I Just Don't Get Obama

[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?