10 reasons why obama was the worst president ever

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

so nothing of note apart from topping OBL.

i think i got this one

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

so nothing of note apart from topping OBL.

i think i got this one

How very subjective

So how have you got this one?

Do you want a poll?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


How very subjective

So how have you got this one?

Do you want a poll?

yes didge i challenge you to make a poll

Didge wrote:

smelly-bandit wrote:

yes didge i challenge you to make a poll

Why do I need to make the poll, its your thread and claim

Do you not understand onus?

smelly-bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Why do I need to make the poll, its your thread and claim

Do you not understand onus?

have you taken a blow to the head recently??

you asked me if i wanted a poll.

yes, i want a poll , crack on.

Original Quill wrote:God, I can't believe I went through all of that.  Old, hackneyed arguments, refuted so often it puts you to sleep.  

Oh, and the adjectives.  It destroys the ambiance to listen to all of these RW cliches and catch-phrases.  Can't DeVos open a special education school for RW educably mentally retarded?  Conservatives are soo ass-dumb.

We've got better things to do.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Weak, old and a waste of time.

smelly-bandit wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Weak, old and a waste of time.

I take it you aren't going to elaborate

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Funny how the fascist/corporatist Smelly's support for Trump, and his opposition to the former Obama presidency,  is so obviously predicated on giving more rights and powers to big business and corporate concerns --  at the expense of damage to individual workers, local communities, environmental health, and the national security, sovereignty and welfare...

The very opposite of those reasons that he gives elsewhere for his supposed support for 'Brexit' back in Britain..

Original Quill wrote:

Gavin McInnes, in this clip, addresses the following topics.  Using the above classifications, I'll give you a short précis on each:

1. Race relationships--Of course America is a racist nation; we elected a brilliant black man, disproving all white-supremacists beliefs; of course there is resentment.

Didge wrote:We have been over this before and your view of Americans being racist is piss poor and the facts do not back up such a very poor claim.
Do you want me to present them again, when you ran away afterwards?

2. Economy--Outright lie...America is much better off.  Right now there are 6.5 job openings that cannot be filled.  As far as sub-standard jobs are concerned, Republicans make them sev-standard by refusing to raise the minimum wage.

Didge wrote:I have no complaints on Obama domestically

3. Obamacare—it's flaws lie in the fact that it was originally devised by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, using insurance markets.  It was originally called Romneycare, FGS.  Insurance is basically a huge gambling casino, where the House covers its bets.  If the bet is risky, the premiums are high; if less risky, then premiums are lower.  It's obvious...we need to discard the idea of the insurance market, and go right to a national program like the HHS.  Do we submit our Defense Department to such risky betting process?  Right...only in good markets can we afford to defend ourselves.

4. The environment--Denial is a river in east Africa.

5. Foreign policy--Obama has been brilliant in the way that he has played the foreign parties, while toying with a hostile Congress.  And look: NO WARS.  Contrast Trump: in 6-months he's in a pissing match with the dumbest mother-fooker in the entire globe...two looney-toons squaring off.

Didge wrote:Actually it was shockingly poor and instead of resolving many problems, saw Obama appease nations like Iran, which has seen an escalation and divide further within the Middle East. In fact now incredible, Trump has support from nations like Saudi and other Sunni nations, that see the advancement of Iran as a major threat.

The only thing he did worth while was finally take out Bin Laden

Obama was involved in conflicts but did this poorly and allowed Putin to muscle in on the Crimea, causing conflict with Ukraine and allowed Assad to remain in power.

That is nothing to write home about and has seen now as stated an escalation of now further problems within the Middle East

The Iranian deal was as poor as Clintons with North Korea. It has failed.

6. Scandal free presidency--This is a liability?  I think not.  Obama is a brilliant chess player, and he knows where he is at all times.  That's what this standard is reflecting.  Why do you think Putin feared him so?

7. Lost Congress--America is a racist nation.  It was a constant uphill battle.

Didge wrote:Yet as seen that is complete babble
Yes there is racism in America, but there is no law that allows racism.
Hate crimes are far lower than the UK for example

8. Education--With a Republican Congress?  Dream on.  They don't even want to admit to children from their own loins.

Didge wrote:Not sure what on earth you are even going on about.
Lets have some facts here and lets compare over history between the Democrats and the Republicans what has been done for the rights off others.
Republicans win hands down, which Democrats hate to admit.
Yes there is a religious evangical sect within the Republicans

9. ISIS--ISIS is a public relations issue.  Christ, it's a pickup truck army.  They couldn't cross the English Channel, let alone the Atlantic.  Who...I say, who were we talking about?

Didge wrote:Wow, I suppose the holocaust was a pulic relations issue then based on your thinking.
It seems you are inherantly selfish and very nationalistic towards helping not all your fellow American, but a select few, those within California.
Eiether you stand to look out for humanity or you do not, which as I have elequently proved countless times, you do not. You think pushing away problems with help solve them. It never will, when we are very much a global economy and how the rights of all humans matter.

By your reasoning, its no different from the Far Right, The only difference is who you allow based on beliefs.

10. Political Correctness.  It's a term for something we don't like.  Chrissake, bank robbery is political correctness to a bank robber.  It's part of the RW lexicon, to ridicule and demean standards, laws and regulations the RW doesn't like.  We once had politically correct, bothersome regulations governing off-shore oil drilling; until BP polluted the entire Gulf of Mexico.  Then suddenly, it's no longer politically correct, but necessary public protections.

Didge wrote:No idea what on earth you are going on about?
PC was born out to do good and yet is inherantly wrong. As it effects many people, when it never should

Cliches, catch-phrases and jingos

RW Lexicon brings us back to the other thing I was criticizing about your silly post.  RW rhetoric is a collection of cliches, catch-phrases and juvenile jingos.  It's how they think (or, avoid thinking).  Original thought, for them, is being able to memorize.  They don’t analyze so much as they imitate.

Didge wrote:Is that why it saw the end of Slavery and saw Civil rights happen under the Republicans?

See, only LW'ers care about people generally; RW'ers care only about special interests.  Thus, RW'ers don't exercise their brains figuring out problems and issues...think of a muscle, not getting exercise.   Consequently, RW thoughts atrophy, and cerebral activity for a RW'er is reduced to cliches, catch-phrases and jingos.

Didge wrote:Is that so?
Then why did many vote against civil rights in the US and against slavery?
I mean in the UK, the British Fascist Party, was headed up by a former Labour MP, Oswald Mosely?

 

THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE CLIP IS--cliches, catch-phrases and jingos.  It's all delivery, with no thought content whatsoever.  I believe it was John Stuart Mill, your brilliant British countryman, who said: "I don't say Conservatives are generally stupid; but I will say that stupid persons are generally Conservative."  This clip is aimed at a conservative audience.  (And lo, you bring it to us...that figures.)

Didge wrote:I see you as no different than smelly.
Its not a rational debate, but who can blame and demonize the most. You both play off fear, argue for isolation and segregation. The only difference being on who you except within your clubs.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I see you as no different than smelly.
Its not a rational debate, but who can blame and demonize the most. You both play off fear, argue for isolation and segregation. The only difference being on who you except within your clubs.

That's why I originally avoided the detail.  My purpose was not a full answer, but to demonstrate that there was an answer to be had.  I could write a book about each one of those 10-points.  Only when I have been able to give a full accounting, would I feel confident in my case.

But Russ was whining that I wouldn't come out and play with him.  Besides, he, like you, is entitled to learn how to debate...hence the part two, in my response.  Only by hearing valid criticism as to style and methodology, can one learn.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's why I originally avoided the detail.  My purpose was not a full answer, but to demonstrate that there was an answer to be had.  I could write a book about each one of those 10-points.  Only when I have been able to give a full accounting, would I feel confident in my case.

But Russ was whining that I wouldn't come out and play with him.  Besides, he, like you, is entitled to learn how to debate...hence the part two, in my response.  Only by hearing valid criticism as to style and methodology, can one learn.

I agree the points were poor on some, but not all.

Like I said Obama foreign policy wise, was extremely poor.

We have seen an esclation from his poor foreign policies.

In fact the Russians under Putin have capitalized under them.

eddie wrote:Even with a huge stretch of the imagination, you could hardly call Obama the "worst president ever".

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


I agree the points were poor on some, but not all.

Like I said Obama foreign policy wise, was extremely poor.

We have seen an esclation from his poor foreign policies.

In fact the Russians under Putin have capitalized under them.

I could write two volumes on Obama's superior chess playing on foreign relations.

One of the ways that RW'ers avoid praising the opposition is to simply deny the result.  McInnes included.  RW'ers can't admit that Hillary did nothing wrong.  They can't admit all of the evidence of climate change.  McInnes, in particular, can't admit that Obama ushered in boom times in our economy.  Similarly, RW'ers can't admit the plain fact that Obama kept us out a war that is none of our business.

Everyone has an ax to grind--for you, it's anyone who criticizes Israel.  From there, you go on to condemn the Muslim religion.  The question is, do we all want to kill our sons and daughters over the ax?  Sure as hell, America doesn't.  We've had enough of that shit.  Obama caught that, and played it outstanding well.

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:Even with a huge stretch of the imagination, you could hardly call Obama the "worst president ever".

Never claimed he was, like I say, he was about the best domestically they have had.

.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Never claimed he was, like I say, he was about the best domestically they have had.

.

I was talking to the bullshit bandit.

Didge wrote:Funny how you cannot even string together a single sentence in defence of his foreign policy

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Never claimed he was, like I say, he was about the best domestically they have had.

.

I was talking to the bullshit bandit.

Thanks for clarifying, as your post did follow my post Eddie

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Funny how you cannot even string together a single sentence in defence of his foreign policy

That's not true.  i've already made that point.  People don't want one of those repetitive arguments, so unless you have something new, I'm off to other threads.

eddie wrote:

Didge wrote:


Thanks for clarifying, as your post did follow my post Eddie

Sorry. I tend to do that. Just randomly make comments from seemingly nowhere.

Original Quill wrote:5. Foreign policy--Obama has been brilliant in the way that he has played the foreign parties, while toying with a hostile Congress.  And look: NO WARS.  Contrast Trump: in 6-months he's in a pissing match with the dumbest mother-fooker in the entire globe...two looney-toons squaring off.

Didge wrote:Obama appease nations like Iran, which has seen an escalation and divide further within the Middle East. In fact now incredible, Trump has support from nations like Saudi and other Sunni nations, that see the advancement of Iran as a major threat.

The only thing he did worth while was finally take out Bin Laden

Obama was involved in conflicts but did this poorly and allowed Putin to muscle in on the Crimea, causing conflict with Ukraine and allowed Assad to remain in power.

That is nothing to write home about and has seen now as stated an escalation of now further problems within the Middle East

The Iranian deal was as poor as Clintons with North Korea. It has failed.

Maddog wrote:Jimmy Carter was far worse than Obama. I would put LBJ and Nixon as worse than Obama too. Obama and Clinton (Bubba, not the hag) had very similar runs. Both had a democratic congress for two years, and a republican one for 6. Both had to go along to get along. Both managed that position adequately.  

Original Quill wrote:
The Iran deal was as good a deal as you're going to get, and the proof is that it is still working.  The US is not alone in this transaction: China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, Germany, and the European Union are also signatories.  There is world-wide recognition that it goes as far as any can go.  You can buy the plans for a nuclear weapon on the Internet, fcs.  Did you expect that they could stop the world?

Didge wrote:Its not worked, they are denying access top their facilities
So how is that a good deal?
We have been here before with North Korea
If you can by the plans, then why have not others been able to commit a terrorist nuke attack?
I think you are talking bull agaian

Your criticism with Crimea: You argue for sanctions with Iran, yet you don’t think they will work with Russia???  Crimea is a European problem.  We are not a part of Europe.  Plus, we already have problems with Russia and Trump colluding.  Crimea is of greater strategic interest to you Europeans.  It's time for one of you to step up and assume some leadership.

Didge wrote:Where did I argue for sanctions with Iran?
You see how you continue to lie?
I always call for action against those who commit the worst Human rights, as I believe in huniversal human rights.
So you argue on strategy, not the suffering of people in Ukraine or the Crimea.
That is your first failing

Finally, there is no dealing with North Korea.  They want their nuclear weapon.  What do you suggest?  Renewing the Korean war?

Didge wrote:There was no dealing with Hitler either, but if he had a nuke, he would have used it.

What do i suggest?

If a war is needed, so be it

There are just some things that the great big ol' USA cannot do.  We can't stop the earth from spinning, we can't stop the rivers from running, and we can't stop countries from obtaining nuclear power as time passes and they figure things out.  Imagine, if someone back in the 12th century ran around Europe trying to prevent peoples from obtaining gunpowder.  It's a pipe-dream still today.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:Jimmy Carter was far worse than Obama. I would put LBJ and Nixon as worse than Obama too. Obama and Clinton (Bubba, not the hag) had very similar runs. Both had a democratic congress for two years, and a republican one for 6. Both had to go along to get along. Both managed that position adequately.  

What on earth are you basing any of your views on?

Obama and Clinton, have been domesticaly good Presidents with what they have had to deal with domestically

You are giving an opinion, so what is your views based on?

Opinion, or reason?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


What on earth are you basing any of your views on?

Obama and Clinton, have been domesticaly good Presidents with what they have had to deal with domestically

You are giving an opinion, so what is your views based on?

Opinion, or reason?

It would be based on what I think the role of the President is, mixed with my particular political philosophy. I also look at the legacy of what they accomplished, and what they tried to accomplish.

My views are very libertarian, so I cant really embrace the expansion of the federal government into my life, as something I consider to be an improvement, or something I want my President to embrace.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It would be based on what I think the role of the President is, mixed with my particular political philosophy. I also look at the legacy of what they accomplished, and what they tried to accomplish.

My views are very libertarian, so I cant really embrace the expansion of the federal government into my life, as something I consider to be an improvement, or something I want my President to embrace.  

Great, but you have offered no reason here, as of yet..

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

Great, but you have offered no reason here, as of yet..

My reasons may be different than other's because they are based on my opinion.

Let's take on example. Obamacare. I find that to be an oppressive over reach of the role of government. It uses the full force of the government to make people do something. Other's might see it as a compassionate use of government resources.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My reasons may be different than other's because they are based on my opinion.

Let's take on example. Obamacare. I find that to be an oppressive over reach of the role of government. It uses the full force of the government to make people do something. Other's might see it as a compassionate use of government resources.

How is it oppressive, when it enables countless millions to have health care?

Do you really want to place a price tage on medical care privately for people?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:

How is it oppressive, when it enables countless millions to have health care?

Do you really want to place a price tage on medical care privately for people?

Is it voluntary?