Is Eddie Still Supporting Obama??

vant0037 · March 2012

MG79478 wrote:

JM84420 wrote:

Is Eddie Still Supporting Obama?? Hell No! Eddie loves recessions and is still pissed we averted a depression. He also misses the days when we were losing 100k+ jobs monthly and the Dow was tanking below 7,000. Lastly, I know he wishes Bin Laden was never caught and wants to start another war in Iraq or whomever to find those elusive WMDs.

Wow... just wow. We are doomed.

Still waiting for you to explain why a conservative interpretive claim to the Constitution is any more valid or historically accurate than a liberal one.

NewJPage · March 2012

vant0037 wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

JM84420 wrote:

Is Eddie Still Supporting Obama?? Hell No! Eddie loves recessions and is still pissed we averted a depression. He also misses the days when we were losing 100k+ jobs monthly and the Dow was tanking below 7,000. Lastly, I know he wishes Bin Laden was never caught and wants to start another war in Iraq or whomever to find those elusive WMDs.

Wow... just wow. We are doomed.

Still waiting for you to explain why a conservative interpretive claim to the Constitution is any more valid or historically accurate than a liberal one.

he might have a hard time with that

http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

smallpoxchampion · March 2012

Haha, why are Americans so insane?

NewJPage · March 2012

smallpoxchampion wrote:

Haha, why are Americans so insane?

good question!

it is easier to talk about Pearl Jam I guess...

fortyshades · March 2012

MG79478 wrote:

I’m sure you despise conservatives and you shouldn’t feel bad about that, just as Hitler despised certain people. You are both liberals, as fascism is to the far left of the political spectrum.

As an European who has studied European history, European ideology and European politics, this comment has me truly dumbfounded... :?: I think you are confusing the name of Hitlers political party, which had "socialism" in it (the NSDAP) with the ideological principles of socialism. (Or to phrase it differently; the "socialism" of the NSDAP had *nothing* to do with the principles of socialism as set forth by Marxists in the 19th and 20th Century.) Fascism, my dear friend, is on the far right of the political spectrum; it is based on inequality instead of equality. Communism, on the other hand, is on the far left of the political spectrum; neither of them did Europe any good...

Calling Hitler "far left" and Obama (like conservatists in the US love to point out) a ""communist" show nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...

Furthermore, I would like to point out, that Hitler did a bit more than "despise" certain people. This eufemism is quite unsettling...

Zod · March 2012

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

I have a deep understanding of the issues... particularly healthcare... I live in Canada.

Except the US shells out alot of cash for its military. I remember being in San Diego 2 years ago and seeing 3 in service air craft cariers. warships, all sorts of stuff, and I thought there's more hardware in this inlet then all of Canada..

It would be hard to support a giant military and public health care at the same time I think.

As for Obama. I am pretty surprised how much blame the guy gets. I'm Canadian but I seem to see things alot of Americans don't? One Obama was elected in the middle of a global economic meltdown. The guy didn't start it. He's not Harry Potter, he didn't have a wicked cool magic wand to make it all go away. How long did the depression last for (nearly a decade?). Did you people that voted for him seriously thing he had a magic want and it would solve itself over night. Jesus Murphy!

Secondly. The US political system gives very little power to the president. He cannot introduce law into congress. He can only vito it or pass it. He can create foreign policy but not domestic policy. He has to rely on congress to pass and create the laws. There's no party discipline like parliamentry systems either (where in Britian or Canada, everyone votes with the party or you get the boot). So he has no real leverage.

The whole US system is based on checks and balances. Power is split between the Exectuve Branch, Congress, and the Judiciary. Obama has less power over his country as a US president, them a PM does in Canada, Britain or any parliamentry style system.

Yet everyone blames the guy.

Generally I would agree with not voting dem or rep. The unfortunate truth is, when a few left wingers vote for someone else, its generally results in a republican winning.

Maybe Mitt Romney has the magic wand Americans seem to be looking for

SolarWorld · March 2012

I hope Ed doesn't still support Obama, the guy is just like everyone before him.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obama-promises-bunker-busters-israel-if-netanyahu-delays-iran-invasion-until-after-us-elections

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-war-iran-coming

A puppet of the military industrial complex, which is controlled by bankers in a system that's about to implode. No one has answers, just attack Iran.

He also can drone anyone he damn well pleases, American, child, terrorist, whatever! As Mr. Holder says, its a WAR!

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-10-08/legal-experts-destroy-rationale-obama%E2%80%99s-assassination-policy-%E2%80%A6-and-slam-democ

I dont know how any self respecting liberal (im a former one) can stand for this shit anymore. I dont know how any American can stand for this shit. Don't even get me started on the banks (MF Global). But we continue to, over and over again. But guess what? The fourth turning is coming, every 40 years the world wakes up and slaps people in the face. Hopefully people will wake up to see what has happened to this country. That's the hope and change I'm pulling for, no more of this George W. Obama bullshit or what ever moron is on the Republican side (Ron Paul excluded).

Hey Ed... remember this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyc8HVMKXNg

Someday....

NewJPage · March 2012

fortyshades wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I’m sure you despise conservatives and you shouldn’t feel bad about that, just as Hitler despised certain people. You are both liberals, as fascism is to the far left of the political spectrum.

As an European who has studied European history, European ideology and European politics, this comment has me truly dumbfounded... :?: I think you are confusing the name of Hitlers political party, which had "socialism" in it (the NSDAP) with the ideological principles of socialism. (Or to phrase it differently; the "socialism" of the NSDAP had *nothing* to do with the principles of socialism as set forth by Marxists in the 19th and 20th Century.) Fascism, my dear friend, is on the far right of the political spectrum; it is based on inequality instead of equality. Communism, on the other hand, is on the far left of the political spectrum; neither of them did Europe any good...

Calling Hitler "far left" and Obama (like conservatists in the US love to point out) a ""communist" show nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...

Furthermore, I would like to point out, that Hitler did a bit more than "despise" certain people. This eufemism is quite unsettling...

its cause a conservative journalist wrote a book called "liberal fascist" a few years ago that argues the point. Since then this has been a common talking point of the right in America. Of course, no historian agrees with it, and his book was trashed by every German/Nazi historian on the planet. The fact that Hitler rounded up communists as one of his first orders of business should let one know he was not a fan of the left (not to mention the suicide mission of invading Russia).

As to the "Obama is a communist" stuff, yes, it is ignorance of what the term actually means. Just think what they would be saying if he proposed universal health care, a guaranteed living wage, and tripled environmental protections (all proposals of Nixon btw).

MG79478 · March 2012

NewJPage wrote:

so liberals don't have an understanding of the issues? But you do? That's a bit condescending. I'm not one to make condescending remarks toward others, but if I were, I would ask how I, someone far more educated and schooled in the issues than you, does not have an understanding of the issues? I would also ask you to explain why the more educated in this country are more liberal? I can already guess your answer.

Wow, make many assumptions? Don’t you know what happens when you make assumptions?

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

I have a deep understanding of the issues... particularly healthcare... I live in Canada. We HAVE universal health care.

And that is why Canadians come to the United States to get the Healthcare they can’t get in Canada. I’m sure it’s great when you are young and have a common cold. An older Canadian (mid 40s) works for me, and I hear the real scoop.

vant0037 wrote:

Still waiting for you to explain why a conservative interpretive claim to the Constitution is any more valid or historically accurate than a liberal one.

And I’m still waiting to hear why liberals think healthcare is a right when it is clearly not. But to answer your question, a conservative claim to the Constitution is generally more valid because we don’t interpret it. There is no need for interpretation. For example, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s written to need no interpretation. Liberals interpret (twist) it to fit their needs. It’s funny you assume conservatives do the same.

NewJPage wrote:

he might have a hard time with that
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

You’ve displayed a couple typical liberal behaviors here. You turn to insults when you can’t make a rational argument. You believe everything you read or hear on TV, no matter how ridiculous the claim, if it fits your ideology. I could use Google and find some random article that supported my opinion too. What you have to wonder is why liberals feel the need to defend their intelligence so often?

fortyshades wrote:

Calling Hitler "far left" and Obama (like conservatists in the US love to point out) a ""communist" show nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...

Actually, we love to point out that he is a socialist. You do know there is a difference?

The political spectrum is based on government control. With Anarchy, the complete absense of government being at the far right. Fascism and Socialism are to the far left, for complete government control. Not understanding this shows nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...

Dercheef · March 2012

MG79478 wrote:

fortyshades wrote:

Calling Hitler "far left" and Obama (like conservatists in the US love to point out) a ""communist" show nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...

Actually, we love to point out that he is a socialist. You do know there is a difference?

The political spectrum is based on government control. With Anarchy, the complete absense of government being at the far right. Fascism and Socialism are to the far left, for complete government control. Not understanding this shows nothing more than a blatant ignorance of these political extremes and a complete misunderstanding of the basic ideologies...

You are obviously using another method to determine what left and right is than anybody else here. Atleast in Europe the understanding of the political spectrum is different from yours. Nobody would say that fascism is left. The common understanding is that fascism is to the far right and communism would be the far left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

NewJPage · March 2012

MG79478 wrote:

NewJPage wrote:

so liberals don't have an understanding of the issues? But you do? That's a bit condescending. I'm not one to make condescending remarks toward others, but if I were, I would ask how I, someone far more educated and schooled in the issues than you, does not have an understanding of the issues? I would also ask you to explain why the more educated in this country are more liberal? I can already guess your answer.

Wow, make many assumptions? Don’t you know what happens when you make assumptions?

NewJPage wrote:

he might have a hard time with that
http://www.livescience.com/18132-intell ... acism.html

You’ve displayed a couple typical liberal behaviors here. You turn to insults when you can’t make a rational argument. You believe everything you read or hear on TV, no matter how ridiculous the claim, if it fits your ideology. I could use Google and find some random article that supported my opinion too. What you have to wonder is why liberals feel the need to defend their intelligence so often?

I never made any assumptions. I was responding to a condescending post that you made with zero evidence to support it

And I'm not sure why posting a poll is "typical liberal behavior." I never made an insult. Don't watch TV. I'm not sure why you talk as your are an authority on the issues when none of us are. Its a discussion. By bringing in absolutes and inferring that the person you are arguing with is an intellectual midget, you are doing everything you just accused me of.

And as i've asked before, if nixon proposed universal health care, a guaranteed living wage, negotiated with his enemies, and doubled down on environmental protections (all of which he did), does that also make him a socialist?

JonnyPistachio · March 2012

MG79478 wrote:

And I’m still waiting to hear why liberals think healthcare is a right when it is clearly not. But to answer your question, a conservative claim to the Constitution is generally more valid because we don’t interpret it. There is no need for interpretation. For example, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s written to need no interpretation. Liberals interpret (twist) it to fit their needs. It’s funny you assume conservatives do the same.

You are really one of the funniest people on this board!

RedMosquito22 · March 2012

I wonder which country we will go to war with if a Republican gets into office?

inlet13 · March 2012

RedMosquito22 wrote:

I wonder which country we will go to war with if a Republican gets into office?

Pretty sure President Obama's administration is deciding the next war as we speak, in fact, they already gave an ultimatum...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/russia-di ... d-year-end

...decision = Iran.

Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.

vant0037 · March 2012

MG79478 wrote:

vant0037 wrote:

Still waiting for you to explain why a conservative interpretive claim to the Constitution is any more valid or historically accurate than a liberal one.

And I’m still waiting to hear why liberals think healthcare is a right when it is clearly not. But to answer your question, a conservative claim to the Constitution is generally more valid because we don’t interpret it. There is no need for interpretation. For example, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s written to need no interpretation. Liberals interpret (twist) it to fit their needs. It’s funny you assume conservatives do the same.

No need for interpretation? Funny...200+ years of SCOTUS case law - with liberal and conservative justices - would disagree with you. Vehemently. Its simply impossible (and quite frankly ridiculous) to argue that the Constitution needs no interpretation. Take the 4th Amendment...in an age of cell phones, GPS, heat sensitive cameras (cops use them), the internet, IP addresses etc, what does the Amendment mean? What's a search? What's a seizure? Is it reasonable to use a GPS device without a warrant to track a suspect? What does "privacy" mean under the Constitution? Oh wait...you say the Constitution needs no interpretation. Those terms of our modern world should be abundantly defined and outlined by our heralded document, right?

Funny how the Supreme Court and your buddy Scalia just took up that very issue and has repeatedly interpreted what the Amendment means today. Funny how even a strict constructionist like Scalia has written reams of opinions giving interpretation to the document you say needs none.

But you sound like an expert; far be it that I should argue with you.

Your problem here is that you can't even begin a debate without attacking, name-calling or misrepresenting someone's claims. I personally have nothing against you, but you make yourself a very hard person to respect (in a debate) when you come across so damn caustically.

Try a more respectful tone; who knows? Maybe you'll find yourself in the middle of a respectful debate.

vant0037 · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

RedMosquito22 wrote:

I wonder which country we will go to war with if a Republican gets into office?

Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.

Without getting into whether I agree with this war or not, I wouldn't say its exactly like Iraq. Iran has had a secret nuclear weapons program up until at least 2002 (they claimed to have stopped it), confirmed by the IAEA. Iraq had none; confirmed by the IAEA. Iran continues to produce enriched uranium toward levels that could be used for nuclear weapons; Iraq did not. Its believed that Iran does not currently possess uranium beyond 20% enrichment (needs to be about 90% for a warhead), but on an almost annual basis, they have increased that percentage amount.

I'm not a supporter of war with Iran, but to be fair, Iran's situation is not exactly like Iraq.

g under p · March 2012

iamica wrote:

That's funny but DD has the WORST coffee....it sucks!

Like most Presidents he could be much better but looking back as to what he stepped into (main reason he got elected) he's cleaned off his well worned shoes pretty good. If there was a viable opponent come this November we may not see him again but that's not the case so be ready for another 4 years.

peace

gimmesometruth27 · March 2012

inlet13 wrote:

Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.

do you really honestly believe that Ed would entertain the possibility of cheerleading a war just because obama is in office? really????

really, what indication has Ed ever given you that he would support ANY war, let alone a war launched by someone he may or may not have voted for??

the leaps in logic on here are amazing sometimes...

inlet13 · March 2012

vant0037 wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

RedMosquito22 wrote:

I wonder which country we will go to war with if a Republican gets into office?

Curious to see whether Ed would cheer on that war since the Obama administration is the one pushing it. Would seem rather hypocritical since it's exactly like Iraq, except perhaps worse.

Without getting into whether I agree with this war or not, I wouldn't say its exactly like Iraq. Iran has had a secret nuclear weapons program up until at least 2002 (they claimed to have stopped it), confirmed by the IAEA. Iraq had none; confirmed by the IAEA. Iran continues to produce enriched uranium toward levels that could be used for nuclear weapons; Iraq did not. Its believed that Iran does not currently possess uranium beyond 20% enrichment (needs to be about 90% for a warhead), but on an almost annual basis, they have increased that percentage amount.

I'm not a supporter of war with Iran, but to be fair, Iran's situation is not exactly like Iraq.

Is anything in life ever really exactly alike? One could argue "no". But, are these issues pretty damn similar? Yes. The similarities between Iraq situation and Iran are endless.

Your own post says that it is not known that they have uranium necessary to produce a warhead. In other words, it's an unknown whether they can or they can't. The IAEA says given what they know, they can't. Our Secretary of Defense has admitted they aren't trying to build a bomb this January. But, we're giving them ultimatums? Moreover, the uranium enriched may be used for peaceful purposes and they are permitted to do such according to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I ask you to ask yourself this question: If Bush was in office, would you be saying the same thing in this thread? I can't answer that, only you can.

inlet13 · March 2012

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

do you really honestly believe that Ed would entertain the possibility of cheerleading a war just because obama is in office? really????.

No, I don't believe Ed would cheerlead a war just because Obama is in office. I think he'd be less critical or perhaps silent on the issue, however.

No offense meant by what follows, but I feel the need to say it:

You, on the other hand, I honestly believe you would try to argue that this war is somehow "just" simply because Obama is in office. I've read many of your posts and I think you pretty much side with what ever Democrats or the current administration say, 99.99% of the time. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I read whenever I read your posts.

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

really, what indication has Ed ever given you that he would support ANY war, let alone a war launched by someone he may or may not have voted for??

the leaps in logic on here are amazing sometimes...

Ed's been awfully silent since President Obama took over. I recall us bombing Libya and didn't really hear a peep out of Ed.

I'm just saying for a guy who was so outspoken about the folly of war, it's kinda odd he shut up on these issues as soon as the Democrat took the throne.

Will we drop bombs on Iran? What will happen here? And if we do something, will Ed (or people like him) continue to be quiet? Who knows. Only time will tell. My hope is that people, who agree with Obama on other issues, will have the courage to outright vocally disagree with him on this issue, and acknowledge that if we did this Obama would be no different than Bush.

Is Eddie Still Supporting Obama??

Comments

Categories