Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

While I have been one of the most critical voices of Obama here, I have decided to give Obama a chance and will refrain from criticism and look at things differently. My primary reason for this decision was this Iran deal and talking with Omega and he changed my mind on the issue. I think that this deal while not the best is better then anything else. I can say I have fallen victim to the unessasary criticsm. I heard somone call in on a radio show and said give peace a chance, so that what I plan on doing. I realize you can only push your friends so much and your advasaries even less. This is one of those times.

That sounds like a very good idea. Looking forward to seeing how it goes.

*looks at the calendar to see if its April*

nobody suggested that obama should not be criticized. critical thinking is always a good thing, as long as you apply that same skeptical attitude to your sources. the problem is that you often seem to unconditionally trust overtly biased sources while unconditionally mistrusting their target of attack.

It's harder and harder to find a good source, I feel like even the sources don't always have the right info. Seems everyone has their own agenda. I don't believe snopes and fact check.org are completly unbias as well. So where do you turn?

npr, pbs, bbc, and reuters are the first ones i can think of. local news stations tend to avoid sensationalist spin as well. (fox subsidiaries included) i disagree about snopes being biased. in fact they've been known to deliberately post ridiculously false info, while leaving out any sources, as a demonstration of why no source (including themselves) should be trusted unconditionally.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
disagree about snopes being biased. in fact they've been known to deliberately post ridiculously false info, while leaving out any sources, as a demonstration of why no source (including themselves) should be trusted unconditionally.

Can you rephrase this? Having a hard time following what you saying here. You mean they are credible or non credible?

I'm glad you're being a big man about this. I think there is always plenty of cause to be concerned when you make a deal with an adversary, but you always have to hope that it will be more like Nixon in China than Chamberlain in Munich.

I went through a phase where I absolutely hated Obama, but for different reasons than yours--I thought he was selling out his supporters and abandoning progressive principles. It's only been in the last year or so that I've seen he's just a super slow mover and that he needs time to build up steam. Now I'm pretty satisfied with him as president.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I went through a phase where I absolutely hated Obama, but for different reasons than yours--I thought he was selling out his supporters and abandoning progressive principles.

Those are some of my major reasons, as well.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Can you rephrase this? Having a hard time following what you saying here. You mean they are credible or non credible?


they would deliberately tell ridiculous mistruths and confirm it as "true", tricking many people into believing it. they believed these falsehoods because they unconditionally trusted snopes, instead of thinking critically and investigating their sources. basically, snopes was telling everyone "don't blindly trust everything you read, including from us, without doing your own research". after the ruse was performed successfully, they would announce that it was in fact not true at all.

Originally posted by Omega Vision

I went through a phase where I absolutely hated Obama, but for different reasons than yours--I thought he was selling out his supporters and abandoning progressive principles.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Those are some of my major reasons, as well.

Same, still feel that way somewhat. But I agree, looking over it in retrospect he's been an alright president really, got some major stuff done in the face of probably the most severe opposition any president has faced.

Originally posted by Bardock42
probably the most severe opposition any president has faced.

"o rly?"
http://storiesofusa.com/menu/images/abraham-lincoln-icon-small.png

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"o rly?"
http://storiesofusa.com/menu/images/abraham-lincoln-icon-small.png

Ok, you got me. Any but one. Or alternatively any modern president (unless you count Lee Harvey Oswald as political opposition).

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"o rly?"
http://storiesofusa.com/menu/images/abraham-lincoln-icon-small.png

...and he was a Republican.

yes lets pretend that 'republican' meant the same thing then, and that lincoln was a neoconservative. then we can honk our big red noses and throw pies at eachother.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Same, still feel that way somewhat. But I agree, looking over it in retrospect he's been an alright president really, got some major stuff done in the face of probably the most severe opposition any president has faced.
Right now he's in the upper half of presidents (which isn't saying that much considering how many lackluster presidents we've had), but depending on if we ever get an efficient universal health care system he might eventually be known as a top 10 all-time president up there with Lincoln and the two Roosevelts for laying the groundwork.

I mean, even George W Bush wasn't that terrible in hindsight, and the dude's been a model ex-president: invisible.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes lets pretend that 'republican' meant the same thing then, and that lincoln was a neoconservative. then we can honk our big red noses and throw pies at eachother.

While we are at it, lets pretend that Demarcates are the same as they were 20 years ago. We can then salute the civil rights without doing anything.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It's harder and harder to find a good source, I feel like even the sources don't always have the right info. Seems everyone has their own agenda. I don't believe snopes and fact check.org are completly unbias as well. So where do you turn?

I really don't disagree at all.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
npr, pbs, bbc, and reuters are the first ones i can think of. local news stations tend to avoid sensationalist spin as well. (fox subsidiaries included) i disagree about snopes being biased. in fact they've been known to deliberately post ridiculously false info, while leaving out any sources, as a demonstration of why no source (including themselves) should be trusted unconditionally.

BBC are neutered now. The Guardian is better than most as is the Independent, they both have bias though. Reuters too, all get orders from above on policy and editorial stance.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
It's harder and harder to find a good source, I feel like even the sources don't always have the right info. Seems everyone has their own agenda. I don't believe snopes and fact check.org are completly unbias as well. So where do you turn?
There's one answer: NPR.

If you don't like radio, PBS Newhour is a good choice. In both cases those sources are less biased because they derive their funding from their audience rather than from governments or through commercialism.

FOX, NBC, and CNN are basically useless. I don't know much about ABC but I'm going to guess they're the same. In terms of foreign news sources, I really like the BBC and The Guardian.

The BBC is great because they're obsessed with America such that it's like another American news outlet except without the local political bias.

You mentioned chamberlain earlier. Didnt he fail?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You mentioned chamberlain earlier. Didnt he fail?
Yeah, he did. That's why I was saying this could be Chamberlain but it could also be Nixon in China, which was a huge success.

There are lots of problems drawing comparisons with Chamberlain and the Iranian deal though. It would be more analogous if Obama went to Moscow today and made an agreement that Russia could have Eastern Ukraine provided they agreed not to make any designs on EU countries.

Chamberlain gave Hitler a country. Obama is telling Iran they can sell their own oil on the international market. Pretty big difference.

To add to that, Chamberlain gets the lion's share of blame for Hitler's path to conquest, but I think equal blame should rest on the French for not standing up when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, as well as on the French and British for not doing more to help Poland in the opening moves of the war. There's also their failure to back up Italy under Mussolini when Mussolini tried to stop the Anschluss of Austria. Most people forget that Mussolini was actually wary of Hitler and only joined him after it became apparent the Western powers lacked the stomach to face Hitler down.

I don't see much of a comparison between Chamberlain and Obama, I don't see what Obama has done as appeasement, it's more sensible tactical negotiation.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, he did. That's why I was saying this could be Chamberlain but it could also be Nixon in China, which was a huge success.

There are lots of problems drawing comparisons with Chamberlain and the Iranian deal though. It would be more analogous if Obama went to Moscow today and made an agreement that Russia could have Eastern Ukraine provided they agreed not to make any designs on EU countries.

Chamberlain gave Hitler a country. Obama is telling Iran they can sell their own oil on the international market. Pretty big difference.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
To add to that, Chamberlain gets the lion's share of blame for Hitler's path to conquest, but I think equal blame should rest on the French for not standing up when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, as well as on the French and British for not doing more to help Poland in the opening moves of the war. There's also their failure to back up Italy under Mussolini when Mussolini tried to stop the Anschluss of Austria. Most people forget that Mussolini was actually wary of Hitler and only joined him after it became apparent the Western powers lacked the stomach to face Hitler down.

They did more than that. They briefly joined Hitler (Vichy). Pathetic french bastards. I don't think England had the group personnel to go relieve Poland.

Originally posted by psmith81992
They did more than that. They briefly joined Hitler (Vichy). Pathetic french bastards. I don't think England had the group personnel to go relieve Poland.
Vichy French are another matter.

I feel really bad for the commander of the Italian/Alpine front. Badly outnumbered he still held his own against the Italians only to find that his commanders in Paris were telling him the war was over and France was surrendering.

As far as the snap backs. Russia and China have to agree to them and Russia is not going to do that because it weakens us and gives them a way to hurt us.

http://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
As far as the snap backs. Russia and China have to agree to them and Russia is not going to do that because it weakens us and gives them a way to hurt us.
Well it's not like Russia doesn't have an interest in keeping the bomb from Iran. It will be hard to convince those two that we need to return to sanctions, and the burden of proof will be high, but if they suspect Iran is cheating it'll be an insult to them as much as it is to us.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
http://www.npr.org/programs/all-things-considered/

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Well it's not like Russia doesn't have an interest in keeping the bomb from Iran. It will be hard to convince those two that we need to return to sanctions, and the burden of proof will be high, but if they suspect Iran is cheating it'll be an insult to them as much as it is to us.

I would agree but since they built them their nuclear reactors, makes me think they could care less of them having a nuke. Iran is a huge customer of Russia, nuclear tech, weapons are their major buys. I don't think Russia has as problem with Iran as much as we do with Iran.

I'm trying to understand why you haven't been able to judge President Obama or any other politician based on what they currently do? I mean just because someone has a shitty day one day, does not mean that they won't shine the next. Obama never had to be perfect, because no one else before him, or after him will be perfect. There have actually been outright clowns that have taken office, and they weren't scrutinized even half as much as President Obama has been (God help us all if Trump takes office). But, in the end, I blame this entirely on human nature and the absurd need to trust any and every opinion that comes out of another persons mouth. Many people won't even challenge the validity of some of the more asinine or faulty opinions out there. They just hear something, and go with it. You can't fool everyone with the same bush!t, but everyone can be fooled.

Time, if you are unable to see this, you will be right back to square one in no time at all.

Originally posted by psmith81992
They did more than that. They briefly joined Hitler (Vichy). Pathetic french bastards. I don't think England had the group personnel to go relieve Poland.

Eh, easy there. France wasn't just the Vichy government. We did fight and we did got killed just like everyone else.

honestly i think jfk was the best president

he had movie star good looks, the best looking first lady of all time and his on the side broad was marilyn monroe

obama could be 2nd but he needs a better looking wife or at the very least a high profile affair

I have full respect for the resistance, it's a shame they were an overwhelming minority.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I have full respect for the resistance, it's a shame they were an overwhelming minority.
You're also forgetting the Free French Forces.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
To add to that, Chamberlain gets the lion's share of blame for Hitler's path to conquest, but I think equal blame should rest on the French for not standing up when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, as well as on the French and British for not doing more to help Poland in the opening moves of the war. There's also their failure to back up Italy under Mussolini when Mussolini tried to stop the Anschluss of Austria. Most people forget that Mussolini was actually wary of Hitler and only joined him after it became apparent the Western powers lacked the stomach to face Hitler down. what do you think about the idea that they sorta set the stage for the nazis by using the treaty of versailles to excessively punish the german people?

not sure how accurate that narrative is but i've read it/heard people say it on numerous occasions

cause to me it seems a little easier to condemn them for that than for being so tired of the bloodshed after ww1 so as to be reluctant to engage germany again

also... it seems popular for americans to sort of brag about US contributions to ww2 like the US did europe a huge favor

when arguably we came in late, took the least hits, and benefited immensely from ww2, becoming the top superpower in the world and then eventually the only superpower

not to undermine the american losses or the sacrifices of individual american soldiers of course... just saying i always find that kind of rhetoric a bit ironic

Originally posted by Stoic
I'm trying to understand why you haven't been able to judge President Obama or any other politician based on what they currently do? I mean just because someone has a shitty day one day, does not mean that they won't shine the next. Obama never had to be perfect, because no one else before him, or after him will be perfect. There have actually been outright clowns that have taken office, and they weren't scrutinized even half as much as President Obama has been (God help us all if Trump takes office). But, in the end, I blame this entirely on human nature and the absurd need to trust any and every opinion that comes out of another persons mouth. Many people won't even challenge the validity of some of the more asinine or faulty opinions out there. They just hear something, and go with it. You can't fool everyone with the same bush!t, but everyone can be fooled.

Time, if you are unable to see this, you will be right back to square one in no time at all.

Pretty sure I don't need a lecture, I stated OP thats what I was going to do. I don't know how that was not clear.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
local news stations tend to avoid sensationalist spin as well. (fox subsidiaries included) man.. i have to say i really can't watch local news

i have before, but tbh i really find it either boring or depressing. the good news is usually pretty boring. and the bad news is usually pretty depressing.

maybe it depends on the area, but it seems almost the same whereever i go. i was in florida and west palm had their own local news, and every night it would be here's all the bad shootings and crime that happened... now here's how your kids aren't safe at school... now here's some random fluff piece... now here's a drug that's gonna kill you... now here's another fluff piece... and btw a hurricane is coming, or well we dunno if it's gonna be a hurricane really it could just be a thunderstorm by the time it gets here... and then one final feel good fluff story to cap it off

now i live in a pretty small town in nc, but the local news is charlotte based. and while i was at the laundromat i was watching the local news.. and it was basically the same shit minus the hurricane
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Right now he's in the upper half of presidents (which isn't saying that much considering how many lackluster presidents we've had), but depending on if we ever get an efficient universal health care system he might eventually be known as a top 10 all-time president up there with Lincoln and the two Roosevelts for laying the groundwork.

I mean, even George W Bush wasn't that terrible in hindsight, and the dude's been a model ex-president: invisible. yea. thinking about bush in retrospect vs how bush seemed as a teenager first paying attention to politics and hearing how everyone hates the president makes a pretty big difference for me as well.

Originally posted by red g jacks
honestly i think jfk was the best president

he had movie star good looks, the best looking first lady of all time and his on the side broad was marilyn monroe

obama could be 2nd but he needs a better looking wife or at the very least a high profile affair

JFK was the best. A star that shines brightly amoung the stars.

Originally posted by red g jacks
what do you think about the idea that they sorta set the stage for the nazis by using the treaty of versailles to excessively punish the german people?

not sure how accurate that narrative is but i've read it/heard people say it on numerous occasions

cause to me it seems a little easier to condemn them for that than for being so tired of the bloodshed after ww1 so as to be reluctant to engage germany again

also... it seems popular for americans to sort of brag about US contributions to ww2 like the US did europe a huge favor

when arguably we came in late, took the least hits, and benefited immensely from ww2, becoming the top superpower in the world and then eventually the only superpower

not to undermine the american losses or the sacrifices of individual american soldiers of course... just saying i always find that kind of rhetoric a bit ironic
I think the Nazis certainly wouldn't have come to power the same way if Germany hadn't been humiliated and left with a weak government and unstable economy.

We didn't really come that "late" into WW2, not compared to WW1 anyway. The war had only been going for 2 years when Pearl Harbor happened, and the first year of that had basically been a slapfight called the "Phoney War," so essentially England had only been at war for a year and the Soviet Union for even less than that. There's also a good chance that if Great Britain would have sued for peace if we hadn't been supporting them with money and resources even before we joined the war.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
JFK was the best. A star that shines brightly amoung the stars.
K7y2xPucnAo

OV still waiting for a response I posted earlier.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I would agree but since they built them their nuclear reactors, makes me think they could care less of them having a nuke. Iran is a huge customer of Russia, nuclear tech, weapons are their major buys. I don't think Russia has as problem with Iran as much as we do with Iran.
Well this is pretty much true. However Russia building reactors is actually a brilliant move on the part of Putin. That way the Russians remove the Iranian's excuse for having a nuclear program and manage to make the Iranians dependent on them for nuclear fuel. It's literally the most brilliant thing Putin has ever done--he found a way to get an energy-rich country to depend on him for its future power supply while also scoring diplomatic points and looking like a hero.

Putin still doesn't want to have another near neighbor with nuclear capability. An assertive, powerful Iran would be as much a long-term danger to Russia as it would be to the USA, especially in the Caucasus.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Pretty sure I don't need a lecture, I stated OP thats what I was going to do. I don't know how that was not clear.

It wasn't a lecture. What happens if Obama does something that does not agree with you or others in the future? His entire tenure was placed under scrutiny from the moment he won in his first term. Much of the bad press thrown at Obama came from people that felt that their bottom lines would have been severely threatened by his agendas. These are the same people that greedily hoard billions, while others that are unemployed are not supposed to have a means of even taking care of themselves if they fall ill. Yet you have many of these same unemployed and poor people following an opinion that in actuality served to harm them. I was just saying that as little as 2 weeks ago, I got the opinion that you were against everything that Obama strove to tweak, or change. If you were offended, you shouldn't have been. It wasn't meant to show you up. I'm just saying that Obama isn't perfect, and he never had to be, while also saying that he may do something else that people will not agree with.

JFK was good for his time. Today he may be a terrible choice for America. So much has changed since those days.