Obama is an embarrassment to this great country

[Wimbly]

The definition of being an embarrassment I'd say is what other people think of you. By that measure since Obama is more internationally popular than his stuttering half-autistic predecessor, he"s not an embarrassment to the country. No matter how much the right disapproves.

[LBC213R20S]

Originally Posted by StrongSide

LOL.. the recession forced Obama to spend trillions and so-called stimulus packages and grow government at a record pace, destroy our credit rating and dollar etc.? You should do some homework. It seems he has you right where he wants you.

I am studying Economics, you just fail to realise that spending/stimulus is a standard procedure to try and get out of a recession, as the U.K tried aswell. It's naive to just put the blame on one man. Many would have said he was right to do what he did.

[Wimbly]

Originally Posted by StrongSide

-Has proven to be a poor leader in our military actions abroad.
bullshit. He's wound up Iraq, had bin Laden killed and ordered rescues from Somali pirates, not to mention drone strikes that have killed terrorist leaders.

-Supports radical islamic movements and ignores true freedom uprisings.
Bullshit. He has supported the Arab spring, and while some radicals may have thrown their lot in that doesn't make these freedom movements any less true.

-Has not promoted an environment to create ONE net positive job to this great country.
Unfortunately the individuals who have gotten jobs in the past few years may disagree.

-Bundled fuel prices
OPEC and the market have far more influence than the president.

-Shown to be unable to effectively communicate without his handlers writing a speech for him and having him read it word for word on the teleprompter.
Matter of opinion - cannot be proven

-Created MORE debt than any president in the history of the world!!
Certainly increased spending but public debt seems to be your own fault. Obama didn't create the subprime disaster - shitty American consumerism did.

-Failed to pass a budget to this day!
Finally, something concrete. Concentrate on this.

-Created more regulation
They all do. Name a president who never created a single new law. The question here is whether they're regulations you agree with or not. Matter of opinion whether these are constructive, but creating regulation itself is not a failure.

-Destroyed our AAA rating to a AA (how this is not played up daily by the media is proof enough!)
Standard and Poors did that.

-Is set to increase taxes again!
Yes on the richest minority. For which there seems to be broad support.

-Used an undefeatable democrat congress to pass another MASSIVE socialist program that will create even more record debt!
Voters elect congress members. Now now they don't even have a majority.

-Is the most arrogant!
opinion

-Is the most narcissistic!
opinion

-Is the most DIVISIVE!
opinion

... need I go on? Because I can EASILY list 20 more as can anyone else.

If they're as bad as this lot, don't bother.

I know this is common sense to many. In fact I don't really fault Obama. He is doing what WE warned you he was going to do and the media refused to tell you. I blame that media for blatantly supporting him a doing a disgraceful service at the expense of this great country.

While there's some truth to the perception he's just "Bush lite" - especially on foreign policy, the argument that Obama's doing what you 'warned' everyone is preposterous. He's going about doing things he claimed he wanted done in his policy platform. You lot didn't need to warn anyone, that's why they voted for him. None of your points so far makes Obama an embarrassment to America. A disappointment to the American right, certainly, but unless the whole country is ridiculed because of him (as it was under Bush) he's not an 'embarrassment'.

[StrongSide]

Originally Posted by LBC213R20S

I am studying Economics, you just fail to realise that spending/stimulus is a standard procedure to try and get out of a recession, as the U.K tried aswell. It's naive to just put the blame on one man. Many would have said he was right to do what he did.

It is Obama in part because he is pushing for proved failed liberal economic policies. You should then understand that if you are studying economics.

[Chained]

You jumped to defend bush as soon as someone said his name. Did you miss that post of yours?

Originally Posted by Dronetek

Refute anything I said with facts.

[MrsShrodingersBox]

Originally Posted by Spudmonkey

Do what the fuck you want in the privacy of your own home

It's not complicated.

It becomes complicated when you say "Do whatever the fuck you want in your own home" then say we don't need anymore legalized drugs.

Pick a side, it's not that complicated. Doing drugs in your own home is equal to at least a tentative decriminalization of drugs. So where do you stand? Can people do drugs in their own home, or should drugs remain illegal to protect our safety and decency as a society?

How would one be allowed to 'do whatever they want in their own homes' if drugs were not decriminalized or legal? Would they miracle themselves into the living rooms of the free?

If I'm correct you're essential arguing that people should be allowed to do drugs in their own homes (after decrying how much drugs and substances have ruined the world), but that the production and distribution of drugs should remain illegal. How do you propose those two ideas work together, exactly? So under the Spud Doctrine, I would be allowed to cook and consume meth on my own property? Just as long as society or politics don't make some kind of de facto endorsement of drugs by legalizing or decriminalizing them, and just as long as the exterior production and distribution remains illegal?

AWESOME. METH PARTY AT MY HOUSE.

[MrsShrodingersBox]

Originally Posted by LBC213R20S

I am studying Economics, you just fail to realise that spending/stimulus is a standard procedure to try and get out of a recession, as the U.K tried aswell. It's naive to just put the blame on one man. Many would have said he was right to do what he did.

You're obvious studying a very superficial form of economics. The economic theory you've presented it called "Keynesian economics", after John Maynard Keynes. It advocates state intervention in market forces to 'stimulate/spend', as you put it. That stimulus is usually referred to as 'quantitative easing'. Keynes intended these measures to be drastic last resorts when free-market forces have failed and depression looms.

The problem with this philosophy is that it looks to a central bank to saturate the market with invented currency for stimulation. It also looks to the state to tax revenue. Both of these devalue the currency and, therefore, the purchasing power of the end consumer.

The destruction of a market usually follows phases. First there is a catastrophe, such as the stock market crash in the late 20's, or the housing bubble burst which caused our recent recession. This causes panic; people and business pull assets out of circulation to protect their interests. But the most devastating effect is often that consumers stop buying products. Under normal free market circumstances product prices would drop and consumers would spend more. However, under heavy Keynesian economics prices increase due to the devaluation of currency and the taxation of businesses. The effects are many: The money in the consumer's pockets isn't worth as much, they have less money on hand because of taxation, and the cost of things they need rises. This causes even more economic stagnation.

Even Keynes became amazed at how Keynesian the government had become following the depression. It became standard protocol rather than a last resort. Currently, all it's done is exasperate the problem. If the free market were allowed to reign, first the housing bubble probably wouldn't have occurred to the extent it did. It occurred because of government intervention in housing prices, government price-fixing and subsidies of home loans. Also the dollar wouldn't devalue to the extend that it has, and prices would stabilize.

In the end the real problem is the government tries to do too much. It tries to make sure nobody suffers, everybody has a home, everybody has everything that they need. It is impossible to pay for this type of government. It will inevitably destroy our economy.

[Chained]

Don't forget Bush too, right?

Originally Posted by StrongSide

It is Obama in part because he is pushing for proved failed liberal economic policies. You should then understand that if you are studying economics.

[Gmike]

Go troll somewhere else.

[SHUTUPANDTHINK]

Originally Posted by radgy

dont like him either,but he did let the seals do their job and let em kill osama.....will give him props for that

Didn't take Eight years either. MotherFuckers knew he was in Pakistan since the day they watched him walk over the boarder.


He walked right toward the boarder, then they pretend he up and disappears Found Saddam's ass in Iraq pretty quick though. Obama was like hey Pakistan.