10 key reasons why the Obama presidency continues to melt down - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Contag;31636226] And that each party isn't actually [I]that[/I] distinct in terms of policy.[/QUOTE]Ehhh, yes and no. They each have their own flaws.

[QUOTE=Big Bang;31636089]I don't think that people realize that the way American politics work is that when a Democrat is president the Republicans insult him and call it "worst president ever", and vice-versa.[/QUOTE] Even though that is true, generally speaking, the backlash has never as bad nor flat-out disrespectful for a long time as it has been in the past 3 years. I mean, there were folks during the Bush years who thought Bush was the Republican equivalent of Hitler, and made all sorts of equally ignorant comments about him (I use to have a folder full of signs claiming bullshit on both sides :v: ). But I don't think there's been a group actively spreading libel this huge in a long time.

The 1st three or four are good points, but once I read "Conservatism is growing stronger in America" I was like "NOPE"

[QUOTE=faze;31636262]Ehhh, yes and no. They each have their own flaws.[/QUOTE] They're distinct in rhetoric, but not much else. Obviously the democrats lean closer to the side of sanity, but it's a still a far cry.

[QUOTE=faze;31636001]His large government was purely based on military. "Large government" in its literal term is defined in social programs.[/QUOTE] the patriot act wasn't military, and it made the government bigger and more powerful. Social programs are the only [i]good[/i] form of "big government"

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31636508]the patriot act wasn't military, and it made the government bigger and more powerful. Social programs are the only [i]good[/i] form of "big government"[/QUOTE] Also, the education equivalent of obamacare.

[QUOTE=Contag;31636653]obamacare[/QUOTE] yeah that's not what it's called

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31636702]yeah that's not what it's called[/QUOTE] Sorry, Compro-care. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31636702]yeah that's not what it's called[/QUOTE] The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Happy now? Personally, I like 'obamacare'. Then again, I'm not insane and don't see healthcare as a negative thing. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;31636702]yeah that's not what it's called[/QUOTE] What you rather call it? Jesus christ is 'care' a dysphemism now?

This artical states it perfectly. It is also nice to see someone other than glaber not jumping on the left wing facepunc bandwagon

[QUOTE='[sluggo];31637402']This artical states it perfectly. It is also nice to see someone other than glaber not jumping on the left wing facepunc bandwagon[/QUOTE] Are you intentionally misspelling your words to seem like an idiot, furthering the comedic value of your parody?

[QUOTE=faze;31636001]His large government was purely based on military. "Large government" in its literal term is defined in social programs.[/QUOTE] Department of Homeland Security [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Contag;31636653]Also, the education equivalent of obamacare.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that be taxing people if they didn't enroll their kids in private school?

[QUOTE='[sluggo];31637402']This artical states it perfectly. It is also nice to see someone other than glaber not jumping on the left wing facepunc bandwagon[/QUOTE] Except it's wrong on about 7/10 of its points. How, in any way, is this article "stating it perfectly"?

[QUOTE=Ridge;31638381]Department of Homeland Security[/QUOTE]Aka, "Kill them Moslims, they gots differentz beliefs than us!"

[url=http://www.politicususa.com/en/downgrade-gop-approval]The republicans are quickly losing support[/url] [release]The Republican Party itself now has a 33% favorable rating and a 59% unfavorable rating. In July the GOP had a 41% favorable rating and a 55% unfavorable rating. Republicans lost 8 points off of their favorable rating, and gained 4 points in unfavorability. The end result is a net (-12) swing in their numbers.[/release]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31638795][url=http://www.politicususa.com/en/downgrade-gop-approval]The republicans are quickly losing support[/url] [release]The Republican Party itself now has a 33% favorable rating and a 59% unfavorable rating. In July the GOP had a 41% favorable rating and a 55% unfavorable rating. Republicans lost 8 points off of their favorable rating, and gained 4 points in unfavorability. The end result is a net (-12) swing in their numbers.[/release][/QUOTE] To be fair, that is a Liberal site, but the CNN poll doesn't lie. That "Conservatism is growing in the US" nonsense the OP's article perpetuated was entirely false.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;31638795][url=http://www.politicususa.com/en/downgrade-gop-approval]The republicans are quickly losing support[/url] [release]The Republican Party itself now has a 33% favorable rating and a 59% unfavorable rating. In July the GOP had a 41% favorable rating and a 55% unfavorable rating. Republicans lost 8 points off of their favorable rating, and gained 4 points in unfavorability. The end result is a net (-12) swing in their numbers.[/release][/QUOTE]Holy shit. That gives me a shit ton of ammo against the Republicans that I often debate with. Thanks!!!

[QUOTE=amute;31629127]Drone attacks in Pakistan started with bush and Yemen was barely anything. Those aren't wars. Neither is Libya if you're implying it. But what's wrong with airstriking little brown people? I thought you Republicans loved that stuff. Oh, now you're anti-war once a black guy is in the white house?[/QUOTE] Why is Libya not a war? Is it because, as Obama said, they aren't shooting back at us? That doesn't make it any less a war than Germany steamrolling Belgium. I've been anti Iraq War consistently. [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] In the minds of most conservatives, Republicans aren't very conservative at all.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31638907]Why is Libya not a war? Is it because, as Obama said, they aren't shooting back at us? That doesn't make it any less a war than Germany steamrolling Belgium. I've been anti Iraq War consistently.[/QUOTE] I would describe it as an intervention, and certainly not an "American" one.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31638955]I would describe it as an intervention, and certainly not an "American" one.[/QUOTE] Peacekeeping, intervention, police action, etc. all describe the same thing. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] You could describe Afghanistan as an intervention to support the Northern Alliance against the Taliban. [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] Not in the sense that it was justified by the UNSC, but anywho.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31638907] In the minds of most conservatives, Republicans aren't very conservative at all.[/QUOTE] In the minds of most conservatives Ayn Rand is dancing topless while gold coins rain from the sky and Ron Paul plays the piano in the background to a chorus of Glenn Beck yelling about Nazis

[QUOTE=Contag;31639011]Peacekeeping, intervention, police action, etc. all describe the same thing. Not in the sense that it was justified by the UNSC, but anywho.[/QUOTE] To be fair an "intervention" and peacekeeping operations are actually quite different, but fair enough. I just don't care for the insinuation that the US started the intervention, that it was Obama's idea, or that it was just some stepping stone on a quest for oil.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;31639080]To be fair an "intervention" and peacekeeping operations are actually quite different, but fair enough. I just don't care for the insinuation that the US started the intervention, that it was Obama's idea, or that it was just some stepping stone on a quest for oil.[/QUOTE] No, I imagine that the US would be fine with a pro-West Gaddafi. To be fair it's all for energy security, on some level. Sure as hell isn't for humanitarian reasons!

[QUOTE=Contag;31639114]No, I imagine that the US would be fine with a pro-West Gaddafi. To be fair it's all for energy security, on some level. Sure as hell isn't for humanitarian reasons![/QUOTE] I'm sure the US would be fine with it, but it wasn't the US' idea and the administration was incredibly cautious in handling it when it began.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31638381]Department of Homeland Security [/QUOTE] AKA: Wait what do you mean the CIA and FBI were already covering that? Two agencies designed to fight asymmetrical conflicts? One for defense, one for offense? THIS IS CRAZY TALK. Fucking waste of tax dollars.

[QUOTE=GunFox;31639452]AKA: Wait what do you mean the CIA and FBI were already covering that? Two agencies designed to fight asymmetrical conflicts? One for defense, one for offense? THIS IS CRAZY TALK. [B]Fucking waste of tax dollars.[/B][/QUOTE] pquote]Office of the Director of National Intelligence Independent Agencies Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) United States Department of Defense Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AF ISR) Air Force Office of Special Investigations Army Criminal Investigation Command (Army CID) Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Marine Corps Intelligence Activity [3] Military Intelligence Corps (United States Army) [4] National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) National Security Agency (NSA) Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) United States Department of Energy Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence United States Department of Homeland Security United States Secret Service Coast Guard Intelligence [5] Office of Intelligence and Analysis Coast Guard Investigative Service United States Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Directorate of Intelligence Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA) United States Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) United States Department of the Treasury Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence[/quote] [editline]10th August 2011[/editline] [quote]Supporting the work of the 16 main agencies, The Washington Post has [B]reported that there are 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies[/B] in 10,000 locations in the United States that are working on counterterrorism, homeland security, and intelligence[/quote]

Good to know that the Department of Energy is protecting us from terrorism.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31639880]Good to know that the Department of Energy is protecting us from terrorism.[/QUOTE] If that was sarcastic, keep in mind that the Department of Energy oversees nuclear power in the United States and is responsible in part to protect their uranium supply from theft.

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;31634709]Not everyone is better than Obama, but there are quite a lot of people who I think could do a better job. Democrats and Republicans included.[/QUOTE] What Republican? [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE='[sluggo];31637402']This artical states it perfectly. It is also nice to see someone other than glaber not jumping on the left wing facepunc bandwagon[/QUOTE] You remind me of people who defend Alex Jones going HE KNOWS THE TRUTH, MANNNNN [editline]9th August 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;31638907]Why is Libya not a war? Is it because, as Obama said, they aren't shooting back at us? That doesn't make it any less a war than Germany steamrolling Belgium.[/quote] It's upholding a UN resolution. And Obama never said that.

[QUOTE=amute;31640361]It's upholding a UN resolution. And Obama never said that.[/QUOTE] So was Iraq. Saddam Hussein was ignoring UN resolutions regarding chemical weapons and the no fly zone. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-libya-action-does-not-require-congressional-approval/2011/06/15/AGLttOWH_story.html]Also,[/url] [quote]“We’re not engaged in sustained fighting. There’s been no exchange of fire with hostile forces. We don’t have troops on the ground. We don’t risk casualties to those troops,” said one senior administration official, who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity during a conference call arranged by the White House. “None of the factors, frankly, speaking more broadly, has risked the sort of escalation that Congress was concerned would impinge on its war-making power.”[/quote] So because Americans aren't being shot at while bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation, it is not a war.

[QUOTE=Ridge;31640608]So was Iraq. Saddam Hussein was ignoring UN resolutions regarding chemical weapons and the no fly zone. [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-libya-action-does-not-require-congressional-approval/2011/06/15/AGLttOWH_story.html]Also,[/url] So because Americans aren't being shot at while bombing the shit out of a sovereign nation, it is not a war.[/QUOTE] But that wasn't why the war was waged.