Obama's accomplishments....

But he's "evolved" on gay marriage, so everything's ok.

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sammi jo 

... in no specific order

 

* Signed the National Defense Authorization Act – authorizing indefinite detention of U.S. citizens - which he said he would veto unless the 'indefinite detention clauses", 1021-1022 were retained

* Lied to the people regarding the future status of Guantanamo Bay

* Expanded executive authority to include assassination of U.S. citizens

* Waged war on Libya without congressional approval

* Started and continues covert drone wars in Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia, and Iran

* Escalating the proxy war in Somalia

* Escalating the CIA drone war in Pakistan

* Supporting and enabling Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations and mercenary gangs slaughtering civilians in Syria

* Supporting and enabling Al-Qaeda and other terror organizations and mercenary gangs slaughtering civilians in Libya

* Supporting and enabling a State Dept. listed terrorist group - the Mojahedin e Khalq - in its activities in Iran

* Substantially expanding the persecution of medical marijuana providers that operate in compliance with state laws

* Ordering vicious FDA entrapments and prosecutions of raw milk and other natural food providers

* Metastasizing of TSA goons, thieves, and perverts to bus stations, rail stations, and newly-constructed illegal highway checkpoints

* Presiding over a health reform program that was underwritten by the industry middlemen, to benefit the industry middlemen

* Signed legislation that authorizes use of drones within the United States, against U.S. citizens

* Expanding the enormous, brutal, and covert mercenary U.S. occupation of Iraq while claiming he is ending the war

* Escalating the war / occupation in Afghanistan

* Increasing domestic use of secret evidence and secret courts (FISA – Foreign Intelligence Security Act)

* Secretly deploying US Special Forces to dozens of countries

* Signed the USA Patriot Act extension into law

* Approved the Justice Department prosecution of environmental and animal rights groups as "domestic terrorists" under the USA PATRIOT Act, using secret investigations

* Expanded the Bush warrantless wiretap program, and gave immunity to telecom companies that collaborated

* Expanding the use of secret National Security letters for domestic investigations by FBI and CIA

* Continuing Bush's extraordinary rendition program (kidnapping and torture outside the U.S.) 

* Continuing Bush administration's use of "State Secrets" defense to prevent domestic war crimes prosecutions

* Substantially expanding the persecution of domestic whistleblowers

* Signing into law the power to outlaw any protest against Secret Service Protected individuals, or near federal buildings

* Expanded the previous administration's appeasement and protection of serial criminality within the financial sector, and doling out $Trillions in taxpayer funded largesse to those who were largely responsible for the 2008-2009 crash

 

Can anyone provide any additions to the above list of treachery and dishonor? Can Romney reverse the decay if elected? Probably not; if anything he will accelerate it, if possible. 

 

 

  

So just imagine what Romney could do. He's much more unpredictable and hawkish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So just imagine what Romney could do. He's much more unpredictable and hawkish.

Are you making excuses for Obama? Or are you willing to call him out for his blatant failures and abuses of power? Are you willing to withdraw your support for Obama?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So just imagine what Romney could do. He's much more unpredictable and hawkish.

 

Are you making excuses for Obama? Or are you willing to call him out for his blatant failures and abuses of power? Are you willing to withdraw your support for Obama?

Are you making excuses for Bush? As for withdrawing my support for Obama no. I have openly stated that I'm not totally pleased with what he's done however it pales in comparison to his predecessor ( if you consider things in general and I do mean across the board ) or what his current opponent could do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Are you making excuses for Bush? As for withdrawing my support for Obama no. I have openly stated that I'm not totally pleased with what he's done however it pales in comparison to his predecessor ( if you consider things in general and I do mean across the board ) or what his current opponent could do.

Oh, for the love of Pete, will you stop these ridiculous partisan retorts and think for yourself for a moment!  Criticism of Obama does not automatically mean support for Bush or anyone else!

I don't know why you insist on believing that Obama has been any better than Bush in any significant way, since it is quite obvious from the OP that Obama has continued and expanded upon most of Bush's policies.

Bush was an empty suit. A puppet for the corporatist, crony-capitalist, big-government, elitist, warmongers who are pulling the strings. So is Obama. And Romney will be, too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Are you making excuses for Bush? As for withdrawing my support for Obama no. I have openly stated that I'm not totally pleased with what he's done however it pales in comparison to his predecessor ( if you consider things in general and I do mean across the board ) or what his current opponent could do.

 

Oh, for the love of Pete, will you stop these ridiculous partisan retorts and think for yourself for a moment!  Criticism of Obama does not automatically mean support for Bush or anyone else!

 

I don't know why you insist on believing that Obama has been any better than Bush in any significant way, since it is quite obvious from the OP that Obama has continued and expanded upon most of Bush's policies.

 

Bush was an empty suit. A puppet for the corporatist, crony-capitalist, big-government, elitist, warmongers who are pulling the strings. So is Obama. And Romney will be, too.

So how do you think we would fair with Romney? Better? And why?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So how do you think we would fair with Romney? Better? And why?

Do I think things would be fair with Romney? Who knows. Fair to whom? Fair about what?

How would the country fare with Romney? Hard to know. The thing is going to crash at some point anyway. I actually don't consider Romeny to be terribly different from Obama.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So how do you think we would fair with Romney? Better? And why?

 

Do I think things would be fair with Romney? Who knows. Fair to whom? Fair about what?

 

How would the country fare with Romney? Hard to know. The thing is going to crash at some point anyway. I actually don't consider Romeny to be terribly different from Obama.

Sorry I meant "  fare ". So have some fun at my expense. So you think that we're in for a crash no matter what? So why even try? Is that it? Jazzy do you beileve this also?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So you think that we're in for a crash no matter what?

Given the course we're on, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So why even try? Is that it?

It's not a matter of not trying, it's a matter of the current proposed candidates won't fix the problem, are likely to make it worse and no one seems interested in listening to the truth that might help make things better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry I meant "  fare ". So have some fun at my expense. So you think that we're in for a crash no matter what? So why even try? Is that it? Jazzy do you beileve this also?

Obama and Romney both represent the status quo. I believe that if we do not make some significant - even drastic - changes and reforms, we are destined for eventual economic and societal collapse in much the same fashion as the great empires of the past. The Roman Empire comes to mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

Sorry I meant "  fare ". So have some fun at my expense. So you think that we're in for a crash no matter what? So why even try? Is that it? Jazzy do you beileve this also?

 

Obama and Romney both represent the status quo. I believe that if we do not make some significant - even drastic - changes and reforms, we are destined for eventual economic and societal collapse in much the same fashion as the great empires of the past. The Roman Empire comes to mind.

So they represent the status quo. Does that mean they exactly the same and the other one can't get us into worse trouble? And letting that happen is just ok?

I don't necessarily agree with the president on all of these, but here's some decent information about things the president has promoted/passed/signed into law. 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=1

Stop pretending that Obama and Romney are the same.  As you read through each of those, ask yourself:  Would Romney have done that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So they represent the status quo. Does that mean they exactly the same and the other one can't get us into worse trouble? And letting that happen is just ok?

Romney may slow down the car speeding towards the precipice, but neither Obama nor Romney have proposed or talked about anything close to applying the brakes or change direction.

Of course letting it happen isn't ok. That's why I won't support or vote for either of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So they represent the status quo. Does that mean they exactly the same and the other one can't get us into worse trouble? And letting that happen is just ok?

 

Romney may slow down the car speeding towards the precipice, but neither Obama nor Romney have proposed or talked about anything close to applying the brakes or change direction.

 

Of course letting it happen isn't ok. That's why I won't support or vote for either of them.

Why specifically do you believe this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

Why specifically do you believe this?

Neither candidate proposes to make any specific or significant changes or reforms to the Federal Reserve System, tax system, federal borrowing/spending, foreign policy, overreaching federal agencies such as the Department of Education, the so-called "War on Drugs". I could go on.

Ah, so you are hiding behind the words "specific or significant."  Whatever differences exist between Romney and Obama, you will say they aren't "significant" enough and thus "the same" to you.  What an empty, unsophisticated position to take.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Ah, so you are hiding behind the words "specific or significant."  Whatever differences exist between Romney and Obama, you will say they aren't "significant" enough and thus "the same" to you.  What an empty, unsophisticated position to take.

Fine. You tell me how Romney and Obama differ on, say, the Federal Reserve, and I'll tell you whether I think that difference is significant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I don't necessarily agree with the president on all of these, but here's some decent information about things the president has promoted/passed/signed into law. 

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/march_april_2012/features/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php/obamas_top_50_accomplishments035755.php?page=1

 

Stop pretending that Obama and Romney are the same.  As you read through each of those, ask yourself:  Would Romney have done that?

LOL: 

1.  Healthcare:  A $2 Trillion, partisan disaster that will not lower costs, will cost jobs and will destroy private insurance.  

2. Stimulus:  A bloated, failed program that included billions of dollars sent overseas and to political cronies.  It has produced nothing.  

3.  Wall Street Reform:  In a word...useless.  Banks are bigger.  The market is is still volatile.  Nothing has been fixed.  

4.  Iraq:  Followed the timeline instituted by the Bush Administration and failed to negotiate with the Iraqis so that we could leave a sizable security force.  

5.  Afghanistan:  Ordered a fake surge with a time limit---used troop levels no military commander recommended.  

7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry:   From the article:  "The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases."   HA.  The government did not "turn around" anything, nor was the industry going to disappear without assistance.  It did, however, work to bring a car to market that no one wants and costs $40,000+.  

8. Recapitalized Banks:   Yes.  Obama did this on his own.  And it's made a great difference to the nation.  [/sarcasm]

9. Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”:   Did so without fully consulting the military's top brass and without fully understanding the challenges and pitfalls of implementing the policy.  

10. Toppled Moammar Gaddafi:   No.  Followed our French masters, leading from behind without fully understanding who the rebels were.  Violated the War Powers Resolution by using forces beyond 60 days without approval.  

11. Told Mubarak to Go:  And allowed the fucking Muslim Brotherhood to take over.  Mubarak sucked.  But he was an ally, and controllable.  And he didn't want to destroy Israel.  Well done, sir.  

12. Reversed Bush Torture Policies:    Yes.  He ended the techniques that allowed him to take credit for getting OBL, and were responsible for a treasure trove of intelligence.  Instead, he killed people with drones.  

13. Improved America’s Image Abroad:   Absolutely false.  We are less respected in the world.  We are a laughing stock.  Congratulations.  

14. Kicked Banks Out of Federal Student Loan Program, Expanded Pell Grant Spending:   Also Known As "Ordered Federal Takeover of Student Loans" and "Allowed Colleges to Charge Even More"  

15. Created Race to the Top: With funds from stimulus, started $4.35 billion program of competitive grants to encourage and reward states for education reform (Translation:  Ended NCLB without ending it.  Gave a paltry sum to educational institutions.  My county alone spends over $1 Billion on education each year.  

16. Boosted Fuel Efficiency Standards: " Released new fuel efficiency standards in 2011 that will nearly double the fuel economy for cars and trucks by 2025"----No.  This should say "that will force automakers to make cars that are less safe and have less performance to meet absurd federal regulations."  

17. Coordinated International Response to Financial Crisis:   Coordinated?  Don't you mean..."Organized?   

18. Passed Mini Stimuli:     Stop.  You're killing me.  

19. Began Asia “Pivot”: In 2011, reoriented American military and diplomatic priorities and focus from the Middle East and Europe to the Asian-Pacific region. Executed multipronged strategy of positively engaging China while reasserting U.S. leadership in the region by increasing American military presence and crafting new commercial, diplomatic, and military alliances with neighboring countries made uncomfortable by recent Chinese behavior.  (No one knows what the **** this means)  

20. Increased Support for Veterans:  Ask some veterans how "supported" they feel.   

21. Tightened Sanctions on Iran: In effort to deter Iran’s nuclear program, signed Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (2010) to punish firms and individuals who aid Iran’s petroleum sector. In late 2011 and early 2012, coordinated with other major Western powers to impose sanctions aimed at Iran’s banks and with Japan, South Korea, and China to shift their oil purchases away from Iran.

---Sanctions which have had no impact on their nuclear program.  Obama refuses to reference a true, credible military option...which is why Iran doesn't care what we say or do.  He's also hung Israel out to dry and insulted their Prime Minister multiple times.  Well done!  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Fine. You tell me how Romney and Obama differ on, say, the Federal Reserve, and I'll tell you whether I think that difference is significant.

Cherry picking are we?  Yes, on your pet issue they are quite similar.  How about the other issues?  Marriage equality.  Healthcare.  Abortion.  Tax rates.  Social Security.  The list goes on.  

Romney endorsed the Ryan plan.  That shit's out there and quite different from anything Obama has proposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Cherry picking are we?  Yes, on your pet issue they are quite similar.  How about the other issues?  Marriage equality.  Healthcare.  Abortion.  Tax rates.  Social Security.  The list goes on.  

 

Romney endorsed the Ryan plan.  That shit's out there and quite different from anything Obama has proposed.

Ok, how, specifically, do they differ on marriage equality, healthcare, abortion, tax rates, and social security? Those issues are all either symptoms of the larger issues I listed, or really shouldn't be the business of the government in the first place.

The Ryan plan is marketed as different from Obama's plan, but really does nothing of any significance.

You want to see real change?

Ron Paul put forth a detailed plan to cut government spending by one trillion dollars his first year in office.

Gary Johnson has pledged to submit a balanced budget to congress in 2013, which would require similarly drastic cuts.

Neither Obama nor Romney is even talking about cutting spending or balancing the budget like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

You want to see real change?

 

Ron Paul put forth a detailed plan to cut government spending by one trillion dollars his first year in office.

 

Gary Johnson has pledged to submit a balanced budget to congress in 2013, which would require similarly drastic cuts.

Plus, I'll bet, those guys would try to end the war on (some) drugs while Obama has actually increased it and Romney has clearly stated that he would go further.

I fundamentally disagree with the type of change that Ron Paul wants to bring.  I fundamentally disagree with you about the role of government.  Just because President Obama doesn't espouse radical change like you want doesn't mean he isn't for change or that his change isn't "real".  

Sally Ride's partner doesn't get spousal benefits heterosexual widows get.  President Obama wants that changed by ending DOMA.  Romney does not.  That's real and substantial change right there.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/astronaut-sally-rides-death-fuels-lesbian-debate/story-fnb64oi6-1226438075641

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I fundamentally disagree with the type of change that Ron Paul wants to bring.  I fundamentally disagree with you about the role of government.  Just because President Obama doesn't espouse radical change like you want doesn't mean he isn't for change or that his change isn't "real".  

 

Sally Ride's partner doesn't get spousal benefits heterosexual widows get.  President Obama wants that changed by ending DOMA.  Romney does not.  That's real and substantial change right there.  

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/astronaut-sally-rides-death-fuels-lesbian-debate/story-fnb64oi6-1226438075641

BR:  Opponent of Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity™ 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

 

BR:  Opponent of Liberty, Freedom and Prosperity™ 

Observe, above, the final move of someone who has nothing of value to say nor any interest to have intelligent discourse.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

I fundamentally disagree with the type of change that Ron Paul wants to bring.  I fundamentally disagree with you about the role of government.  Just because President Obama doesn't espouse radical change like you want doesn't mean he isn't for change or that his change isn't "real".  

 

Sally Ride's partner doesn't get spousal benefits heterosexual widows get.  President Obama wants that changed by ending DOMA.  Romney does not.  That's real and substantial change right there.  

 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/astronaut-sally-rides-death-fuels-lesbian-debate/story-fnb64oi6-1226438075641

What you fail to understand is that Sally Ride's partner doesn't get spousal benefits because the government has decided that must be so. Reduce the size and scope of government - get the government out of marriage - and it becomes a non-issue.

So Obama has evolved on gay marriage. Great. What if the next guy uses government to reverse what Obama has done?

While people are freaking out that Obama or Romney will use government to impose their will on the rest of America, there are those of us who say the government should not have such power in the first place.

Then you don't have to worry about someone making a stupid law that lets the government interfere in a private contract between consenting individuals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

Observe, above, the final move of someone who has nothing of value to say nor any interest to have intelligent discourse.  

You just posted that you "fundamentally disagree" with the type of change Ron Paul wants to bring.  While I disagree with Ron Paul on several issues, the fundamental change he wants is increased liberty, freedom and prosperity.  His goals are consistent with the vision our founding fathers laid out.  We were to be a nation of limited, accountable government.  We were to be a nation of opportunity and equality under the law.  We were to be a nation where individuals provided for themselves and their families.  We were to be a nation where the The People could develop their own innate skills and talents...which would benefit society as a whole.  We were to be a nation of liberty.  Of freedom.  And of prosperity.  

But perhaps you'd like to explains what you mean?  

Jazz, you fail to acknowledge that there is more than one way to achieve that goal.  You only look for the way that involves no government intervention.  Repealing DOMA and affirming the equal protection clause also would get us to the same place.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You fail to acknowledge that there is more than one way to achieve that goal.  You only look for the way that involves no government intervention.  Repealing DOMA and affirming the equal protection clause also would get us to the same place.  

Please explain the importance and benefit of government intervention in marriage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Please explain the importance and benefit of government intervention in marriage.

I've gone down this road with him before. Though he won't admit it, it boils down to be able to force various people and groups and entities to do what he thinks they should do with regard to same-sex couples.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I've gone down this road with him before. Though he won't admit it, it boils down to be able to force various people and groups and entities to do what he thinks they should do with regard to same-sex couples.

It seems we're just rehashing the basic premise here: is it right to force other people - under threat of violence - to do what you want them to do?

If it is wrong for you as an individual to do so, then using government to do it for you doesn't somehow magically make it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

 

Why specifically do you believe this?

 

Neither candidate proposes to make any specific or significant changes or reforms to the Federal Reserve System, tax system, federal borrowing/spending, foreign policy, overreaching federal agencies such as the Department of Education, the so-called "War on Drugs". I could go on.

So because of these items you believe the future history of this nation would be the same with either? We're talking the wars we might get into. The changes either might make to our medicare system and our tax system are identical? also the way they'd handle our economic problems are identical? And based on that the outcome would be the same?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac 

So because of these items you believe the future history of this nation would be the same with either? We're talking the wars we might get into. The changes either might make to our medicare system and our tax system are identical? also the way they'd handle our economic problems are identical? And based on that the outcome would be the same?

I believe neither of them intends to address the fundamental problems. If you don't treat the fundamental problem, the symptoms will continue to manifest themselves. You can try treating the symptoms, and perhaps for a time there will be some relief, but if you don't go after the disease it will eventually spread and the symptoms will worsen.

It is like a cancer cut it out before it spreads all over.
 

Do you work or do this all day posting all this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvfox 

Do you work or do this all day posting all this?

I have a feeling some of these guys are teachers hence off for the summer or have 9 month contracts somewhere.