Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Forums _ Debate _ Obama--what do you think?
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 1 2010, 01:10 AM
Just curious as to know what everyone thinks of him. Not the brightest crayon in the box...but that's just my opinion. 
Posted by: mipadi Oct 1 2010, 09:14 AM
QUOTE(lovebuddha @ Oct 1 2010, 02:10 AM) 
Just curious as to know what everyone thinks of him. Not the brightest crayon in the box...but that's just my opinion.
There are a lot of things that you can say about Obama: he's sometimes wishy-washy, he hasn't come through on all of his promises, he's not really very "liberal" -- but I think that "stupid" is not an adjective you can use to describe Obama. What makes you say that?
Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 1 2010, 05:17 PM
I must say he is one of our more intelligent recent Presidents, but as far as a President goes, he's not doing a particularly grand job. I think he'll be another Carter, doing a lot more good post-presidency than while in office.
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 2 2010, 06:14 PM
Well, if he made smart decisions then he would have followed through with his promises. That would be the more intelligent thing to do. 
Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 3 2010, 12:12 AM
QUOTE(lovebuddha @ Oct 2 2010, 06:14 PM)
Well, if he made smart decisions then he would have followed through with his promises. That would be the more intelligent thing to do.
He is going through with his promises. Congress is what's preventing anything from happening.
Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 3 2010, 12:15 AM
I listen to a lot of conservative talk radio and the information you're putting out is directly in line with a lot of the things said on those talk radio shows. You should probably look at it from a more objective standpoint.
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 5 2010, 07:53 PM
QUOTE(ButtsexV2 @ Oct 3 2010, 01:12 AM)
He is going through with his promises. Congress is what's preventing anything from happening.
It just seems to me that he is trying harder to make things right within his family, like the nice vacations, the dog, the expensive dresses for his wife, etc...as opposed to trying to help the american citizens.
Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 5 2010, 10:02 PM
QUOTE(lovebuddha @ Oct 5 2010, 07:53 PM)
It just seems to me that he is trying harder to make things right within his family, like the nice vacations, the dog, the expensive dresses for his wife, etc...as opposed to trying to help the american citizens.
look at all the other presidents. every one since TR has had a dog, they all went on "vacations" constantly, and the first lady is generally a postergirl for the country.
so pretty much you're saying that the TR was the first bad president and all the ones after him were bad. Pretty sure it's mostly the opposite.
Posted by: Simba Oct 5 2010, 10:34 PM
give him a break, he's not even buying 24s or spinners or buying out kfc, or buying gucci chains
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 6 2010, 01:13 AM
Okay..well I've voiced my opinion on him. I'm not going to give him a break because I do not honestly believe that he has done anything to help our country.
kthx. 
Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 6 2010, 06:39 PM
QUOTE(lovebuddha @ Oct 6 2010, 01:13 AM)
Okay..well I've voiced my opinion on him. I'm not going to give him a break because I do not honestly believe that he has done anything to help our country.
kthx.
kthx.
open your eyes, it was only just a dream
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 7 2010, 06:29 PM
Bet it took you all day to come up with such a clever comment.
Congrats.
Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 7 2010, 07:35 PM
took me all of 5 seconds
Posted by: Simba Oct 7 2010, 07:50 PM
I was trying to fly out of Washington D.C. to Chicago but Obama delayed my flight by like an hour because him and his airforce 1 buddies were flying around...
It's okay I guess I was doing my duty as an American by standing by and being an hour late and shit.
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 7 2010, 09:00 PM
Maybe now he should do his duty by...I don't know...doing something.
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 7 2010, 09:03 PM
QUOTE(ButtsexV2 @ Oct 7 2010, 08:35 PM)
took me all of 5 seconds
Well that's wonderful. And considering now that you are so brilliant maybe you should join Obama's staff and help in his great attempt to screw the american people.
It should only take all of 5 seconds.
Posted by: ButtsexV2 Oct 8 2010, 03:50 PM
OP you're a little closed-minded. I'd tell you to get your head out of your ass but you seem to like it in there.
Posted by: karmakiller Oct 8 2010, 05:23 PM
I don't understand why you'd make a topic in the Debate forum when you don't want to listen to anything that anyone else has to say. And when they do say something you're throwing around false information and then saying "He's stupid. That's my opinion." That's fine, you can have your own opinion, but there's no need to make a topic in this forum just to tell everyone else your opinion and not listen to theirs. Besides the Debate forum isn't a very good place to post an opinion topic. You're stupid for doing that. That's just my opinion.
Posted by: mockingbird Oct 8 2010, 05:57 PM
QUOTE(ButtsexV2 @ Oct 2 2010, 09:12 PM)
He is going through with his promises. Congress is what's preventing anything from happening.
+++++++++++++++ rep 9001, qft
Posted by: Simba Oct 9 2010, 07:20 AM
somewhere in this thread, the truth was laid down
Posted by: LittleMissSunshine Oct 9 2010, 02:33 PM
to be honest, he made a lot of promises that gives the society hope. which he can not change in four years. he has a lot to build up to from all the damage bush did. he can't do it all in four years. it took 8 years that bush ruined the country, and it's going to take 8 years or longer to fix it up. and obama can do it, people just aren't giving him time, they want change quickly, and obama can't do it that fast. he has to rebuild this country and it is going to take time.
Posted by: lovebuddha Oct 15 2010, 01:50 AM
QUOTE(karmakiller @ Oct 8 2010, 06:23 PM)
I don't understand why you'd make a topic in the Debate forum when you don't want to listen to anything that anyone else has to say. And when they do say something you're throwing around false information and then saying "He's stupid. That's my opinion." That's fine, you can have your own opinion, but there's no need to make a topic in this forum just to tell everyone else your opinion and not listen to theirs. Besides the Debate forum isn't a very good place to post an opinion topic. You're stupid for doing that. That's just my opinion.
kthx
Posted by: Uronacid Nov 11 2010, 08:25 AM
QUOTE(ButtsexV2 @ Oct 3 2010, 12:12 AM)
He is going through with his promises. Congress is what's preventing anything from happening.
Are you kidding? You really believe this garbage? The Democrats practically had a straight shot at passing bills in the house/senate the last two years and with it they passed some of the most expensive bills in history (Stimulus, Health Care). If Obama wanted to follow through with his promises, he would have.'
Anyway, I feel as if Obama is spending us into oblivion.
Posted by: mipadi Nov 11 2010, 10:26 AM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Nov 11 2010, 08:25 AM)
Anyway, I feel as if Obama is spending us into oblivion.
Nope, that's the Department of
Posted by: Uronacid Dec 20 2010, 09:03 AM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Nov 11 2010, 10:26 AM)
Nope, that's the Department of http://www.costofwar.com/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States that you're thinking of.
They only do what he tells them to... War in Afghanistan *cough cough* :X
Posted by: mipadi Dec 20 2010, 11:21 AM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Dec 20 2010, 09:03 AM)
They only do what he tells them to... War in Afghanistan *cough cough* :X
Obama doesn't (directly) control the Defense Department's budget.
Posted by: Uronacid Dec 20 2010, 01:49 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Dec 20 2010, 11:21 AM)
Obama doesn't (directly) control the Defense Department's budget.
Obama is the Commander and Chief. He's also a big spender.
You know, a lot of good has come from our defense department. The money we invest in weapons technology does quite a bit of good for all of us. Just like NASA.
Posted by: mipadi Dec 20 2010, 02:00 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Dec 20 2010, 01:49 PM)
Obama is the Commander and Chief. He's also a big spender.
What's your point? Command-in-Chief doesn't set the budget; Congress does. The President has veto power over budget bills, but they are subject to being challenged (as with any bill). And no Congressman (with the exception of, perhaps, Ron Paul and Kucinich) wants to touch defense spending. The President also lacks line-item veto power (that was found to be unconstitutional), so he can't control individual budget elements.
Plus, it wasn't Obama who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. It was Bush (and a Republican-controlled Congress). Given the extreme cost of the two wars, I'd argue that Bush and Republicans are even bigger spenders. And let's not forget that Clinton's administration actually turned a budget surplus. Here's an illustration of the unrestrained spending of the government:
You can't criticize Obama's spending with a straight face unless you're willing to criticize the Defense Department's oversized budget.
Posted by: serotonin Dec 20 2010, 02:27 PM
Pisses me off.
Posted by: Uronacid Dec 20 2010, 03:17 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Dec 20 2010, 02:00 PM)
Blah blah blah... I'm a big dem. Bush sucks.
I don't give a shit about Bush. He wasn't a conservative at all. My point is, Obama is a big spender. I don't like that.
Roflcopter goml.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Posted by: mipadi Dec 20 2010, 04:01 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Dec 20 2010, 03:17 PM)
I don't give a shit about Bush. He wasn't a conservative at all. My point is, Obama is a big spender. I don't like that.
And my point is that the Defense Dept. is a huge money drain, but no one in Congress wants to deal with that issue. If you want to criticize "big spending", start there.
(Also, Obama was dealing with a much different economic situation. Bush enjoyed a buoyant economy, and still managed to run up a huge deficit. Part of the deficit of '09 was due to the banking bailout which was initiated by the Bush administration. Much of the rest was due to the economic stimulus package.
I don't know... I don't agree with unrestrained spending, and think that the government should live within its means. I didn't support the bank bailout. I'm not sure whether the economic stimulus package was entirely the "right" solution to the economic problem. I'm not an economist, so I can't really say what would work best. I support a balanced budget, but I also agree that sometimes, you have to spend some money to make some money. However, I do know that I'd rather see my money spent on public projects, than on fueling the military-industrial complex.
Also, Bush was most certainly a conservative; saying he wasn't is just a cop-out. It's excusing right-wing America for the failings and abuses of the Bush administration. I know what you're trying to say; there's a strong movement among Tea Partiers, etc., to disassociate themselves from the Bush presidency since he was such a shitty leader, and move to the "conservatism is about fiscal responsibility and libertarian rights", but you know what? It's about 6 years too late for conservatives to take a stand against Bush -- conservatives should've had the spine to stand up to him earlier, if they felt he was violating their principles. They did not, so now they have to live with his legacy.
I mean, okay -- maybe that's unfair. I disagree with much of what the Dems have done in the past decade or so, and don't want to be saddled with that legacy. (Then again, the Dems are hardly liberal, compared to liberal parties in other countries. But I digress.) But I've also often been critical of the idiocy of Democratic politicians, so I think it is fair to ask: if conservatives don't think of Bush as a conservative, then where was the right-wing criticism of his policies during his administration (instead of after the fact)?
And anyway, the Tea Party is bullshit, too: it's just a corporate-funded campaign to get lower taxes for large companies. But I digress.
Posted by: Uronacid Dec 20 2010, 04:57 PM
QUOTE(mipadi @ Dec 20 2010, 04:01 PM)
And my point is that the Defense Dept. is a huge money drain, but no one in Congress wants to deal with that issue. If you want to criticize "big spending", start there.
(Also, Obama was dealing with a much different economic situation. Bush enjoyed a buoyant economy, and still managed to run up a huge deficit. Part of the deficit of '09 was due to the banking bailout which was initiated by the Bush administration. Much of the rest was due to the economic stimulus package.
I don't know... I don't agree with unrestrained spending, and think that the government should live within its means. I didn't support the bank bailout. I'm not sure whether the economic stimulus package was entirely the "right" solution to the economic problem. I'm not an economist, so I can't really say what would work best. I support a balanced budget, but I also agree that sometimes, you have to spend some money to make some money. However, I do know that I'd rather see my money spent on public projects, than on fueling the military-industrial complex.
Also, Bush was most certainly a conservative; saying he wasn't is just a cop-out. It's excusing right-wing America for the failings and abuses of the Bush administration. I know what you're trying to say; there's a strong movement among Tea Partiers, etc., to disassociate themselves from the Bush presidency since he was such a shitty leader, and move to the "conservatism is about fiscal responsibility and libertarian rights", but you know what? It's about 6 years too late for conservatives to take a stand against Bush -- conservatives should've had the spine to stand up to him earlier, if they felt he was violating their principles. They did not, so now they have to live with his legacy.
I mean, okay -- maybe that's unfair. I disagree with much of what the Dems have done in the past decade or so, and don't want to be saddled with that legacy. (Then again, the Dems are hardly liberal, compared to liberal parties in other countries. But I digress.) But I've also often been critical of the idiocy of Democratic politicians, so I think it is fair to ask: if conservatives don't think of Bush as a conservative, then where was the right-wing criticism of his policies during his administration (instead of after the fact)?
And anyway, the Tea Party is bullshit, too: it's just a corporate-funded campaign to get lower taxes for large companies. But I digress.
(Also, Obama was dealing with a much different economic situation. Bush enjoyed a buoyant economy, and still managed to run up a huge deficit. Part of the deficit of '09 was due to the banking bailout which was initiated by the Bush administration. Much of the rest was due to the economic stimulus package.
I don't know... I don't agree with unrestrained spending, and think that the government should live within its means. I didn't support the bank bailout. I'm not sure whether the economic stimulus package was entirely the "right" solution to the economic problem. I'm not an economist, so I can't really say what would work best. I support a balanced budget, but I also agree that sometimes, you have to spend some money to make some money. However, I do know that I'd rather see my money spent on public projects, than on fueling the military-industrial complex.
Also, Bush was most certainly a conservative; saying he wasn't is just a cop-out. It's excusing right-wing America for the failings and abuses of the Bush administration. I know what you're trying to say; there's a strong movement among Tea Partiers, etc., to disassociate themselves from the Bush presidency since he was such a shitty leader, and move to the "conservatism is about fiscal responsibility and libertarian rights", but you know what? It's about 6 years too late for conservatives to take a stand against Bush -- conservatives should've had the spine to stand up to him earlier, if they felt he was violating their principles. They did not, so now they have to live with his legacy.
I mean, okay -- maybe that's unfair. I disagree with much of what the Dems have done in the past decade or so, and don't want to be saddled with that legacy. (Then again, the Dems are hardly liberal, compared to liberal parties in other countries. But I digress.) But I've also often been critical of the idiocy of Democratic politicians, so I think it is fair to ask: if conservatives don't think of Bush as a conservative, then where was the right-wing criticism of his policies during his administration (instead of after the fact)?
And anyway, the Tea Party is bullshit, too: it's just a corporate-funded campaign to get lower taxes for large companies. But I digress.
No-one wants to kill the excessive spending on our education system either. More money does not equal better averages in school. Another taboo subject, yet politicians get crucified when they talk about the budget.
Real conservatives did put their foot down with Bush. I couldn't stand bush's excessive spending, and I can't spend Obama's excessive spending. Neither of them put their foot down and said, "NO".
The Tea Party is bullshit now, but didn't start out as bullshit. Originally it was just a bunch of regular people and local radio stations that started a trend. The Tea Party turned into whore fest when big names like Glen Beck or Sarah Palin got involved and pushed it to new heights.
Again, I don't care about all that. It doesn't change the fact that Obama is a big spender.
Posted by: liquordick Dec 22 2010, 07:25 PM
you're right, less money = better averages in schools
Posted by: mipadi Jan 6 2011, 04:18 PM
QUOTE(Uronacid @ Dec 20 2010, 04:57 PM)
Again, I don't care about all that. It doesn't change the fact that Obama is a big spender.
This doesn't directly apply to this opinion, but I thought it was still relevant: A study by the Congressional Budget Office showed that the Republicans' plan to repeal the recent health care changes will actually increase the budget deficit by $230 billion in the next ten years. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12040/01-06-PPACA_Repeal.pdf
Posted by: liquordick Jan 6 2011, 06:26 PM
oh cmon, you can't just assume that just because of his negative stance on Obama's actions makes him a republican, can't we all just be libertarian
Posted by: mipadi Jan 7 2011, 01:35 PM
QUOTE(liquordick @ Jan 6 2011, 06:26 PM)
oh cmon, you can't just assume that just because of his negative stance on Obama's actions makes him a republican, can't we all just be libertarian
No, but he has stated that's against the health care law and against excessive government spending. (I didn't say anything about his being a Republican, so it's funny you filled that in yourself.)
Posted by: liquordick Jan 7 2011, 09:36 PM
thats a good point, i will have to wait for the answer then, until then i will suspend any comments