Is Four Years Enough For a Peaceful President?

Originally posted by Darth Creasy
Sad...Obama is going to be a one term president because he's faced unprecedented pushback from republicans even when he includes their own fukin ideas in legislation. George II never got this treatment...Dubbya was barely a barely literate, treason committing bastard who purposely invaded the wrong country after 9/11 when it was common knowledge the hijackers were Saudis. He stole 2 elections and used the most horrific act ever on american soil to kick off 2 wars to make his posse even more filthy rich. I fully expected him to use his "Emperor" authority granted by the Patriot Act to stay in a third term but was thankfully spared from having to see him on the tube any more (at least on a regular basis). Idiots supported him like he was a godsend when in truth he made it very hard for intellectuals to respect the office of the president.

If complete intransigence can stop a strong president, why the **** didn't the democrats do that to Bush! They are bought losers for the most part.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I was unsure about that position, as well.

Obama may be considered every bit as violent and bad as Bush because of Bin Laden and that other dude he had killed...and his campaign in Afghanistan...

It's hard to call Obama peaceful in light of those. He's no different than Bush and in some regards he's worse because he killed two dudes via orders.

And he also lied/redacted his ideas about pulling out of Iraq super quick and closing down Guantanamo. So that would make him worse...

Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.

Originally posted by Stoic
Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.

Originally posted by Stoic
Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.

when has obama acted to turn back bush era policies, especially with regard to military matters?

Originally posted by inimalist
when has obama acted to turn back bush era policies, especially with regard to military matters?

I forget exactly what law Bush signed into effect just before he left office, but it was done in such a way that it could not be overturned until after a certain amount of time. Perhaps there is someone else out there that can put what I am saying into better terms.

Originally posted by Stoic
Sometimes cleaning up other peoples shyt takes longer than you may think, and Bush left a lot of shyt to clean up.

The issue is that he's created a lot of new stuff. Drone assassinations are basically all Obama. Bush used them, sure, but he made them into a common tool.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Obama has created his own shyt as well and failed to clean up that that was left before him.

Obama's hands are tied on many things, and he has been voted down time and again, on things that would help people like health insurance, but the big ballers or 1% aim to make sure that things like that will never happen. The republican party are at fault here too, maybe moreso than Obama. Everything done by them is to discredit the President. People say that he needs to act, and do something, and when he does, he is outvoted. Was it Obama's fault when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fell apart at the seams?

Why the hell shouldn't the rich pay the same percentage in taxes as the impoverished, or middle class? They certainly aren't creating jobs onshore, but rather outsourcing jobs overseas, and ruining peoples lives to place billions more in their pockets that help them do absolutely nothing.

Obama tried to push for clean energy, and what happened? The Republicans help the rich, place the burden of debt, and all sorts of other things that we don't know of on the poor to middle class. Good luck buying a house these days because the age of keeping a job for more than 5 years is over.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The issue is that he's created a lot of new stuff. Drone assassinations are basically all Obama. Bush used them, sure, but he made them into a common tool.

The US needs to stay out of other peoples back yard, but when that happens other countries decide to call on whom to help bail them out? When a typhoon hits who is sending massive amounts of aid? Would it be better to send troops in and have them risk life and limb, or does drones seem to be a far safer approach? You can't blame Obama for the rise in technology. Shit maybe if the people running around walking into weddings strapped with tnt realize that drones may ruin their day, perhaps they'll think twice about killing in the name of....

Originally posted by Stoic
The US needs to stay out of other peoples back yard, but when that happens other countries decide to call on whom to help bail them out? When a typhoon hits who is sending massive amounts of aid? Would it be better to send troops in and have them risk life and limb, or does drones seem to be a far safer approach? You can't blame Obama for the rise in technology. Shit maybe if the people running around walking into weddings strapped with tnt realize that drones may ruin their day, perhaps they'll think twice about killing in the name of....

That's a really scary argument.

We might help them some day so its okay for us to kill their innocent citizens? No I don't think I'm going to accept that.

People who are planning to die in explosions that kill innocent people aren't usually worried about dying in explosions that kill innocent people. Hell, I bet drone strikes are better for recruitment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's a really scary argument.

We might help them some day so its okay for us to kill their innocent citizens? No I don't think I'm going to accept that.

People who are planning to die in explosions that kill innocent people aren't usually worried about dying in explosions that kill innocent people. Hell, I bet drone strikes are better for recruitment.

You do realize that being in the armed forces is a career, and that particular career helps to insure that you, me, and every other person that you know live in a free world right. Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary. There are those out there that would force their will on the world, and if these people aren't put in check there would be another bad situation for you to be concerned about, one far worse than what you see going on now.

Should I bring up the fact that women in those countries aren't allowed to drive without permission, and if they do, they are whipped? Obama is certainly not perfect, but do you think any president that will follow in his footsteps will be or do better?

Originally posted by Stoic
You do realize that being in the armed forces is a career, and that particular career helps to insure that you, me, and every other person that you know live in a free world right.

Thus we should let them kill and cripple innocent people? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here.

Originally posted by Stoic
Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary.

Then explain why its necessary.

Originally posted by Stoic
There are those out there that would force their will on the world, and if these people aren't put in check there would be another bad situation for you to be concerned about, one far worse than what you see going on now.

There is no reason to think that the drone attacks are responsible for keeping them in check. In fact violating the airspace of sovereign nations to kill their citizens is probably making things worse.

Originally posted by Stoic
Should I bring up the fact that women in those countries aren't allowed to drive without permission, and if they do, they are whipped?

I'm not sure how killing them and pissing off their government does anything to improve that.

Originally posted by Stoic
Obama is certainly not perfect, but do you think any president that will follow in his footsteps will be or do better?

I really hope so.

Originally posted by Stoic
You do realize that being in the armed forces is a career, and that particular career helps to insure that you, me, and every other person that you know live in a free world right. Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary. There are those out there that would force their will on the world, and if these people aren't put in check there would be another bad situation for you to be concerned about, one far worse than what you see going on now.

Should I bring up the fact that women in those countries aren't allowed to drive without permission, and if they do, they are whipped? Obama is certainly not perfect, but do you think any president that will follow in his footsteps will be or do better?

Do you believe that America should have been invaded during the 1950s for Jim Crow laws?

Obama is even worse than Bush on some issues. Bush ordered US citizens tortured, but Obama straight out executes them without trial. This was not something forced on Obama but something that was initiated at the highest levels of command with his full knowledge.

BTW, Obama was not "outvoted" on health care, he simply "couldn't" get over the Republican filibuster. When democrats controlled both house and senate. Why didn't Obama ever filibuster when Bush was president? We have seen nothing but weakness from Obama. Bush trounced the congressional majority while Obama let the minority push him around. What a failure.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There is nothing necessary about military adventurism in the Middle East. If anything all of our recent endeavors have only been haphazard attempts at fixing our past mistakes.

Do you believe that America should have been invaded during the 1950s for Jim Crow laws?

Who put America into the middle east? Who signed into legislature an agreement that would insure that the troops remained in the middle east for 3-4 years after his term was over?

Originally posted by Stoic
Who put America into the middle east?

Goes back decades.

And besides, absolving Obama because Bush got us into this mess is as irrational as blaming it all on Obama because he's yet to get us out of it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Obama is even worse than Bush on some issues. Bush ordered US citizens tortured, but Obama straight out executes them without trial. This was not something forced on Obama but something that was initiated at the highest levels of command with his full knowledge.

BTW, Obama was not "outvoted" on health care, he simply "couldn't" get over the Republican filibuster. When democrats controlled both house and senate. Why didn't Obama ever filibuster when Bush was president? We have seen nothing but weakness from Obama. Bush trounced the congressional majority while Obama let the minority push him around. What a failure.

Dude.

You're mad about it.

I DO remember you supporting Obama back in 2008, so I guess it is understandable that you're upset over his fumbles and "wrongs"?

Sorry guys I have to bail. All I have to say is that if you guys know what residual income is, and how it works, Bush left residual bullshit for us to eat. Laterz

Originally posted by Stoic
I forget exactly what law Bush signed into effect just before he left office, but it was done in such a way that it could not be overturned until after a certain amount of time. Perhaps there is someone else out there that can put what I am saying into better terms.

so let me just get this clear

you think obama has failed to change any of bush's policies because he made up a law about them?

Originally posted by Stoic
Fighting fire with fire isn't right, but sometimes its necessary.

in what way was it necessary to kill, through a drone strike, Anwar Al-Awlaki?

I personally don't see why people care so much about killing that one Taliban dude who was American born. He was an ******* who was actively plotting the countries downfall at the time of his death, and who had already admitted to performing treasonous crimes.

Out of all the "illegal" things Obama/America has done, that ranks pretty high on the list of "forgivable due to being the only logical course of action".

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
who was actively plotting the countries downfall at the time of his death,

based on?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
and who had already admitted to performing treasonous crimes.

source?