Giving Obama another chance

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?"

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
"o rly?"

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?"

...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.

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?

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?