For the record, I AM NOT thin-skinned about Obama. I get pissed off when people criticize Romney for firing people when he worked at Bain, when that was his FREAKING JOB! If he didn't do that, and Bain was unsuccessful, then the left would have attacked him for being a crappy businessman like George W. Bush was with a baseball team. You can't have it both ways.

Or that his dog was tied to the top of the roof on a family vacation...

Or he, along with friends, picked on someone they thought was gay decades ago in prep school, ignoring the fact everybody did stupid things in high school. It has no bearing on them decades later.

It's totally ridiculous, unproductive, divisive, and doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever. But most importantly, it detracts from honest debate about issues that actually matter.

I don't have any problems with people criticizing Obama for real issues. Him being impolite?! I watched your idiotic right-wing bent hit job video. That's impolite for a leader?! They slammed Obama for making comments where he respectfully disagreed with the Supreme Court. What should he have said instead? Did he scream at them? You know, like the dude who screamed "YOU LIED!"? NO! Him being impolite wasn't the issue. Conservatives are really just upset that he voiced his disagreement with their view, and it's spun to accuse him of being rude and disrespectful. It's ridiculous. He took Eric Cantor to task in a political discussion. Did he scream at him? Cuss at him? NO!

Here's the difference:

If you want to criticize Obama for perhaps overstepping his bounds and the ideal of separation of powers when he criticized the Supreme Court decision? Fine, I disagree, but that's an honest debate. I wouldn't be chewing you out for that.

I watched the video. I didn't see a single instance of him being overly impolite as a leader. If that's the case, every single damn president we ever had is an asshole. And where was your outrage then?!

I'm tired of this shit from both sides. I get pissed off at partisan hackery and absurd distortions of the truth. You, sir, are doing that with this drivel about Obama. I don't care if you dislike him as a President. I'm not a big fan, either. But if you're gonna trope this idiotic crap out, expect to get reamed for it by reasonable people.

>> ^shinyblurry:

>> ^messenger:
Yeah, I'm gonna vote Romney because he has promised not to put his feet on the coffee table. WTF? This is your criteria for a good President? Until he walks with people, he's a bad President? Get off it.>> ^shinyblurry:
I'd like him to be more polite {video}


Why is everyone so thin skinned about Obama? That's my question. I was being somewhat facetious, although I think the video, while humorous, shows a definite pattern of behavior. In any case, I'm not voting for Romney. Although I share some of his views on social issues, that isn't enough to get me past our theological differences, which are great. My prediction is that Romney will actually be far worse for this country, spiritually, than Obama. That is the reason I won't vote for anyone who doesn't worship God in spirit and in truth.

@NetRunner
"You hate us for our Freedom" - George W. Bush

LOL! So if you get google hits, that makes it true?

Hmm...

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=obama+is+satan

SEE!!!!!!!!!!!! SATAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=George+W+Bush+Satan

SATAN IS EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=jesus+is+sexy

Rock me, Sexy Jesus!

Dude, seriously, nobody is buying your BS. How in the hell can Obamacare cost millions of jobs when it's not in effect fully, and unemployment is decreasing? *DECREASING!!!* You have no evidence. You have dubious claims based of crackpot analysis that are there to reinforce your delusions about reality. You WANT to believe that's true, and a quick google search where a bunch of rightwing think tanks and media outlets threw up a bunch of crap reinforced it. I could try to google stuff to show it's helped CREATE jobs if I wanted to on liberal think tank pages, but I'm not going to, because I don't have a preconceived outcome I want to be true. If Obamacare works, great. If it doesn't, it doesn't. For the record, I'm not even saying it won't cost jobs. I'm saying it's ridonculous to describe the impacts of a program that's not even fully implemented yet on a complex economic system!

So I guess Reagan was a dirty commie for bailing out Chrysler?! You're arguments are absurd! Your solution to our economic problems was to let Chrysler and GM go bankrupt and balloon unemployment beyond the 10% that it was?!?! Do you have any idea how macroeconomics actually work?! There's a reason why Reagan and Obama both bailed out Chrysler. Had Reagan been president, he would have bailed GM out, too. You know why? Because thankfully, both men when push comes to shove threw ideology out the window on the really big things and did what was best for the country. Lord knows I objected on principle that the banks got bailed out, but it had to be done for the good of everyone. Here we are, several years from those decisions, and unemployment is declining, and the economy is rebounding. You can link as many right wing articles as you want as snarky as you wish to be, but guess what - the policies worked. And I'd say the same thing to liberals who objected to the bank bailouts, too. But the bottom line is the policies are working.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Sorry, but you're wrong.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Call an ace an ace - this worked. Obama continued a working policy.
Taxpayers on the hook for billions they'll never see recouped: NOT success. These same companies expecting the same bailouts again down the road? NOT success. While we're on the subject: Medicare fraud to the tune of 60 billion EVERY year? NOT success.
Bush was wrong and His Earness was wrong. These corporations should have filed for bankruptcy.
And stop with the Obamacare costing millions of jobs. You don't have any evidence to back it up.

SIGH.
These weak sauce "success" stories are nothing more than obamedia shills defending their king.

P.S. LIBERALS run Detroit and have for decades. Until that changes, it has NO chance.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck.

Actually, most of the responses to shiny were funny, eloquent and well reasoned. Although I will agree that a few were just rude.

The reaction basically proves that some atheists can be assholes. Big surprise. However, there is an "atheist dogma" that insists on vitriol. I will also say that many theists don't share their religions blind adherence to despicable or ridiculous positions. People are people, theist or atheist and there will always be good or bad people in both groups.


>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

You're either really ignorant or being totally disingenuous. Frankly, neither would surprise me. Instead of making bullshit statements, how about you back them up with some "basic reality"? You cannot confuse the personal beliefs or ideologies of individual atheists with the concept itself, even if a large percentage of atheists happen to share them. BTW, it's "catechism".

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants.

Hang on, Obama is at war with religion while at the same time passing laws and pushing agendas based on religious belief?

At least, you're consistently inconsistent... carry on...

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.


I assume you're referring to Obama saying that Jesus wants people to pay higher taxes? Well, aside from the fact that that is entirely consistent with the teachings of Christ (don't remember Christ ever encouraging anyone to go to war or benefit the rich), frankly we have better things to do than criticise Obama when he's doing what we want. Personally, I don't really have a problem with (most of) the moral teachings of Jesus. I would prefer a president that bases his decisions on rationale, but since that will never happen I will settle for one that doesn't claim that god told him to kill arabs or fix gays or whatever.

And that's the crux of the issue. Many people "on the left" (nothing to do with atheism, you'll note) are disenfranchised with Obama. They wanted a progressive, but got a centre-right politician. But they're also realists. They look at Obama, and then look at the alternatives (when only one of your candidates accepts scientific reality and lost and the least insane of the rest is a young earth creationist who wants to repeal the civil rights act, you know you have problems), and they go "best of a bad lot"

Heh - I used to think the sound of stuck pigs was unpleasant but seeing the Garlician/Vampiric reaction to one tiny, inoffensive comment from Shinyblurry has provided me with quite a bit of amusement. I think this - if nothing else - is sufficient evidence to entirely disprove Bill Maher (as if anything he ever said needed disproving). The reaction that atheists have to topics such as this proves conclusively that they are as filled with hate, anger, blind faith, and zealotry as any misguided religious organization. If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and swims like a duck - then by gum it is a duck. And Atheism acts like a religion, talks like a religion, requires faith like a religion, has 'sacraments' like a religion, and has doctrines/tenants/and chatechisms like a religion. Therefore it is a religion - and no amount of stuck-piggery squealing changes that basic reality.

On a side note - I am also quite amused with the hypocrisy of Athiests when it comes to Obama and his war on religion. Last week Obama said that he deliberately passes laws and pushes agendas because he thinks that is what Jesus wants. Now if George W. Bush had said that, then every Athiest Trog-Lib-Dyte would have started screaming bloody murder. And yet when a leftist radical twit like Obama does it the fiery indignation of the liberal left about the "Wall of Seperation" suddenly goes all quiet. Most illuminating... Most illuminating indeed for anyone who isn't blinded by partisan idiocy. Leftist goons also seem utterly uninterested in the "Wall of Seperation" when it comes to Obama's war on private charity hospitals. What a bunch of pathetic losers.

I'm interested if Gorillaman thinks that George W. Bush was a fascist as well.

In fact, by your definition GM every American president has been fascist even before fascism existed.

Without common referents language fails to be useful. You can be arguing about something based upon significant differences in definition without knowing it. So, while GM has failed to address the dictionary definition on the basis that it does not show enough effort I will now present a definition of fascism that is accepted amoung historians and political scientists alike. With this Gorillaman can amend has he sees fit but must acknowledge the consequences of agreeing upon a universalisable definition insofar as they apply to anyone else who is or has been in a position akin to the POTUS.

Fascism.
The Fascist party was formed in Italy in the wake of World War 1. It was an ultra-right radical political ideal defined by its emphasis on social unity, nationalism (regardless of race in its initial incarnation) and authoritarian leadership. It was characterised by its violent and brutal oppression of opposition parties and voices of dissent and its anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-intellectualism. Nazism is fascistic but not fascist. Franco's Spain was more in line with fascism. It is often debated in academic literature whether it is useful to even use the term fascist outside of the Fascist party of Italy of the interwar period.

There you go Gorillaman. You now have a definition of fascism from a bonafide political science grad student. Now please indicate how this applies to Obama and, out of interest, how it does or does not apply to the last 3 presidents of the U.S.A. or any leader in a liberal-democratic nation.

Edit:
P.S. Dictionary definitions are used very frequently in scholarly writing. Wikipedia is another matter.

A. There's a difference between what a guy did decades ago when not in power and what they did WHILE in power. Santorum, while a US Senator, is preaching family values, and then moves to protect a married GOP Senator who is banging the wife of one of his own staffers. Ridiculous to say the least. Santorum is the kind of GOP candidate who says ridonculous things like..

"[Birth control is] not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

http://theweek.com/article/index/223041/9-controversial-rick-santorum-quotes

So Santorum thinks that birth control is worse and more destructive than cheating on your wife apparently. He's beyond absurd.

B. I don't care what Obama did when he was in college as long as it wasn't something like rape, sexual abuse, etc. etc. etc. (ie, victimless crimes, etc.) Are you referring to Obama smoking some pot? I didn't care that George W. Bush did cocaine either back in the day. It's irrelevant. But what Santorum has done recently is extremely relevant because it speaks to his character and values, which is ironic because he's touting himself to be of better values than all the other candidates.

>> ^lantern53:

Mr. Obama had a flawless background, being born in a manger and all...
media covered all that up...so you're saying that they won't cover this up?
doesn't seem quite fair
:rolleyes:

hahaha, right. not even you believe that.>> ^therealblankman:

Obama is the second-worst President since George W. Bush.

Obama is the second-worst President since George W. Bush.

That is a false EITHER/OR. There are quite a few other scenarios equally as likely as Dr. Paul trying to trick his way into the presidency.... none of which preclude him directly from being qualified for the office of president (see: george w. bush)... except for MAYBE the ONE scenario being pushed.

I find that suspicious.

There could be much more to this story than some people care to know, indeed.

@GeeSussFreeK

Quote from an article in the NYTimes today

"It would lead us to become a banana republic, in which administrations would become regimes and each regime would feel it perfectly appropriate to disregard decisions of courts staffed by previous regimes. That's not what we are."
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, President George W. Bush's attorney general, on Newt Gingrich's statement that the elected branches should be free to ignore judicial decisions.

The Conservative government have done everything they could to undermine Kyoto since coming to power in 2006. They, along with their Oil Patch backers, have delayed implementing key strategies until indeed now it is too late, too expensive, and completely unfeasible to reach the targets that BY LAW our country had committed to. At the same time those same political and financial interests have waged a propaganda campaign to convince Canadians that Kyoto was too expensive and unfair to our national interests in that it put too large a burden on developed nations like ours while developing nations such as India and China were not obliged to lower their own emissions.

I remember being angry that the United States, under then President George W. Bush, refused to ratify Kyoto which the previous President Clinton had agreed to do. However Canada DID ratify the treaty, making our offense much, much worse.

The recent talks at Durban, known colloquially as Kyoto II, failed for the same reasons. The Canadian Government deliberately sabotaged the talks and bullied smaller nations to do the same with threats to withdraw financial aid and impose trade and travel barriers. Our government is behaving like an Imperial power forcing other nations to do what we, and more specifically our business interests, want them to do.

We Canadians have a certain view of ourselves- we think the world sees us as peacemakers and conciliators. This may have been the case in the time of Trudeau and Pearson, but is the case no longer. Harper is quickly leading us down a much darker path where we are increasingly being seen as obstructionist, militant and bullying.

Shame on our Prime Minister, shame on the Conservative Government.

Shame on all of us.

From National Confidential site:

Fox News host Sean Hannity thanked the wrong president for killing Osama Bin Laden on his Thursday night program. Hannity, who reliably repeats Republican talking points on his conservative program, claimed that Bin Laden had been killed thanks to the actions of former President George W. Bush.

In fact, it was under Bush that Bin Laden committed the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history and was able to escape capture in large part thanks to the invasion of Iraq authorized by Bush.

Remember when George W. Bush used to say the names "Osama bin Laden" and "Saddam Hussein" in close proximity to one another in order to transfer the fear many had of Osama to Saddam? That's a type of psychological manipulation called 'fear conditioning'. The point is to teach you to be afraid of something by associating it with something else that you are already afraid of. I sense the cold war has shaped your politics to a large degree - which is common among conservatives and conservative libertarians - so the word Marxism is likely something that causes you great fear. Through conditioning, your fear of Marxism has been projected onto the Democratic party by FOX news, Glenn Beck and the entire corporate media echo chamber. In reality, the Democratic party is in no way Marxist. It's actually quite conservative, economically speaking.

In order to illustrate my point, I'd like you to explain to me what you believe Marxism to be, and then to detail how, in your own words, you see the Democratic party as Marxist. If indeed this is a case of fear conditioning, you won't be able to do it.

Good luck.

...and says, "Look at me, I'm rougy! Where's Obamarx?"

>> ^rougy:

George W. Bush walks into a room.
His supporters stand.
His detractors turn their backs.
QM drops to his knees, opens mouth, sticks out tongue, closes eyes....