|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted September 19, 2012 04:43 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:44, 19 Sep 2012.
|
Quote:
I share the disappointment, though I assume you didn't vote for Obama in 2008 either.
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008*. Then, as now, I consider Obama the Apple of presidential candidates: all style, no substance, and costs about three times as much as every other product on the market.
*I didn't vote for McCain either, although mostly that's because of Sarah Palin.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 19, 2012 06:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think it's been pretty much an unmitigated disaster. On top of all that, he did almost nothing he promised he'd do. I can't believe people still have faith in this guy.
Well, the thing he promised (most repeatedly) was an affordable, bi-partisan health care plan. And, of course, after adopting many of the policies that the republicans wanted in the plan but not all, the democrats have been given flack for being "Socialist." Ironically, the thing the republican party seems to forget is that they are the ones that proposed the individual mandate, but that's a story for a different time.
Things he's actually done: Pull people out of Iraq, stimulate the auto industry, keep the bank I use from going down in flames, get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell (Which is not as bad as Elodin describes).
Things he tried to do: Stimulate the rest of the economy, make a bipartisan and affordable healthcare system, a nice long list of things that congress has very snarkily blocked, and sleep in. 
Things he unequivocally failed: ... Afghanistan, lowering the national debt in the short term (which is actually Congress's job, BTW... the president can't do **** about the budget), making the government more bipartisan, memorizing a speech or two, etc.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted September 19, 2012 09:06 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 21:08, 19 Sep 2012.
|
Quote:
A question. Is there anything good that you think Obama has accomplished during his presidency? (not for you Elodin, but for people who can actually objectively share/analyze something in this thread)
I am not an american but I dont think obama has accomplished anything good. Not on the international scene, not on american soil.
5 trillion extra public debt under obama
Bad healthcare reforms
Supporting arab spring
and so on...
The only redeeming factors I see at him is when he opposed PIPA and SOPA
Pro choice stance
Killed osama(And that kinda proves that Pakistan is a sanctuary for terrorists.)
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 19, 2012 09:50 PM |
|
|
Obama said his policies would destroy the coal industry in America and his policies are doing just that.
What he said in 2008:
Quote:
“If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them,” the president said, in a quote interpreted by critics as a campaign promise that coal would have no future in an Obama White House.
Clicky for what is beginning to happen
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal but the dems don't want America to benefit from the coal or other natural energy sources like oil and oil shale.
____________
Revelation
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 19, 2012 11:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Things he's actually done: Pull people out of Iraq, stimulate the auto industry, keep the bank I use from going down in flames, get rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell (Which is not as bad as Elodin describes).
And what of these can actually be attributed to him? If we contrast a normal president to somebody like Roosevelt, who got elected for the sole purpose of fixing things, I rather doubt Obama has done anything.
Iraq might be partially attributed. But thats not a entire point. Auto industry and banking is related to corruption, and the repeal is related to default process of due law.
Elodin: Thats actually interisting, but I have found no evidence he actually did anything. I can't find anything on his/their pages on wikipedia about any form of regulation changes.
So it is most likely another "issue" that is on the long list of "forgotten"?
____________
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 01:43 AM |
|
|
And what did Roosevelt actually do that can be directly attributed to him? The only reason basically all of his programs were passed was that Roosevelt's Congress wasn't divided (with his Senate and House having more or less the same political viewpoints as him), Which Obama has not had the luxury of possessing. If we could have a House that didn't bicker like school children, this might be different and people might actually have legitimate complaints about him. But when you set a president up to fail, don't think that you can justly laugh at him when he does...
And you can take your, "He should have tried to pass bi-partisan bills" to the endlessly arguing bloody polarized house. The idea of bi-partisanship was attempted with the healthcare reform plan, and then quickly realized to be a pipe dream shortly after...
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 01:58 AM |
|
|
What are you talking about? Obama had effective control of the house and senate for two years.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 02:03 AM |
|
|
Really? He had 2/3 of the Senate and House for two years? I thought he only achieved that in the Senate the last two years of his term, and he had only 51% of the house at any one time, until two years ago when it dropped by a bit.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 02:23 AM |
|
|
|
Don't need 2/3 to pass a bill, only simple majority. He had that in both houses for the first two years.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 02:49 AM |
|
|
But the senate can filibuster as long as it wants unless you have a 2/3 majority of it that just wants to shut the man up, and you can hardly expect all of the house Democrats to like any of Obama's plans. But whatever, the fact does remain that he didn't do much, regardless of the reasons... but somehow I find myself believing that Romney won't do much either... 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 03:35 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:37, 20 Sep 2012.
|
Filibuster since the 1970s has been 3/5, not 2/3, and while it can certainly slow things down, it never is drawn out in perpetuity, particularly when the majority party has very close to the 60 votes required to achieve cloture.
In the 111th Congress, which presided from January 2009-2011, there were only 42 Republicans (56 Dems and 2 independents). Meaning it was very hard for the Republicans even to maintain a very long filibuster. The House also had 58% democrats.
The proof is in the pudding - if filibuster was fool-proof, the health care bill would never have been passed.
In practice, by enjoying a majority as strong as it did, the Obama administration should have been able to pass just about anything it wanted. The failure of the US government to turn anything around, then, at least in the first two years, can hardly be laid at the feet of Congressional obstructionism.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 03:54 AM |
|
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 20, 2012 04:24 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 04:25, 20 Sep 2012.
|
You may be unaware, Gootch, but there is such as thing as polite disagreement. When someone posts something that you believe to be factually incorrect, there are two possible explanations that might be applied:
(1) The person posting it is merely ignorant of the truth.
(2) The person posting it is intentionally spreading information he knows to be false in order to deceive you or others.
A gentleman of tact and good will assumes the former and proceeds to educate the offender in a friendly manner that carries high likelihood that misconceptions or misunderstandings will be corrected. But it is a mark of dishonor to accuse another person of lying, when said person engages in a discussion in good faith to express his opinion. You speak of unbecoming behavior, and yet you enter into a discussion with an insult against someone merely because you disagree with their point of view?
Shame on you, friend.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
violent_flower
Promising
Supreme Hero
Almost there.
|
|
posted September 22, 2012 12:35 AM |
|
|
@ Gootch and Cor... You two are like watching a bad divorce...remember we are all supposed to be working together after all if you fell into the left side of the pond scum then you are all about working together..
Gootch is not a full on dem BTW he is too smart to follow the sheep on the left and has no tolerance for some of the ignorance on the right. He really is more of an independent but understand that he is also not one to sit back and not take a stand, so he chooses a side only on that basis.
In his defense (I know hold on so you don't fall over) he really does his research before saying anything.
____________
Learn how to duck and weave because I will throw truth at you all day!
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 22, 2012 12:50 AM |
|
|
Doing all the research in the world means nothing if you act like an ass when it comes to sharing what you've learned. In the end, intelligence and wisdom are two different things. Intelligence is assimilating facts into a cohesive, well, reasoned arguments. Wisdom is knowing that insulting people isn't likely to get then to listen to what you have to say.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 22, 2012 01:37 AM |
|
|
Romney today proved Harry Reid and other Obuma puppets to be liars. Reid and other dems had lied that Romney had not paid any taxes in over 5 years. Obummy had all but called Romney a liar over taxes too.
Turns out he paid almost 2 million in taxes last year and gave 30% of his income to charity.
Ah, liberals.....at odds with the truth once more.
Clicky
Quote:
(CBS News) Mitt Romney on Friday released his full 2011 tax returns, which show that he and his wife paid $1,935,708 that year on $13,696,951 of income - a 14.1 percent tax rate.
His campaign also released a notarized letter from the Romneys' tax preparer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, stating that from 1990 through 2009, Romney paid an average annual effective federal tax rate of 20.2 percent.
In 2011, the couple donated 30 percent of their income - more than $4 million - to charity. They claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 22, 2012 02:01 AM |
|
|
Er... El? Hate to burst your bubble buddy, but... Charity =/= taxes, just something that's tax deductible. And by giving to charity he was able to cut out more than half of his investments taxes out... very impressive. *Polite applause*
Technically though, Obama and Romney's detractors are right, Romney does not pay an income tax, as all of his money comes in/ is in his very lucrative investments. Romney has no need for an income which would have an income tax attached to it. Instead, his investments are taxed since that's where all of his money is. Taxes on investments are lower (percentage wise), but they still exist.
In other words, if someone say that Romney does not pay an income tax, they would be right. If said person claimed that Romney didn't pay taxes at all, they would be lying either through their teeth or out of ignorance for how the system works.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 22, 2012 02:43 AM |
|
|
|
A lot of people go on and on about how the gov't should tax the rich. What they don't understand is that raising income taxes does not harm the rich. It harms the people trying to become rich. Income tax is on earnings, not holdings.
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted September 22, 2012 02:51 AM |
|
|
EXACTLY. If one wishes to truly make taxes on the rich matter, you will have to make the tax on investments and holdings greater, since those are still not taxed equally.
But this isn't the thread for that so before I go off into a two page rant [/off topic].
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 22, 2012 03:01 AM |
|
|
I don't see where the sinister cleverness comes into play just because he got tax deductions from charity donations. He still ended up 1.75 million extra in the hole than if he hadn't donated a cent. It's not as though he's making bank off of it.
Romney doesn't make an income. He's been busy participating in a presidential campaign that is a full-time job and then some. The only thing that should matter to a person is if he's been using his investments to sit around idly, which wouldn't suggest presidential material. He hasn't. He's a radical type-A workaholic like almost every other president or major presidential candidate in history.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
