Don't Read to Your Children

[Namutree]

 

Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members

 

The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better  or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ?

 

Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members

 

The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better  or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ?

 

Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call.

 

 

And the impressive recovery of the US economy, the low unemployment rate and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama  not take some credit and recognition for this ?

[Namutree]

 

Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call.

 

 

 

 

and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama  not take some credit and recognition for this ?

 

Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they?

[Namutree]

 

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat.

 

You really shouldn't.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call.

 

 

 

 

and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama  not take some credit and recognition for this ?

 

Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they?

 

 

Come on, lets be serious.

 

You can't possibly compare the massive military campaigns  that involved tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the strategic air strikes in places like Libya and Iraq ( ISIS)?

 

They are not the same thing at all?

[ravenshrike]

 

 

 

Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members

 

The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better  or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ?

 

Obama is basically just Bush 2.0 so it's not really a matter of who's better or worse. They're the same on almost everything that matters. Obama might be very slightly better, but that's a tough call.

 

 

And the impressive recovery of the US economy, the low unemployment rate and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama  not take some credit and recognition for this ?

 

I'm sorry, were there massive terrorist attacks upon US soil during Obama's tenure that I'm not aware of? Not to mention Libya and his material support of the asshats that became ISIS against Assad. As for the 'low unemployment rate', the unemployment numbers in the US mean jack ****. It is not a measure of actual unemployed population but a measure of those unemployed still looking for work through official channels in the last 6 months. The actual unemployment rate in January was over 15%

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandimicco/2015/02/13/jobs-the-real-unemployment-rate-please-anyone/

Not to mention that the recovery of the economy is largely illusionary.

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

 

and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama  not take some credit and recognition for this ?

 

Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they?

 

 

Come on, lets be serious.

 

You can't possibly compare the massive military campaigns  that involved tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the strategic air strikes in places like Libya and Iraq ( ISIS)?

 

They are not the same thing at all?

 

We are doing more than airstrikes.

 

Are they as huge an endeavor as the Iraq/Afghan invasion? No, but our involvement is still very expensive and self-defeating; just like the last wars. Lets also not forget that he expanded the Afghan war. So yeah, he's like Bush 2.

[Walsingham]

I have to say I ****ing LOVE this post Iraq "forieign policy is hard and we shouldn't do it" philosophy.

 

What the giddy f*** do you think is going to happen if you don't shape events abroad?

[Namutree]

I have to say I ****ing LOVE this post Iraq "forieign policy is hard and we shouldn't do it" philosophy.

 

What the giddy f*** do you think is going to happen if you don't shape events abroad?

You'll need to be more specific if you want to know what will happen in a given country. For the US though, we'll save a huge amount of money assuming we reduce our defense budget to reflect our more conservative defense strategy.

[213374U]

Philosophy was chucked under the Arts (and Science) faculty at my school. Don't know why they tied the Sciences with that stuff. Bastards were subsidized by other professional faculties too, so their tuition was lower

 

Does seem like a waste as there's not much consideration to the practical.

 

Epistemology and formal logic are important branches of philosophy and arguably at the core of modern "hard" science, alongside mathematics. They are of course much more boring and therefore nowhere near as popular as political philosophy, so...

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

and fact that the USA is not involved anymore in any new conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan can Obama  not take some credit and recognition for this ?

 

Considering this is untrue, definitely not. Unless you only count being involved in new conflicts as having boots on the ground. I mean Libya, Syria, and ISIS weren't one of my awful dreams were they?

 

 

Come on, lets be serious.

 

You can't possibly compare the massive military campaigns  that involved tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the strategic air strikes in places like Libya and Iraq ( ISIS)?

 

They are not the same thing at all?

 

We are doing more than airstrikes.

 

Are they as huge an endeavor as the Iraq/Afghan invasion? No, but our involvement is still very expensive and self-defeating; just like the last wars. Lets also not forget that he expanded the Afghan war. So yeah, he's like Bush 2.

 

 

Yet once again its under Obama that the vast majority of American troops will be leaving Afghanistan end of 2016/2017 ?...still no praise for Obama?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-afghanistan-usa-obama-idUSKBN0MK2F820150324

[Namutree]

 

 

 

 

 

Come on, lets be serious.

 

You can't possibly compare the massive military campaigns  that involved tens of thousands of ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to the strategic air strikes in places like Libya and Iraq ( ISIS)?

 

They are not the same thing at all?

 

We are doing more than airstrikes.

 

Are they as huge an endeavor as the Iraq/Afghan invasion? No, but our involvement is still very expensive and self-defeating; just like the last wars. Lets also not forget that he expanded the Afghan war. So yeah, he's like Bush 2.

 

 

Yet once again its under Obama that the vast majority of American troops will be leaving Afghanistan end of 2016/2017 ?...still no praise for Obama?

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/24/us-afghanistan-usa-obama-idUSKBN0MK2F820150324

 

So, because the war took longer to end than it was supposed to thanks to Obama I'm supposed to praise him for his letting the war end at all?

 

By that logic Obama could stab a guy and you'd be saying he deserves praise because Obama didn't kill him.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

Although the term SJW is relatively new to me,

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs.

 

 

I can agree with that and its amazing how well the USA has done since " SJW" have taken over running the government? Compare the USA under Bush to it now and the last 8 years under Obama...are we really going to say things were the same or better overall under Bush?

 

So SJ influence is  not always a bad thing?

 

Yes. Pretending otherwise is folly. All questionable programs that people disliked under Bush have vastly expanded under Obama. The amount of corruption that Obama has presided over has NEVER been seen in the executive and is EXACTLY what I predicted when I heard the dem primary frontrunner was a Chicago pol. Not to mention the idiocy with Iran and his refusal to defend the Marshall Islands flagged ship. It's ****ing disgusting.

 

 

Interesting well I would like to hear other opinions from other American forum members

 

The question is a simple one " is the USA the same, better  or worse off under Obama than Bush after 8 years " ?

 

More of the same. Warfare abroad, welfare at home. Only Obama is giving us warfare at home too. Our last decent president was Clinton. And he only came around after the Repubs swept into Congress in '94. The thing about Clinton he was a machine politician. He was pragmatic enough not to try to ram something down our throats when he knew we didn't want it. Obama is an ideologue, a "true-believer". He is a advocate for an all powerful state and an opponent of Federalism and has worked hard to bolster on while undermining the other. People like that seldom make good presidents. That is another reason I am so opposed to Hillary, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, etc. There is an arrogance about them. They truly believe they are smarter than everyone and no they are going to MAKE us do it their way.

 

The ironic thing is I didn't like Clinton much. I never cared if he was boffing an intern. I was more concerned that she was unattractive to risk so much over. And Clinton never did have a close association with the truth so I never cared much for him on that note too. But if I could have him back right now in place of what we have now I'd take it.

[Guard Dog]

https://youtu.be/3xvqGoNX3Uc?t=2m32s

 

 

 

In the American parlance feel free to mentally "find and replace" SJW with Democrat. Because while all Democrats are not SJWs, in the US all SJWs vote Democrat. So by empowering Democrats we are empowering SJWs.

 

 

Pro logic dude. You'd last real long in a debate class.

That was hyperbole Longknife. It automatically fails any logic check. Don't get me wrong I do like (and often employ) a well thought out and logically sound argument but it seldom makes good forum chatter. Sometimes it feels good to just shout out "Well f--k them!"

[aluminiumtrioxid]

welfare at home

 

The horror! The horror!

[Guard Dog]

 

welfare at home

 

The horror! The horror!

 

Like everything else it's a fine thing in moderation. We left that behind in the days of LBJ. Welfare used to be about helping people who needed it. Now it's about creating a dependent class of reliable voters to the people who keep the checks coming no matter the cost to the ones who actually work for the money.

 

This is a true statement: "Every dollar someone receives without working for someone else worked for without receiving it."

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Welfare used to be about helping people who needed it. Now it's about creating a dependent class of reliable voters to the people who keep the checks coming no matter the cost to the ones who actually work for the money.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

I mean, I can see how this narrative can be appealing to a certain sort of person, but the statistics I'm aware of seem to point at this being absolute bogus.

Edited May 9, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Guard Dog]

 

Welfare used to be about helping people who needed it. Now it's about creating a dependent class of reliable voters to the people who keep the checks coming no matter the cost to the ones who actually work for the money.

 

 

[citation needed]

 

Oh for God's sweet sake do you think for a second I could not provide a link blizzard of pundits, politicians, wise and learned folks who agree with my analysis? After all this debate has only been going on here for the last 80 years or so. Ever since the "New Deal". Of course IMO the idea of using welfare to create a "dependent class" was a result (intended or not) of the Great Society and the War On Poverty under LBJ.

 

Imagine this, every month I give you just enough money to survive and subsidize your groceries and utilities. Entry level jobs will pay you less even though you will earn more in the long run. But since it's always easier to do nothing than do something you would keep doing nothing and the welfare keeps coming in. If you want more money, have another kid and you'll get more money. Sure that kid will probably not be able to afford college because you sure are not saving anything but what the heck when his time comes he can go on welfare too. And all you have to do to keep the money coming in is to vote for me. And to be sure you do I remind you every election that my opponent wants to cut your welfare. See? Not that hard to figure out is it?

 

Of course I could also provide a link blizzard of people who disagree because there are multiple sides to anything in politics but the opinions of those who benefit from the labor of others to whom they contribute nothing hold little weight with me.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Oh for God's sweet sake do you think for a second I could not provide a link blizzard of pundits, politicians, wise and learned folks who agree with my analysis? (...)

 

Of course I could also provide a link blizzard of people who disagree because there are multiple sides to anything in politics but the opinions of those who benefit from the labor of others to whom they contribute nothing hold little weight with me.

 

 

You're, of course, entitled to disregard those who disagree, based on ideological grounds, but the numbers don't seem to agree with you.

Edited May 9, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[sorophx]

My grandmother read 'Animal Farm' as a bedtime-story when i was 9/10-ish. She thought that it had a good message for kids growing up.

I always considered Animal Farm a book for children, I find it interesting, that most people don't (?)

[Hiro Protagonist]

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/new-family-values/6437058

 

 

Geezus, I can't believe some of the stuff in that article. Stuff like this:

 

 

asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

 

Not surprisingly, it begins with kids and ends with parents.

 

‘It’s the children’s interest in family life that is the most important,’ says Swift. ‘From all we now know, it is in the child’s interest to be parented, and to be parented well. Meanwhile, from the adult point of view it looks as if there is something very valuable in being a parent.’

 

A 'deceptive' question like why are families a good thing? It's in the child's interest to be parented well? 'It looks' as if there's something very valuable in being a parent? Good grief, who are these people and how did they get anybody to listen to them let alone write an article.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

asking themselves the deceptively simple question: ‘Why are families a good thing exactly?’

 

A 'deceptive' question like why are families a good thing? 

 

 

I have a better question: why do these topics attract the illiterate?

Edited May 9, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hiro Protagonist]

I have a better question: why do these topics attract the illiterate?

 

I have a better question. Why can't you form a logical coherent argument?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I have a better question: why do these topics attract the illiterate?

 

I have a better question. Why can't you form a logical coherent argument?

 

 

I didn't realize I need to "form a logical coherent argument" in order to point out that "deceptively simple" and "deceptive" mean two radically different things, instead of, y'know, just pointing at the nearest dictionary.

[Malcador]

Amazing how you act like a **** all the time, yet act offended when others do.

 

Anyway Obama is not that great peace wise, just heeding Gfted1's policy of drones and more drones, heh. But at least no major invasions.

Edited May 9, 2015 by Malcador