Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2009-03-23 14:34:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

It was working so well up to that point, wasn't it? However, I agree that invading Iraq wasn't the answer.
It was working.  That's why Saddam didn't try invading anyone after the first war.

FEOS wrote:

So it would be better to just keep throwing money at the problem without implementing any kind of accountability for the teachers and schools getting all that money? You must love the corporate bailouts, then.
Yes.  In this case, doing nothing would have been better.  I suppose the GOP can currently relate to me on this principle concerning bailouts.

FEOS wrote:

Due process of law has nothing to do with Gitmo. The American citizens who were captured received the due process they deserve under the Constitution. The others were/are treated in accordance with the GC.
I don't believe the Geneva Conventions permit torture.

FEOS wrote:

This is a non-argument, as it just as easily applies to nearly every non-Cabinet position in any administration since Washington..
Sounds like we need a new government.

FEOS wrote:

If the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, it would've been overturned. It wasn't, therefore it isn't.
It took a long time to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson, but that doesn't mean it wasn't unconstitutional in the interim.

FEOS wrote:

Only if you want to support your position. Otherwise, no need.
I'm not even going to bother because I know we're just going to continue arguing over it.  We can just agree to disagree.
2009-03-23 14:36:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Scream how horrible it is until you get your pork-ridden appropriations railroaded through Congress. Then tell us how it isn't all that bad. Ensure the press doesn't point out the inconsistencies.

Scream about fiscal responsibility and fearmongering while scaring the public into believing that your pork-ridden appropriations are the only option and they must be enacted immediately or the world as we know it is going to end. Double the deficit and spend more than any other President in history in your first two months. Then tell us that it isn't all that bad. Ensure the press doesn't point out the inconsistencies.

Hmmm...I'm detecting a pattern here.

Here's hoping for change we can believe in.
I know what the real answer is.  Fiscal responsibility is dead and always will be.  No one really gives a shit.  Look at the last several administrations.  Debt is our fucking lifestyle and savings are a joke.

Just be happy when the shit hits the fan and this sick joke finally fucking ends....
2009-03-24 18:41:59
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was working so well up to that point, wasn't it? However, I agree that invading Iraq wasn't the answer.
It was working.  That's why Saddam didn't try invading anyone after the first war.
It wasn't about Saddam invading other countries. It was about his (apparent--intentionally apparent) weapons development in violation of UN resolutions.

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So it would be better to just keep throwing money at the problem without implementing any kind of accountability for the teachers and schools getting all that money? You must love the corporate bailouts, then.
Yes.  In this case, doing nothing would have been better.  I suppose the GOP can currently relate to me on this principle concerning bailouts.
So...are you saying they should just keep throwing money at education instead of holding schools and teachers accountable?

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Due process of law has nothing to do with Gitmo. The American citizens who were captured received the due process they deserve under the Constitution. The others were/are treated in accordance with the GC.
I don't believe the Geneva Conventions permit torture.
Actually, the GC doesn't apply to combatants who don't follow the guidelines of the GC. Once those guys entered combat without uniforms or identifying themselves as combatants in some way, they gave up any protections under the GC. So, in that regard...yes, it does--in that it doesn't provide any protections for them.

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

This is a non-argument, as it just as easily applies to nearly every non-Cabinet position in any administration since Washington..
Sounds like we need a new government.
No. We just need better people in our government.

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, it would've been overturned. It wasn't, therefore it isn't.
It took a long time to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson, but that doesn't mean it wasn't unconstitutional in the interim.
Totally different situation. The Patriot Act doesn't violate the Constitution or existing US Code. It gets no simpler than that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-04-03 19:43:54
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5913|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)
* Let's not forget that Congress and the president passed the $410 billion omnibus "stimulus" bill, with its 9,000 earmarks (despite the fact that during his campaign, Obama said he would be against earmarks).

    * More politicians with tax evasion problems have been appointed to the Obama Cabinet than were appointed to any previous president's Cabinet (despite the fact that he said his administration would perform the "most sweeping ethics reform in history").

    * Obama appointed (and Congress confirmed) David Ogden, a defender of child pornography, to the No. 2 position in the Justice Department.

    * Obama's newly appointed secretary of education, Arne Duncan, isn't likely to win the hearts of parents committed to private or home schooling. As he explained in a radio interview, "I'm a big believer in choice and competition, but I think we can do that within the public-school framework." (Mr. Duncan, great to hear you can articulate what you think, but will you represent "we the people" in your decisions? I hear you're a good man, so please don't abandon those of us who choose options other than public schools.)

    * Obama's new budget would reduce tax deductions for charitable gifts and severely cripple nonprofits, which already are hurting because of America's recession.

    * If Congress passes Obama's new budget, increased taxes will fall upon a larger number of small-business owners than once projected, which ultimately will discourage economic growth and penalize productivity. As Yale University professor Michael Graetz noted, "We're shooting ourselves in the foot economically by relying as heavily as we do on income taxes when the rest of the world relies on consumption taxes."

    * Despite its history of fraud, ACORN, that alleged political bastion of election neutrality, will participate in the 2010 census.

    * An executive order was signed for Gitmo to be closed, and the war on terror was reassigned as an "overseas contingency operation."

    * And Obama announced just this past week that he's sending 4,000 more troops to Afghanistan and possibly 30,000 more troops next year (despite the fact that during his campaign, he promised to reduce the number of our troops in the Middle East).

    * Pro-choice platforms and practices have been pushed in ways that America hasn't seen since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling. Obama overturned the "Mexico City policy," thus allowing federal funds to support international family planning groups that provide abortions. Restrictions for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research have been lifted. And if the public doesn't fight immediately, the conscience clause will be rescinded. Parental rights are about to be handed over to the United Nations. And the Freedom of Choice Act is closing fast on the horizon.
2009-04-03 20:04:58
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6831|Global Command
Obama spoke, and we all go broke.
2009-04-03 20:56:26
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6929|Canada
Siigh, you can complain all you want, but for the time being, no one can change the fact he is prez right now. love him or hate him, he is your president. and he cannot please everybody, and until you have an assasination, impeachment, or vote, you guys are stuck with him.

Sucks but tis the truth.
2009-04-03 21:00:36
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was working so well up to that point, wasn't it? However, I agree that invading Iraq wasn't the answer.
It was working.  That's why Saddam didn't try invading anyone after the first war.
It wasn't about Saddam invading other countries. It was about his (apparent--intentionally apparent) weapons development in violation of UN resolutions.
Again, what's the point of enforcing something that the organization who is supposed to enforce it doesn't care about?

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So it would be better to just keep throwing money at the problem without implementing any kind of accountability for the teachers and schools getting all that money? You must love the corporate bailouts, then.
Yes.  In this case, doing nothing would have been better.  I suppose the GOP can currently relate to me on this principle concerning bailouts.
So...are you saying they should just keep throwing money at education instead of holding schools and teachers accountable?
I'm saying we shouldn't have attempted to implement a policy on a national level that failed in Texas.

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Due process of law has nothing to do with Gitmo. The American citizens who were captured received the due process they deserve under the Constitution. The others were/are treated in accordance with the GC.
I don't believe the Geneva Conventions permit torture.
Actually, the GC doesn't apply to combatants who don't follow the guidelines of the GC. Once those guys entered combat without uniforms or identifying themselves as combatants in some way, they gave up any protections under the GC. So, in that regard...yes, it does--in that it doesn't provide any protections for them.
Fair enough.

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

This is a non-argument, as it just as easily applies to nearly every non-Cabinet position in any administration since Washington..
Sounds like we need a new government.
No. We just need better people in our government.
That ain't gonna happen.  Then again, a revolution won't either.

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

If the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, it would've been overturned. It wasn't, therefore it isn't.
It took a long time to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson, but that doesn't mean it wasn't unconstitutional in the interim.
Totally different situation. The Patriot Act doesn't violate the Constitution or existing US Code. It gets no simpler than that.
Well, admittedly, even if it did, it's not like that would stop the government from implementing it anyway.

I suppose you're right.  There's really no point in arguing about it because I can't change it.  The powers that be will continue to get what they want, and we can only hope that the government won't further abuse the power it grabs.
2009-04-03 23:44:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX

Turquoise wrote:

Again, what's the point of enforcing something that the organization who is supposed to enforce it doesn't care about?
The US is a senior part of 'the organisation', if the US had enough evidence to convince the other members, and actually bothered putting it to a vote, then the situation might have been very different now.
The members of the UN are supposed to abide by its decisions, otherwise there is no point to it.

Another pile of broken crockery Obama will have to put back together or live without I guess.
Fuck Israel
2009-04-04 01:12:50
..teddy..jimmy
Member
+1,393|6951
Give the guy a break.

It's been 2 months and you haven't even seen the effects of the bail out plan which will obviously take longer. I'm no fan of his overspending but atleast be realistic here.
2009-04-04 04:10:18
Roger Lesboules
Ah ben tabarnak!
+316|6879|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

ATG wrote:

Obama spoke, and we all go broke.
You should market Shirts saying exactly that, might help your wallet a little, even tho i dont know how its going on your side.

So far even if im not in the US i feel like Obama is doing fuck all to help the economy.

Would i be wrong to say that if all of the US troop would be pulled out of the shit hole that is the ME right now it would help as you guys would not have to pump massive amount of money into a war machine that does not bring much.
2009-04-04 05:41:59
JahManRed
wank
+646|6930|IRELAND

He done the US proud, here in Europe over the past week. Shaping up to be a great statesman.
2009-04-04 05:45:05
Bradt3hleader
Care [ ] - Don't care [x]
+121|6238

OrangeHound wrote:

*  Threw the biggest inauguration party in the history of US Presidential elections
*  Put us more massively in debt
*  Insulted Special Olympics athletes
*  Nominated numerous appointees who don't pay their taxes
*  Alienated the Republicans
*  Looked good on camera

Pretty typical for an inexperienced guy ... it will take him a couple of years to learn how things are done in Washington.
Yeah, yet how funny how so many people on these forums were like, "OMG ELECT OBAMA HE'S GONA BE THE BEST!!!!!".

And now they're still trying to get that shoe out of their ass...
2009-04-04 07:41:13
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6929|Canada

OrangeHound wrote:

*  Threw the biggest inauguration party in the history of US Presidential elections
*  Put us more massively in debt
*  Insulted Special Olympics athletes
*  Nominated numerous appointees who don't pay their taxes
*  Alienated the Republicans
*  Looked good on camera thats a crime?
lol u serious? the special olympics didnt take offence, at least not the athelets. the one guy even said he'd give bowling lessons to obama.... gtfo of  here with these stupid points. some are valid, but you are just cherrypicking here...

Last edited by destruktion_6143 (2009-04-04 07:42:23)

2009-04-04 07:44:08
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6455|what

destruktion_6143 wrote:

*  Alienated the Republicans
And Bush didn't alienate Democrats? lol
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2009-04-04 07:56:48
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6929|Canada

AussieReaper wrote:

destruktion_6143 wrote:

*  Alienated the Republicans
And Bush didn't alienate Democrats? lol
he did a good job of ruining the republican image too, so he alienated both parties lol
2009-04-04 07:59:04
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6592|Éire

stryyker wrote:

What has Obama done so far?
Signed off on the closure of Guantanamo bay.
Extended the olive branch to Iran.
Moved towards normalising relations with Cuba.
Shifted the focus of the battle against terrorism to Afghanistan and Pakistan where it should be (although Saudi Arabia deserves attention too tbh).
Taken active measures to tackle the economic crisis (though how these will fare remains to be seen).

...as a non-American he's doing okay by me so far, obviously it could be totally different if you're an American resident.
2009-04-04 08:22:55
kylef
Gone
+1,352|6795|N. Ireland
I can't say I like the changes he wants to make to tax havens.
2009-04-04 09:49:32
LiamPK
Member
+2|6105|Middlesbrough
You do know the people inside Guantanmo are likely to be transferred to other bases, possibly in the middle east or Africa.

His message to Iran is the same as Bush's, disarm. Not considering the fact Iran have agreed to the Non-Prolieferation Treaty and their neighbour's Israel are pointing nuclear weapon's at them at this moment in time.

He has failed to call for an independent Palestinian state, even Jimmy Carter did that.

Afganistan? Al-Qeuada is an international terrorist network, you really thing taking them out in Afganistan is gonna to help the US cause, you might wanna reasearch the term blowback.

Iraq he is not pulling ALL the troops out until before the next election at the earliest 2011.

Last edited by LiamPK (2009-04-04 09:51:00)

2009-04-04 09:54:51
Lotta_Drool
Spit
+350|6485|Ireland
That handsome blackman sends shivers up my spine everytime I see him in the White House Oval Orfice.  That and an extra $12 a paycheck is what he has done for me personally in the past 2 months. 

Oh, he also put those retards in their place and they have had that coming for a long time.
2009-04-04 10:05:16
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6707|North Carolina

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Again, what's the point of enforcing something that the organization who is supposed to enforce it doesn't care about?
The US is a senior part of 'the organisation', if the US had enough evidence to convince the other members, and actually bothered putting it to a vote, then the situation might have been very different now.
The members of the UN are supposed to abide by its decisions, otherwise there is no point to it.

Another pile of broken crockery Obama will have to put back together or live without I guess.
True, but the U.N. really is pointless by now.
2009-04-04 10:11:07
Locoloki
I got Mug 222 at Gritty's!!!!
+216|6942|Your moms bedroom
Stocks are heading back up, highest 4 week rise since 1933

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStock … HP20090403
2009-04-05 13:24:47
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It was working so well up to that point, wasn't it? However, I agree that invading Iraq wasn't the answer.
It was working.  That's why Saddam didn't try invading anyone after the first war.
It wasn't about Saddam invading other countries. It was about his (apparent--intentionally apparent) weapons development in violation of UN resolutions.
Again, what's the point of enforcing something that the organization who is supposed to enforce it doesn't care about?
Oh they cared. That's the problem with the UN. It has no means of enforcing any of its sanctions or resolutions.

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So it would be better to just keep throwing money at the problem without implementing any kind of accountability for the teachers and schools getting all that money? You must love the corporate bailouts, then.
Yes.  In this case, doing nothing would have been better.  I suppose the GOP can currently relate to me on this principle concerning bailouts.
So...are you saying they should just keep throwing money at education instead of holding schools and teachers accountable?
I'm saying we shouldn't have attempted to implement a policy on a national level that failed in Texas.
Would like to see some objective sources that say it failed at either the state or national levels.

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

This is a non-argument, as it just as easily applies to nearly every non-Cabinet position in any administration since Washington..
Sounds like we need a new government.
No. We just need better people in our government.
That ain't gonna happen.  Then again, a revolution won't either.
Fair enough.

Turq wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turq wrote:


It took a long time to overturn Plessy vs. Ferguson, but that doesn't mean it wasn't unconstitutional in the interim.
Totally different situation. The Patriot Act doesn't violate the Constitution or existing US Code. It gets no simpler than that.
Well, admittedly, even if it did, it's not like that would stop the government from implementing it anyway.

I suppose you're right.  There's really no point in arguing about it because I can't change it.  The powers that be will continue to get what they want, and we can only hope that the government won't further abuse the power it grabs.
Actually, the SCOTUS is pretty good about protecting Constitutional rights. That's their turf, and they defend it as vehemently as the other two branches defend theirs.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-04-05 21:51:05
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|5913|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It wasn't about Saddam invading other countries. It was about his (apparent--intentionally apparent) weapons development in violation of UN resolutions.
Again, what's the point of enforcing something that the organization who is supposed to enforce it doesn't care about?
Oh they cared. That's the problem with the UN. It has no means of enforcing any of its sanctions or resolutions.
UN Security Council resolutions can be easily stopped by Chinese/Russian/other power vetoing the resolution.
See #8
#1 is also good

https://tizona.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/top_10_un_slogansgif.png?w=378&h=400
2009-04-06 19:41:06
imortal
Member
+240|6967|Austin, TX

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Siigh, you can complain all you want, but for the time being, no one can change the fact he is prez right now. love him or hate him, he is your president. and he cannot please everybody, and until you have an assasination, impeachment, or vote, you guys are stuck with him.

Sucks but tis the truth.
I am curious if you held the same point of view when the big W was president.
2009-04-06 19:42:29
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7074|PNW

Obama's told people he's awesome.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard