Obama Intentionally Caused Ambassador's Death By Shutting Down Military Response

[REIMktg]

No, it isn't enough. This is a list of things you don't like about Obama, but most of this occurred under Bush, or in a parallel under Bush.

I want to know which of this is actually worse besides golf.

Also, why do you hate the Arab Spring? People are overthrowing their tyrannical governments. Shouldn't you like this?

And, what did Obama do wrong with Military Expenditure? Bush was spending a trillion dollars a year fighting a global war against a tactic (terrorism). Are you mad that Obama hasn't spent as much as Bush, or that he spends too much? Only the latter is morally defensible.

Aaaaaaaand, taxes? You're a statist. How can you possibly complain about taxes? By your rationale, the government should be able to take all of our income to provide absolute security and happiness for us. It's laughable that you're for religious freedom or against taxes. Cognitive Dissonance!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand, why should the government advocate anything with the economy (homeowner or renter)? Are you a communist?

These seem a little vague and inaccurate at best.

"Billions if not trillions" - how is that a legitimate criticism or accusation, if you are so sure its true, how can you have no idea whether its billions or trillions?

Arab Spring - how is that anything to do with the president of the US? You might as well blame him for the fact that my car broke down last week in Estonia.

8. "Oil".
Yes...oil? and?
....Peanuts!....Earth!...Wind...Fire!

Health care takeover - this is open for discussion but the healthcare system in the US is shit and unfair, for the biggest economy on earth to have people dying because they have no money is shameful...

Its also currently hugely inefficient and wasteful, thanks to greedy insurance companies and those who work with them, at least hes attempting reform, bizarre that so many americans are against it "cuz nazi socialism communism is bad".

You guys both know what I am referring to. Yes, the answer to each item is better or worse depending on your worldview. The original question was disingenuous and I knew it, but I thought I would play along. There is nothing I could have typed that would not have gotten some BS answer like the two above.

Instead of picking every little thing apart, which we all could do, well most of us, when presented with an answer - why not be sincere and discuss what we all know is meant. Now admittedly I left the list vague because I knew it was pointless. Everyone around here is a master of the "nit pick".

Overall, given the list, you can easily see that Obama and Bush are not only different, but that the actions relative to each issue would have been different.

@pixelo - I have shown before how this view of the health care system as it is, is inaccurate. There is nothing wrong with reform, but you should start with a reduction of Govt interference. For example, allowing open competition across state lines. The health care takeover is not up for discussion. If it is so great why are all the ones that made it allowed to opt for an entirely different system? That should be your first clue. Not to mention the countless exemptions that were made for certain companies and interest groups. The point was that Bush would not have signed such a "hodge podge" - not that people who do not understand the bill that was signed think of Universal Health Care as a concept and assume it was implemented correctly. NO ONE IN THE US IS DENIED HEALTH CARE. That is not opinion. It is fact.

 

[guerilla]

The original question was disingenuous and I knew it, but I thought I would play along. There is nothing I could have typed that would not have gotten some BS answer like the two above.

Nonsense.

All of you anti-BO guys get all riled up about how bad he is, but when it comes down to explaining exactly what he has done that is worse than Bush, you fail miserably.

It's hard to take people seriously who claim they believe in X, but when asked to explain what X is, stare at their shoes and mumble under their breath.

The question wasn't disingenuous, I knew you wouldn't be able to articulate why, just like Hellblazer can't articulate why he's a Communist.

You guys are typical voters. You're delusional that you have a clue about what is going on. Democracy is the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

For crissakes, I am a Canadian, and I know more about American politics and economics than 95% of your population, and I don't own a TV or read the paper, or follow news online. How sad is that?

Keep voting. DERP

 

[REIMktg]

Nonsense.

All of you anti-BO guys get all riled up about how bad he is, but when it comes down to explaining exactly what he has done that is worse than Bush, you fail miserably.

It's hard to take people seriously who claim they believe in X, but when asked to explain what X is, stare at their shoes and mumble under their breath.

The question wasn't disingenuous, I knew you wouldn't be able to articulate why, just like Hellblazer can't articulate why he's a Communist.

You guys are typical voters. You're delusional that you have a clue about what is going on. Democracy is the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

For crissakes, I am a Canadian, and I know more about American politics and economics than 95% of your population, and I don't own a TV or read the paper, or follow news online. How sad is that?

Keep voting. DERP

I did write what was wrong with Obama. I made a list.

1. Take abortion. IMO Obama is worse than Bush because of his support of partial birth abortion.
2. Take Dodd Frank. Likely Bush would not have signed this bill. I do not have the space to write what is wrong with Dodd Frank. But we could start with the CFPB its lack of oversight and accountability. From Mortgages to Community Banks - the CFPB is a nightmare thwarting lending and growth.
3. I specified religious freedom and mentioned the Catholic Church having to sue the administration to keep theirs.
4. Fast & Furious should be obvious. Do not mention wide receiver under Bush because the programs are worlds apart.
5. Let's add that Bush would not have signed the Health Care overhaul. Without regard to how you feel about health care this bill was bad. From death panels (yes they are in there) to the numerous opt outs - not good.
6. I also pointed out specifically his policies of selling houses in Bulk to hedge funds to make people renters at the same time when even non-profits etc are saying that there are an abundance of Buyers who cannot find a home because they are not coming to market.

Check yourself G. Many of the points I had already made. Your not being consistent. In the past you at least read my posts. Now it seems you are arguing for the masses. Is this because I met your call? Of course you wont admit that. You will go ivory tower for cover. Do not make the mistake of casting me as one who cannot think.

 

[JakeStratham]

Check yourself G. Many of the points I had already made. Your not being consistent. In the past you at least read my posts. Now it seems you are arguing for the masses. Is this because I met your call? Of course you wont admit that. You will go ivory tower for cover. Do not make the mistake of casting me as one who cannot think.

For the record, I've noticed the same issues in your argumentation from page 2 forward. If I can see them, sharper WF members surely can.

 

[Moxie]

Need I say more?

Meanwhile in mother Russia :

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dimx_hn-Wi0]Heavy Metal Putin: PM rides into bike show on Harley trike - YouTube[/ame]



Also, here's Gary Johnson competing in the 8 day TransAlp Challenge :

 

[guerilla]

In the past you at least read my posts.

You had to know at some point we'd reach the limits of my patience and understanding. For the same reason I don't invest a lot of time into teaching my dogs mathematics, I can't debate with people who are arbitrary and can't defend their own position.

Do I need to make a laundry list of the points you have avoided in debate when I have made them? It's disgusting, the intellectual dishonesty, but in good faith, I have mostly persevered.

So come on man.

Do not make the mistake of casting me as one who cannot think.

Your own posts make and incriminate you on that charge. I don't have to do a thing when someone asserts things as fact and cannot substantiate them.

If you're such a thinker, where is your critical process? How did you arrive at these conclusions? Have you tested your premises?

What are your premises?

Do you even understand the distinction between induction and deduction? Do you have a theory of how man acts? Any sort of understanding of cause and effect? Epistemology?

Don't tell me you're a thinker because you have the laundry list of Rush Limbaugh Conservatard political issues. A moron could have that same set of opinions by listening to his radio show for a week.

I did write what was wrong with Obama. I made a list.

I could play this game, and we'd go back and forth ad infinitum.

For every shitty thing that has happened under Obama's watch I can name an equally shitty thing that happened under Bush.

For example, George Bush killed a lot of innocent people with his policy decisions. As a Christian, that is supposed to bother you.

Conservatards are supposed to be against moral relativism, and yet when Bush kills brown kids, it's ok, but when Obama does something related to abortion, it's a HUGE DEAL.

Isn't that moral relativism, picking and choosing which kids gets to live and die? I'd say kids who die from abortion get a much nicer death than being blown up by a bomb.

As an aside, how irrational is it that people expect the President to be accountable for everything, or they project that he explicitly directs the entire apparatus of the largest government known to mankind.

This ^^ sort of nonsensical and unfounded belief is why people who hold it (like you) shouldn't be allowed to vote, presuming voting is legitimate (it's not) and in any way "works" (it doesn't).

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect. The most biased, ignorant and deluded people vote, and then think the aggregation of their opinions somehow can lead to a rational outcome, or that said aggregation lends moral cover to heinous and self-serving behavior.

 

[guerilla]

You know people are full of shit, when nowhere on their list of issues, is arguably the key issue with the delusion of representative government.

The debt.

Yeah, that minor detail which may collapse the United States completely in the next 30 years.

Who worries about small stuff like that when we can get incensed about fast and furious?

 

[guerilla]

Some food for thought from Bob Murphy and Sheldon Richman, who are involved with "The American Conservative" magazine (both are anarchists).

I will not be voting in the upcoming election, or indeed in any future presidential elections. As an economist, I am used to analyzing behavior “on the margin.” Going to the polls carries a definite cost, primarily in terms of the loss of time that could have been devoted to other activities, but there is hardly any benefit at all. The only way your individual vote “makes a difference” is if the election is close enough in the Electoral College that your particular state has enough votes to swing it one way versus the other, and if the popular vote in your state is decided by a margin of exactly one. In that case and that case only, your vote makes the difference between Obama versus Romney being the next president. In all other scenarios, whether you vote for one or the other, vote third party, or just stay home and watch TV, the next occupant of the White House is the same.

Now a lot people bristle when they hear this type of cold-blooded analysis. They demand: “What if EVERYONE acted like you?!” But that’s the beauty of my approach: I want everyone to stay home on principle, because it delegitimizes this crooked system. There is no way that the establishment media and party bosses will ever let the American voters have a genuine choice in their presidential elections. In our current farce, there is hardly any noticeable difference in philosophy between the two candidates. Obama isn’t a peace candidate, and Romney isn’t a champion of laissez-faire. We are never going to be able to vote our way to rational, humane politics.

The one trump card the ruling class gets to play, whenever Americans are sickened at the bloated welfare-warfare state that is the furthest thing from what our Constitution authorizes, is to say: “You get to vote in new rulers every four years.” The fewer Americans who “vote for the lesser of two evils” in a pointless act that has no real influence on the outcome anyway, the harder it is for the rulers to play this card.

A vote is a terrible thing to waste. Therefore, I will stay at home on Nov. 6 and conserve my precious possession. I think it was Gordon Tullock who pointed out that I have a better chance of being hit by lightening on the way to the polls than of affecting the outcome of an election. So, being the safety-conscious type, I have yet another reason not to make the dangerous trek to the polling place on election day.

Still, I could have a preference for which of the major contenders I’d most like to see lose. But here things get tricky. For every reason I come up with for preferring that Romney lose, I can come up with an equal and opposite reason for preferring that Obama lose. For example, Romney is a Republican, and Republicans, despite the fact that nearly all of them are champions of plutocratic corporatism, inevitably speak free-market lingo. Therefore, if the economy goes south during a Republican administration, the media—which can’t distinguish rhetoric from reality—will blame the free market. And the public will believe it. George W. Bush’s free-market anarchism gave us the Great Recession, right?

So score one for Obama—except, as we’ve learned this past four years, when a warmongering Democratic progressive occupies the Oval Office, the peace and civil liberties movement evaporates. It wouldn’t have done so had McCain won. As the heroic Glenn Greenwald points out, the progressives’ priorities during the Bush 43 administration—anti-imperialism and the Bill of Rights—fell off the agenda the day Obama, the soon-to-be Nobel Peace Prize-winner, was inaugurated. Healthcare and the economic status of the middle class were all that mattered. Too bad for the distant and impoverished brown people who live under constant threat from Obama’s drones. Too bad for the people still being held in Guantanamo, despite having been cleared for release. First things first.

There are several other pairs of offsetting arguments, but you get the point.

Thank goodness my one vote wouldn’t have counted anyway. Staying home does have its advantages. As two of my favorite philosophers—Herbert Spencer and George Carlin—suggested, only nonvoters have a right to complain after an election.

 

[mattseh]

Referencing Dunning is fucking hilarious, guerilla.

 

[ThisWebThing]

You know people are full of shit, when nowhere on their list of issues, is arguably the key issue with the delusion of representative government.

The debt.

Yeah, that minor detail which may collapse the United States completely in the next 30 years.

Who worries about small stuff like that when we can get incensed about fast and furious?

The us Debt my main issue really, the tea party brings it up all the time.

30 years, might be sooner... you can QE#? but create some inflation monster in the process.

 

[bodiddley]

You know people are full of shit, when nowhere on their list of issues, is arguably the key issue with the delusion of representative government.

The debt.

Yeah, that minor detail which may collapse the United States completely in the next 30 years.

Who worries about small stuff like that when we can get incensed about fast and furious?

Lol take away the 2nd amendment and we won't have a damn thing to say about the debt...

 

[REIMktg]

You had to know at some point we'd reach the limits of my patience and understanding. For the same reason I don't invest a lot of time into teaching my dogs mathematics, I can't debate with people who are arbitrary and can't defend their own position.

Do I need to make a laundry list of the points you have avoided in debate when I have made them? It's disgusting, the intellectual dishonesty, but in good faith, I have mostly persevered.

Cool. Let's re-visit each one and I will clarify the point. It's like the Anarchy thread. I went to your terms and clarified the definition, to which you agreed. I brought up two premises and then a conclusion, but afterward, finding that everyone wanted to debate that plus go in a dozen other directions, I lost interest. I even tried to bow out of that thread before because we simply disagree as to Mans Nature. When each post splinters into 10 directions it is no longer worth the time.

Your own posts make and incriminate you on that charge. I don't have to do a thing when someone asserts things as fact and cannot substantiate them.
If you're such a thinker, where is your critical process? How did you arrive at these conclusions? Have you tested your premises?
What are your premises?
Do you even understand the distinction between induction and deduction? Do you have a theory of how man acts? Any sort of understanding of cause and effect? Epistemology?
Don't tell me you're a thinker because you have the laundry list of Rush Limbaugh Conservatard political issues. A moron could have that same set of opinions by listening to his radio show for a week.

Proof you are not as much about ideas as about being an ivory tower elitist. You are not arguing whether my answers were right or wrong, you are arguing against me. Attacking the person rather than the point made. Typical. Anyhow, I said I can think, I did not claim to be a "thinker". I have examined my positions.

I could play this game, and we'd go back and forth ad infinitum.
For every shitty thing that has happened under Obama's watch I can name an equally shitty thing that happened under Bush.
For example, George Bush killed a lot of innocent people with his policy decisions. As a Christian, that is supposed to bother you.
Conservatards are supposed to be against moral relativism, and yet when Bush kills brown kids, it's ok, but when Obama does something related to abortion, it's a HUGE DEAL.
Isn't that moral relativism, picking and choosing which kids gets to live and die? I'd say kids who die from abortion get a much nicer death than being blown up by a bomb.

You asked me how Bush and Obama were different. This was in response to where I said that Obama is all of the bad of bush plus a lot more.

The list I gave was directed at the question. Then you do into a laundry list of outside issues. Clearly you cannot argue with the list made nor can you you recall that I already said - Bush was bad. When I said that Obama is all of the bad of Bush plus a lot more. Just thought I would repeat it, your mind seems to be wandering lately.

As an aside, how irrational is it that people expect the President to be accountable for everything, or they project that he explicitly directs the entire apparatus of the largest government known to mankind.

Really? So Reagan did not know of Iran-Contra and Obama did not know of Fast & Furious. OK. Fine. Now he knows, now your point is invalid because we see him do nothing. We cannot assume he knows every detail, but when he does know, then his actions tell a story. Are you OK? I mean, usually you are much more on spot than this. I'm genuinely concerned, not just trolling.

You know people are full of shit, when nowhere on their list of issues, is arguably the key issue with the delusion of representative government.
The debt.
Yeah, that minor detail which may collapse the United States completely in the next 30 years.
Who worries about small stuff like that when we can get incensed about fast and furious?

You asked the ways they were different. You Sir seem to be full of it. Because I answer the question with sincerity and then you bring up another issue and say I am full of crap. The debt is a huge concern, but Bush was a big spender, so why would I say that in that respect he is different than Obama.

As for the list being any list any Conservatard could come up with after listening to Rush - does that make each point invalid? Of course not. Once again you are attacking the messenger not the message. I learned this while working with lawyers. If you have no case, attack the opposing council. It works, but is insincere - much the same as your tactics.

 

[jryan21]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY0M7IdNl7U]Ohio Romney Rally - Interviews with Supporters - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RankingBilly]

No, it won't.

+1 well said

 

[hellblazer]

All of you anti-BO guys get all riled up about how bad he is, but when it comes down to explaining exactly what he has done that is worse than Bush, you fail miserably.

You guys are typical voters. You're delusional that you have a clue about what is going on. Democracy is the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

For crissakes, I am a Canadian, and I know more about American politics and economics than 95% of your population, and I don't own a TV or read the paper, or follow news online. How sad is that?

just like Hellblazer can't articulate why he's a Communist.

If people voting means nothing, why continue to bitch about it? Just let them vote, since they're apparently accomplishing the exact same thing as you sitting home.

If you're so supremely knowledgeable, outside the "delusion", and "know more about politics and economics", why do you feel the need to trumpet it everywhere you go?

Everyone's heard your tired line at this point. Nothing matters. Stay home. Everything's rigged. There's no balls in saying that because it literally means nothing. A retard could make that point, yet for some reason you think it's the height of brilliance.

If you can't see who Obama is, I don't really give a fuck. I'm not here to convince you. There is so much evidence that Obama is a communist agent and that he is backed by a possible foreign nation or coalition of foreign nations that you either "get it" or you don't. Stop whining if you don't believe it. I could give two shits. Find another thread.

Your problem is that you're so locked into the theory that you've completely disconnected from the reality. I've put myself way out there. You've done nothing because your statements mean nothing. You parrot theories from textbooks when sometimes theory doesn't always predict reality.

When you're proven completely wrong about this and I'm proven completely right, am I going to come back to find retarded comments like the above to trumpet about how I "know so much more about politics and economics"?

No. But it won't stop you from looking like a complete fool. So just say that you don't believe he's a communist and move on. Nobody gives two shits about your endless lectures on delusions and ignorance and the stupidity of the American people compared to your vaunted intelligence.