of Iraq? Oh yeah we'll just send him off to Afghanistan.

Whether people like it or not there is a need for some, but not alot of military prescence in these countries. Afghanistan is one of the ones that needs the most military.

Oh yeah, well instead of educating the poor so they can get jobs lets just get them money so they can go buy more booze.

How do you know they went out and bought booze. Unlike what you see in television most homeless do not spend all there money on booze. Some actually have families that need things. For the record some homeless people are actually very educated, they are just out of work. I met a homeless man at a kitchen where me and some of my marine buddies were serving food. This man was a doctor, but due to things he couldnt help he lost his job, his home, and his family. So for some the money is more important than education.

Thanks, Obama. And What about that Nobel Peace Prize? He had done NOTHING at the time( and still hasn't done much). That was just plain racism.

One question did he ask for the nobel prize, no he was given it. Maybe they thought he deserved, so how can you sit there and claim racism...

The only reason we don't point it out is BECAUSE he is black. I have nothing against him. His Ideas?....yes, I do.

How the hell does him being black have anything to do with the man in general. Him being black has absolutely nothing to do with him as a leader. Also what do you have against his ideas, you say that you don't like them but what don't you like.


Everyone wants to bitch and complain about Obama, but the man is just trying to fix a problem cause by the previous administration. He just now got in office, give him time maybe it will get turned around. Rome wasn't built in one f*cking day, and America will not be fixed in one. Plans take time to go into effect....

~Rant Over~

[Alpha]

...or the right to have NONE?

Are you serious? We all need healthcare at some stage of our lives; why would anybody not want it?

And if all politicians are bad, do you have an alternate system? Explain how exactly you intend anarchy to work, and I may start listening to the rest of what you said.

[saber372]

Hmmmm,

I like how all of your polls are by Rasmussen,a great research company. Look at their current poll

Fox News' Fuzzy Math Claims 120% Of Americans Have An Opinion On 'Climategate'

Yes, that does add up to 100% of respondents. Also, rasmussen is well known to be right wing supporters.

That aside, the hopes that were placed by many onto Obama, were not realistic to be solved within one year. The progress he has made though, is significant as to were it was.

Take a second though and look at all the things that have unfoiled in his term and how much of his term is left. I am a supporter, and beleive he is doing some great things, some good things, and some not so good things. I think he needs to take a stronger stance with his party and quit bargaining away what they are trying to acheive, but that is another discussion.

[M16]

He hasn't really done much except bail people out that shouldn't have been bailed out. That and set the stage for the further destruction of our economy.

[Sasquatch]

Because social democratic economies are hurting? That's why lefty New Zealand is out of the recession and employment is increasing. That's why Europe is poor and can't afford to pay the largest (proportionate) contribution to developing countries to try and achieve the Millennium Development Goals by 2012.

That's why America's economy is getting worse while it gets more socialist, and it gets better when people keep more of their own money.

Yes. Rich people save money.

They invest money. They don't stuff it into a mattress and keep it there, they put it into something that will make them more money -- at least, if nothing else, to keep up with inflation. More likely, people that own businesses will invest in their business -- creating more jobs -- so that their business will grow. It's a pretty simple concept.

If a man has only $50 currently, and he is given another $50, is he going to save that $50, or will he perhaps be able to afford a few more loaves of bread per week?

And if that man owes thousands of dollars on credit cards and late bills because he doesn't live within his means, that man's first obligation is to pay off what he owes, not spend more.

I'm not defending their actions. But I'm not going to defend the concept of Guantanamo, which is just as bad, or even worse.

And I'm saying that it's downright ignorant -- at best -- to claim that the mistreatment of a few terrorists is in any way worse than the intentional targeting of civilians.

Water boarding? And probably more stuff we don't know about.

Water boarding is something many American military men have gone through. It sucks, but it's nowhere near "torture". And do you honestly think that with American and worldwide media poking around everything -- especially Gitmo -- a U.S. soldier can even fart in public without a news release?

So Guantanamo is all about love and forgiveness?

It's not about hate and prejudice. Let me guess, because black people make up a disproportionate number of prison inmates in the United States, everybody who has anything to do with the U.S. justice system hates black people? Everybody who gets punished for anything is only punished because they're "hated", or because the authority is "prejudiced" against them?

Thank you. All people who support human rights are ignorant.

No, just those who support the rights of terrorists over the rights of innocent civilians. You place yourself into that category, that's not of my doing.

Human rights? You know, like, "innocent until proven guilty" and other such fundamental concepts. What if you were imprisoned, and then never sent to court?

I don't have to worry about that, since I'm not a terrorist. See how that works?

You may or may not have committed a crime, but that's not relevant, as we are prejudiced and we are afraid of you, and heck, just hate you.

There it is again -- the ignorant, arrogant accusation that Americans only imprison terrorists because we're afraid of them, "hate" them, or simply don't like their religion or skin color.

However, why does America fly the banner of human rights -- in China, in developing countries (before aid grants), in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and then turn around and say it doesn't apply to them?

Why do you bitch and moan about supposed petty human rights "violations" in Gitmo but ignore those of the rest of the world? Then have the gall to claim that Americans are prejudiced?

The more Guantanamo is defended within America, the more dissent will grow against Pax Americana. I tell you, unequivocally, Guantanamo is the biggest factor in anti-Americanism.

And the more places we have like Gitmo, the safer America will be. I don't care whether or not the rest of the world likes me, I care about whether or not my freedoms are secured.

As a generalisation, sure. That's why they don't support affirmative action, support Guantanamo (et al.), invade Muslim nations, support long-term incarceration, and only provide human rights to the rich (subjective statement, just ignore it in this thread).

Let's break this down:

AA: Racism, plain and simple -- the only difference is that it's racism against white men. THAT's why conservatives don't support it. No person who claims to be against racism can support Affirmative Action.

Guantanamo: Mistreating terrorists to secure information and security/liberty for Americans? I'm up for that.

Invade Muslim nations: The two current conflicts -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- will secure the freedom of about fifty million Muslims. American servicemembers have shed blood in dozens of situations over the past few decades to secure freedom for Muslims. Let me guess, do Americans hate Germans too, for taking on the Nazis? What about the Japanese? Koreans? Vietnamese? Mexicans? Everybody on the other side of the Mason-Dixon line?

Long-term incarceration: What does this have to do with prejudice?

"only provide human rights to the rich (subjective statement, just ignore it in this thread)": Translation: (moronic statement with absolutely no backing, pretend it was never said because there's no way to back up some bullshit like that)

So when colonisers invaded the 'New World', it just became theirs because they 'did something' to it? So when I walk into the forest and cut down a tree, it's mine, and not everyone's like it was up until that point?

What the hell does that have to do with a person's labor being their property? If you can't answer logically, just ignore it.

A forest protects from floods by reducing the rate of infiltration into the soil, which stops soil erosion, recharges groundwater aquifers, provides cycling nutrients for a rang of ecosystems (which incorporate humanity), regulates local (and sometimes global, as in the case of the Amazon) climate, and Smith insists on calling it a "wasteland". Nice one.

Anything else you'd like to take out of context and manipulate to make one of the smartest and most influential people in history look "bad" because you disagree with them?

NO. NO. NO. Put it this way: America is currently at the front door, having a cigarette on the steps. Obama is stubbing out the cigarette, and walking inside, perhaps to make a sandwich in the kitchen. If he were indeed a Communist, he would walk right past the kitchen, and out the back door to have another cigarette. You're right; it doesn't happen at once, but that doesn't mean he's going out the back door.

The point is, he's getting closer to the back door. And just because he doesn't magically warp from the front porch to the back porch doesn't mean he's not slowly heading that way.

Perhaps. I'm not a fan of it either, but I wouldn't snub the Nobel Commission. It could perhaps suggest that anyone who has won in the past is not so deserving. But again: not so important, he never planned this.

the Nobel Commission has been a political machine for a couple decades, and the Peace Prize means absolutely nothing anymore. Obama being awarded is only the exclamation mark at the end of that statement.

I find it odd. If my Prime Minister won the Nobel Peace prize, I would be happy, and I didn't vote for him.

You'd be happy if he won a prize that was completely politically motivated, based on two weeks of his being in office?

Democracy in the modern sense: ballots. And I was commenting on the fact that Obama was democratically elected, and now we are hearing complaints about how he's 'not listening'. Hello? He kind of explained his principles during the campaign. We can't have elections everyday.

Nobody's asking for an election today. The first post in this thread was simply pointing out approval ratings -- you know, those things that were flashed all over the news while Bush was in.

However, possibly a better leader than an old, uncharismatic white man with a dunce for a running mate.

A better leader, possibly. I've met people who knew nothing but how to get people to follow them. Hell, Billy Mays would have made a good leader. But leading and leading to success are two different things. (And while Palin wasn't the best choice, they needed to garner some more conservative votes, and she wasn't nearly as bad as the media tried making her out to be.)

How do you know they went out and bought booze.

Because it's almost impossible to be homeless in America for anybody who isn't completely incompetent.

For the record some homeless people are actually very educated, they are just out of work. I met a homeless man at a kitchen where me and some of my marine buddies were serving food. This man was a doctor, but due to things he couldnt help he lost his job, his home, and his family.

And what were those "things he couldn't help"? Doctors are always in demand.

One question did he ask for the nobel prize, no he was given it. Maybe they thought he deserved, so how can you sit there and claim racism...

Because they gave it to him because he is black. Giving somebody preference because of their race ... that's racism.

Everyone wants to bitch and complain about Obama, but the man is just trying to fix a problem cause by the previous administration.

And the administration before and the Democratic Congress, but let's ignore all that, right?

He just now got in office, give him time maybe it will get turned around.

He got a Nobel Peace Prize for what he did in his first couple weeks in office, didn't he? How long do you want to give him? Things were blamed on Bush the day he stepped into office -- things that he had no control over, things that Clinton had dropped into his lap. I'm betting now that in the next eight years, every problem Obama faces will be supposedly caused by Bush, just like every problem Bush faced was supposedly caused by Bush.

Are you serious? We all need healthcare at some stage of our lives; why would anybody not want it?

I'm sure the meaning was "health insurance", not "health care". Since Americans have health care anyway -- referring to health insurance as health care is only a scare tactic designed to let ignorant people believe that without Democrats, nobody would be able to get a doctor visit or a prescription.

Fox News' Fuzzy Math Claims 120% Of Americans Have An Opinion On 'Climategate'

If you look at the link ON THE CITE YOU POSTED, you'll see exactly how they came up with 59%. See, you have the 35% that said "very likely" and the 24% that said "somewhat likely". 35+24=59. So 59% say AT LEAST "somewhat likely".

Really. Is that all you have?

Yes, that does add up to 100% of respondents. Also, rasmussen is well known to be right wing supporters.

"Well known" to who? Prove that they're biased or shut up about it. I'm tired of these ignorant, unfounded accusations.

That aside, the hopes that were placed by many onto Obama, were not realistic to be solved within one year.

Then why did he promise to solve them that quickly?

The progress he has made though, is significant as to were it was.

What "progress"? The economy is in worse shape now than it was the day he stepped into the White House. He has quadrupled our budget deficit, increased spending and government control exponentially, publicly financed failing private businesses, and let unemployment increase twice as far as it increased under Bush. There is no "progress".

[Alpha]

No, just those who support the rights of terrorists over the rights of innocent civilians. You place yourself into that category, that's not of my doing.

No, they have equal rights. Yes, terrorists should be incarcerated, just as if a civilian committed murder. Should they both receive a trial? Of course. Problem is, that right is not given to these 'terrorists'. ('Terrorists' because if they could actually be charged with terrorism, then they would've been. But they haven't, because of a lack of evidence, and by the means that some evidence has been found (torture)).

Why do you bitch and moan about supposed petty human rights "violations" in Gitmo but ignore those of the rest of the world? Then have the gall to claim that Americans are prejudiced?

I'm not doing that at all. China has a horrible human rights record (Tibet). Israel and Palestine are both in the wrong. Many Middle Eastern countries have human rights backward. I just dislike how America proudly flies the banner of human rights, but doesn't live up to those principles.

And the more places we have like Gitmo, the safer America will be. I don't care whether or not the rest of the world likes me, I care about whether or not my freedoms are secured.

Locking up one 'terrorist' without just cause will incite ten others to become terrorists. You're making America a bigger target.

What the hell does that have to do with a person's labor being their property? If you can't answer logically, just ignore it.

Everything. Have you read John Locke's Two treatises on Government (1690)? Probably not. Locke and Smith are prey to people talking about them, who haven't even read them. For your convenience, I'll quote passages that illustrate my points.

Chapter III, Of Property.

18. Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person; this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state of nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby made it his property.

Do you see the issue? That anyone can take as much as he/she wants, and it simply becomes theirs, despite the service it was offering to everyone in common. Luckily, Locke recognises this:

22. It will be perhaps be objected to this that "if gathering the acorns or other fruits of the earth, etc., makes a right to them, then anyone may engross as much as he will." To which I answer: not so. The same law of nature that does by this means give us property does also bound that property, too. "God has given us all things richly" (Tim. vi. 17), is the voice of reason confirmed by inspiration. But how far has he given us? To enjoy. As much as any one can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils, so much as he may by his labour fix a property in; whatever is beyond this is more than his share, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for people to spoil and destroy.

So... he actually makes the argument that there is so much stuffs in the world that we will never run out: "God has given us all things richly". Which is false: peak oil, deforestation, etc. Another issue is the role that a common means of exchange plays. With money, people can continue to collect acorns, even if they can no longer "make use of [it] to any advantage of life before it spoils". The result is environmental disregard and inequality enforced through land tenure.

Anything else you'd like to take out of context and manipulate to make one of the smartest and most influential people in history look "bad" because you disagree with them?

Take out of context? Because you know the context, right? Smith (and Locke, often) considered land that did not serve a direct economic purpose to be "wasteland", and that it would be better served by turning it into farmland. This is despite the indirect benefits we get from forests/marshland/etc..

And if you haven't picked up, this is mostly a left environmentalist critique. I'm not sure to what extent Obama would agree with me here, so it's more or less just my thoughts on the matter.

The point is, he's getting closer to the back door. And just because he doesn't magically warp from the front porch to the back porch doesn't mean he's not slowly heading that way.

So you honestly think that Obama's long-term plan for America is to make it a bastion of communism? I hope you appreciate how difficult that would be when it is the single largest entity of capitalism.

...let unemployment increase twice as far as it increased under Bush.

That's got nothing to do with the recession, right?

Oh, and welcome back, Sassy! Haven't heard from you in ages.

[CincyJim]

... ... his reign as president ... ....

Shall we discuss a FACT?

President O'Bama does NOT "reign" as a king might.

President O'Bama is, simply, an employee of We the People. A more apt wording would be " ... his time as president ... ".

The US Constitution is worthwhile reading for all citizens.

Reign is defined as the period during which a sovereign occupies the throne. A sovereign is a king or queen.

I assert our current President stepped into a pile of knee-deep crap , which is much worse that he/we thought he would inherit.

I also assert President O'Bama has made mistakes; the biggest mistakes was in not anticipating the ferocity of the right-wing attacks. The ignorant right-wingers have accused President O'Bama of being anti-christian/Muslim AND accuse him of being a follower of a biased christian preacher??? The ignorant right-wingers have accused President O'Bama of not being a US citizen even though the Hawaiian state government authorities stated that President O'Bama is a native-born Hawaiian/American. The ignorant right-wingers have accused President O'Bama of not being perfect as though any Republican president was ever anywhere near being perfect, not even the vaunted Ronnie "Nancy gives me advise based on the stars" Reagan.

Those that base their thoughts/acts on public opinion polls, talk shows, or a political opinion TV show posing as a snooze program are mislead, willingly or unwillingly.

FACTS are what counts, not hyperbole.

I assert the vast majority of the President O'Bama haters are such due to his skin colour and perceived ethnicity.

I assert that if one were to deal in facts to the maximum degree possible, and to practice the golden rule, one would find plenty to be critical of our President about and plenty of Presidential acts to approve of.

I approve of President O'Bama's mid-east strategy of devoting our troops to finding/killing Osamma Bin Laden & friends and abandoning The Coward's attack for oil control disguised as an act of US self-defense.

I approve of President O'Bama's effort to have health care for all citizens, but do NOT approve of providing the same to the 10-12 million Hispanic criminals/illegals without capturing the Hispanic criminals and imprisoning them until returned to their country of origin. (Why is it The Coward did not build a "Berlin wall" along our US/Mexico border?)

****

? "The Coward"? The person that intentionally avoided combat in Viet-Nam by having daddy get an appointment, for The Coward, in the Texas ANG. The Coward then deserts the ANG while drunk in Alabama.

[Andromeda]

Please do not double post, we have an edit button available on the bottom right of the posting box.

You say that people are being mislead because they watch the news channels. Do you suppose people should be getting informed about the government from? Newspaper is just another from of the media that you are claim is misleading people. The TV and Newspaper are the two primary resources with the internet being a third for information, but they are all media outlets. If you claim that they misleading people where do you plan to information. Most people use the TV as their source you cut that out and a lot of people are going to be in the dark because newspaper subscriptions count to fall for the last decade. People aren't buying newspapers like they use to, they rely on the TV.

Honestly, I thought got past the race card already. Anyone still clinging to that needs to re-evaluate things. This is not about race at all at this point. People see Obama as the President not a black man. Race stopped being an issue after the elections. If he was a white man doing the exact same things he'd be getting just as much opposition. It's not about race. He's being fought because the American public does not agree with the choices he is making. We can't make Obama do anything, but we can make our voice be heard.

Though you look at the Democrats in office I'd imagine they're getting pretty scared right now. Because a lot of people are against what is going on, misinformed or otherwise. People are against it and when their seats come up for election the American public will not be giving it back to them. So I'm pretty sure they are look out for themselves, which is why Obama is continuing to lose support in his own party. They like their positions too much to lose them.

And please name calling is uncalled for. This a supposed to be a polite debate. If you disagree with someone's politics or the way they did things you're more than welcome to voice it. Just use his name, name calling only under minds your points.

[Sasquatch]

No, they have equal rights.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that in no way do terrorists have the same rights as innocent civilians. (By the way, what happened to the rest of my post, here? Only felt like responding to a fraction of it?)

('Terrorists' because if they could actually be charged with terrorism, then they would've been. But they haven't, because of a lack of evidence, and by the means that some evidence has been found (torture)).

First, not all evidence found -- actually, only a mere fraction of it -- has been by "torture". Second, the "torture" that the terrorists in Gitmo go through is discomfort at the most -- nothing like the Taliban or Al Qaeda or the Ba'ath Party would do to their enemies.

I'm not doing that at all. China has a horrible human rights record (Tibet). Israel and Palestine are both in the wrong. Many Middle Eastern countries have human rights backward. I just dislike how America proudly flies the banner of human rights, but doesn't live up to those principles.

Where on TFF have you bitched about China's human rights record? Where have you pointed out how Saddam and sons used to do "experiments" on their enemies (read: anybody who didn't like something they were doing), such as testing how long they can stay alive while submerged in a vat of acid, or how long it takes a person to die while they're being fed feet-first into a machine that shreds plastic, or how many bullets of different sizes can their body absorb before the killing shot? I haven't seen you point out much of that at all -- but as soon as you think you can pick on American policies, you're right on board.

Locking up one 'terrorist' without just cause will incite ten others to become terrorists. You're making America a bigger target.

That's simply a myth. Because you know, locking up one rapist will just cause ten more to come out of the woodwork, right? Taking down Japan in WWII caused the rest of Asia to unite against us, didn't it?

These people have an agenda. And their agenda is to slaughter everybody who isn't Arab and Muslim. We are their enemies because we are a white, Christian nation, and because we support the existence of Israel, which is a Jewish nation. There are two ways to get them to STOP hating us: One would be to stop being a white Christian nation and become an arab Muslim nation, and to stop supporting Israel and allow the rest of the Arab Muslim world to follow through on their stated goal of pushing it into the sea and slaughtering every Jew on earth. That would be taking their reasons for hating us away. The other way -- the only possible way -- is to kill the ones who attack us. We -- and especially myself personally -- don't give a damn if they don't like us, as long as they don't do anything stupid, like slaughter thousands of civilians. If we can't get them to stop hating us, we need to do what it takes to get them to stop attacking us. And killing the ones who attack us is a good way to make them stop.

Everything. Have you read John Locke's Two treatises on Government (1690)? Probably not. Locke and Smith are prey to people talking about them, who haven't even read them.

I've read more than a dozen books and essays from Locke -- but continue on with your delusional intellectual superiority complex.

Chapter III, Of Property.

Talks about taking something out of nature -- does not mention anything about who owns the land. The entire premise is that if somebody else owns the land (and thus what's on/in/under it), nobody else has any right to it.

So... he actually makes the argument that there is so much stuffs in the world that we will never run out: "God has given us all things richly". Which is false: peak oil, deforestation, etc. Another issue is the role that a common means of exchange plays. With money, people can continue to collect acorns, even if they can no longer "make use of [it] to any advantage of life before it spoils".

There would be no reason to continue collecting acorns if that was the case. In such case, it wouldn't happen. Locke even points out that, "nothing was made by God for people to spoil and destroy." You might want to look up the word "context" ... though I do appreciate you posting enough of the passage to counter your own accusations, instead of only posting enough for you to manipulate enough to support them and ignoring the rest.

Take out of context? Because you know the context, right?

You just posted it. So yes.

Unless you're talking about your manipulation of Smith's teachings, in which case, "context" would include the rest of Smith's teachings, which are nowhere near what you label them as. So yes.

Smith (and Locke, often) considered land that did not serve a direct economic purpose to be "wasteland", and that it would be better served by turning it into farmland. This is despite the indirect benefits we get from forests/marshland/etc..

First, where are your excerpts from Smith's and Locke's writings to support this accusation? Second -- again, context. At the time, there was more forext/marsh/etc. than was needed, and quite a bit of it WOULD be better as farmland or grazing land. And third, if the community (or one person, even) decided to buy the land and be financially reimbursed for its benefits, and they could make a case for it, that'd be completely possible.

And if you haven't picked up, this is mostly a left environmentalist critique.

... Yeah, I picked that up.

I'm not sure to what extent Obama would agree with me here, so it's more or less just my thoughts on the matter.

If it means more government control and more chances to redistribute wealth from those who earn more, he'd be all for it.

So you honestly think that Obama's long-term plan for America is to make it a bastion of communism?

Where did I say that?

That's got nothing to do with the recession, right?

The one Obama claimed was all Bush's fault and promised to end within months?

It's funny how, to some people, the problems of January 21, 2001 were ALL Bush's fault, but the problems we're facing nearly a year after Obama stepped into office (that have gotten WORSE since then, mind you) are STILL all Bush's fault.

Oh, and welcome back, Sassy! Haven't heard from you in ages.

Meh, I bounce in and out. Busy lately, with a trip to see family for Christmas and such.

Shall we discuss a FACT?

It's only AFTER reading through your post that this little question becomes so ironic and comedic.

The US Constitution is worthwhile reading for all citizens.

Hey, there's something I can agree with.

Reign is defined as the period during which a sovereign occupies the throne. A sovereign is a king or queen.

Are you really trying to be this anal about words with multiple definitions? The online dictionary you posted mentions "the reign of law" -- is "law" a king or queen, too? This is a bad omen for you -- if your arguing is petty enough to necessitate attempts to pick apart one word because you disagree with how it's used, we should not expect much from the rest of your post.

I assert our current President stepped into a pile of knee-deep crap , which is much worse that he/we thought he would inherit.

I thought you wanted to discuss FACTS, not your "assertions"?

I also assert President O'Bama has made mistakes ...

Like spelling his own name?

... the biggest mistakes was in not anticipating the ferocity of the right-wing attacks.

Because never before has a campaign for President of the United States resulted in one party pointing out bad things about another party's candidate, has it? Nobody expected that!

The ignorant right-wingers have accused President O'Bama of being anti-christian/Muslim AND accuse him of being a follower of a biased christian preacher???

Because he was raised Muslim, and he was a follower of a racist, anti-American preacher. This is pretty simple stuff, here.

The ignorant right-wingers have accused President O'Bama of not being a US citizen even though the Hawaiian state government authorities stated that President O'Bama is a native-born Hawaiian/American.

And when was the last time you heard that brought up? It was a valid issue, it was proven, it was ignored.

The ignorant right-wingers have accused President O'Bama of not being perfect as though any Republican president was ever anywhere near being perfect, not even the vaunted Ronnie "Nancy gives me advise based on the stars" Reagan.

Yes, attempt to smear the greatest man to ever hold that office with rumored nonsense, while supporting the most liberal President in history because of your own ignorant biases.

Those that base their thoughts/acts on public opinion polls, talk shows, or a political opinion TV show posing as a snooze program are mislead, willingly or unwillingly.

Because the best place to get information is the INTERNET, because NOTHING on the internet is wrong!

FACTS are what counts, not hyperbole.

I assert the vast majority of the President O'Bama haters are such due to his skin colour and perceived ethnicity.

Claim that "facts are what counts [sic]", then "assert" that people who don't support Obama are racist. Good call!

I approve of President O'Bama's mid-east strategy of devoting our troops to finding/killing Osamma Bin Laden & friends and abandoning The Coward's attack for oil control disguised as an act of US self-defense.

Yes, because Iraq is all about oil! Which is why gasoline and diesel fuel are down to pennies a gallon, and American petroleum companies have the highest profit margin of any type of corporation, and the United States is funneling millions of barrels of oil every day out of Iraq and back to North America without buying it on the free market like every other country does ... Oh, wait. Whoops.

I approve of President O'Bama's effort to have health care for all citizens, but do NOT approve of providing the same to the 10-12 million Hispanic criminals/illegals without capturing the Hispanic criminals and imprisoning them until returned to their country of origin.

Health care is already provided to all citizens. Nice try.

(Why is it The Coward did not build a "Berlin wall" along our US/Mexico border?)

Because every time he tried, he was blocked by Democrats and special interest groups. Remember the outrage at the "Minutemen"? They're just racist, gun-loving rednecks who want a chance to shoot somebody with a darker skin color? Bush didn't build a wall because he caved in to the political pressure from liberals like you, kid. If he hadn't, you would have just called him racist.

? "The Coward"? The person that intentionally avoided combat in Viet-Nam by having daddy get an appointment, for The Coward, in the Texas ANG.

Obama (no apostrophe) didn't serve in the military at all. Bush served in the ANG and wasn't called up. How much time have you spent in the military, kid?

The Coward then deserts the ANG while drunk in Alabama.

Which is complete and utter bullshit, proven time and time again by multiple reliable, FACTUAL sources. Doesn't surprise me that you buy into it, though.

...

...

I feel obligated to quote Stewie on this one: "It's like she's f***ing five!"