
Latest users (1): pebar, anonymous(15).
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #4222 - ireallylikepotatoe ONLINE (07/14/2012) [-]
ITT: Explain to an English person if Obama is a good or bad president because he knows nothing about American politics.
#4254 to #4222 - largenintimidating (07/15/2012) [-]
Contrary to what you will likely be told; Obama has almost no effect on the economy, good or bad. Think of the President's influence on the economy being essentially that of a separately elected Prime Minister with veto power on bills that parliament passes. Of course, this is a parliament that has a majority of its seats with the opposition, which will block any solutions the Prime Minister proposes, because they've publicly stated that they have no intent to try and fix the economy. they just want to make sure the PM doesn't get reelected.

Cameron can't try do anything about the economy in Britain without the support of parliament, which he has because the PM is always the head of a majority, and Obama can't try to solve anything without the support of Congress, which he hasn't got because the House Republicans are unrepentant shitheads who have publicly stated that they couldn't give a rats ass about the American people, as long as Obama loses in November. Not that the Democrats are much better, but at least they try to act as though they still give the aforementioned rat's ass.
#4272 to #4254 - herecomesjohnny (07/15/2012) [-]
i'm in first year of law school and you just redeemed this site all by yourself.
User avatar #4241 to #4222 - SgtObvious (07/15/2012) [-]
He's bad because he's fucked up the economy more than Bush did. In 8 years with 2 wars, Bush increased the deficit by $4.9 trillion, while Obama in 3 years, with just the minor continuation of one war increased it by over $5 trillion. He did it because of his uncontrollable spending, which has not signifigantly improved the country.
#4238 to #4222 - sahakid (07/15/2012) [-]
To be fair, I don't think anyone in the economy knows what the hell they're doing
User avatar #4251 to #4238 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
No single man understands or ever could understand the economy. Only the millions of individual economic agents as an aggregate understand the economy. Or as the great economist F.A. Hayek put it:

User avatar #4226 to #4222 - airguitar (07/14/2012) [-]
In terms of social rights he is good, he is for gay marriage and is for most social freedoms (other than guns). Economically he is terrible, he is leading America to the same path that Europe has been going. However, that is not saying Romney is much better (he is only slightly better economically).
#4248 to #4226 - repostsrepost (07/15/2012) [-]
His social policies are atrocious. He's anti gun and goes as far as to arm drug cartels with American weapons who've killed both Americans and Mexicans. (We don't have evidence that implicates the White House, but he invoked executive privilege which he would only have the authority to do if he was involved.) He hasn't really said anything on abortion because due to Roe v Wade there really isn't anything the federal government can do for or against it. And he isn't really pro gay marriage because he said it was a state's issue which effectively means policywise, he's the same as Romney in that regard. His "support" is irrelevant because he will not put it into policy. He also continued every national defense policy of Bush. But I agree 100% with you in the matter of the economy.
User avatar #4250 to #4248 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
I mostly meant gay rights and marijuana socially I guess really, in general he has liberal social policy which I completely support (other than guns). As a president running in another election, I think it was a very big statement of his to support gay marriage. Although it was simply a statement, that might have lost him 500,000 voters instantly... And won him at least as much.

I realize the gun thing, but in all honesty I don't think it is a social issue that will change anytime soon since Americans love their guns. As for gay marriage, the movement is growing a bit more every year, I'm hopeful that if he wins then he may follow in Canada and The Netherlands' foot steps. For marijuana, he may say he supports "medical marijuana" but that doesn't mean anything- especially with the enormous amounts of money the government makes from civil asset forfeiture- I still think criminalizing drug users that don't harm anyone else is idiotic.

Sorry this all sounded like scrambled thoughts. Basically I care enough about gay rights that I would be willing to vote for him if our economy wasn't headed for a depression in 10 years. I feel ashamed at times living in a country where peoples' sexual orientations limit their rights. I was simply trying to explain it to the Englishman simplified I guess- I'm voting for Gary Johnson anyway ^_^.
#4252 to #4250 - repostsrepost (07/15/2012) [-]
I believe anyone should be able to marry whoever the hell they want and Congress isn't constitutionally authorized to ban it or force states to legalize it. I'm a bit on the fence on the drug issue but I can clearly that current drug policy works as well as prohibition, so some changes need to happen. Marijuana should be legalized federally(but Congress again has no authority to force states to legalize it.) but i'm a bit on the fence when it comes to the harder drugs. So there's some agreement there. I think there's a distinction between socially liberal and socially libertarian(which I'm assuming you are) I think the Republicans would make huge long term gains if it moves in a libertarian direction, the libertarian vote could win us the election, but I'm somewhat of a realist so I'll vote for the lesser of two evils while we do need to focus on changing our party.
#4256 to #4252 - largenintimidating (07/15/2012) [-]
First step to making the Republican Party respectable again; vote out those asshats who decided that Congress would be better used as a weapon in the pissing contest with the President instead of, you know, as a part of a government working to improve the economy.
User avatar #4253 to #4252 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
Mhmm, I was going Romney until the gay marriage thing but that was too much. As for drugs, I don't do ANY myself, not even alcohol, but I don't understand why something should be illegal if it doesn't harm anyone else. In addition, alcohol is already the most dangerous drug an it's legal. Also, Gary Johnson is actually terrific, you should read his platform. I am simply voting for him because it's my first election and I want to be involved and because I want the libertarian party to get votes.

If you don't mind, read this and tell me what you think, since you agree with me on most issues:

#4448 to #4253 - repostsrepost (07/17/2012) [-]
Weird I responded to this but its not here anymore. I found this and thought it might be relevant.
User avatar #4240 to #4226 - SgtObvious (07/15/2012) [-]
Socially, it's a matter of whether or not you agree with him. It's not a matter of whether they are good or bad. I'm pro-life and against gay marriages (i'm for Civil Unions with additional rights though). That doesn't mean socially I'm bad, it means that I have a different opinion. It's different than with the economy, because he's proven to be bad at managing it.
User avatar #4243 to #4240 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
Well as in "social rights" I mean he is good for people's rights in general. That can be an objective assessment since allowing gay marriage, legalizing marijuana, etc. are all rights. However yes, perhaps I should have written "social liberties" instead to make it more obvious.
User avatar #4244 to #4243 - SgtObvious (07/15/2012) [-]
It is very objective. Socially he's good in your opinion. In my opinion, he's not at all.

And I wouldn't call marriage a right. It's a practice that the government adopted that was traditionally between a man and a woman. The government has no right to change customs that are not its own. That's why I'm for Civil Unions. They'd get the rights that they want without infringing on anyone's beliefs.
User avatar #4245 to #4244 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
I think you mean to write "subjective", since subjective is based on personal opinions. I will rephrase again: he is good for social rights as in he is good for the people seeking social rights. I am not even saying I support all of his social policy myself (I don't), but if you are someone seeking more social rights, then you would consider him good. But lets not debate over this, I can see why you interpreted it as a normative statement and you know what I mean now.

As for marriage, marriage is a social contract recognized under law. This obviously varies under different theologies and countries but marriage purely defined does not necessarily have to involve religion. By not allowing marriage you are not allowing two individuals to agree to the terms of said contract because of their sexual orientation- I see this as not much different from disallowing people to partake in certain contracts because of their skin color (something that occurred).

I hope I don't sound anti-religious, I am agnostic and try to steer clear of offending people. However, I think gay marriage should be legal and if a religion/church disagrees with that then they do not have to marry the couple. Why must you make a decision that doesn't directly effect you, if Christians, Muslims, Jews do not want gays to marry then don't allow them to in your church. I guess this is all classification though, but if I were gay I would want to be "married", not "Civil union-ed".
User avatar #4246 to #4245 - SgtObvious (07/15/2012) [-]
I didn't even realize I wrote objective lol.

And I don't oppose gay marriage for a religious reason. I oppose it because to me, it is the government interfering with someone that it doesn't have the right to. Marriage is something that was not created by the government. If it wants to accomodate for people that do not qualify for it, then I believe that they can create something similar to appease people. That way, no one is offended and feels like their beliefs are being encroached upon by the government, but the homosexual population still has the rights that they want for being in a committed relationship. I have no problem with gay people, and I don't agree with the people who oppose gay marriage simply because they dislike them. I think that they deserve rights, but I don't think that their rights have to come at the expense of manipulation of other's traditions.
User avatar #4247 to #4246 - airguitar (07/15/2012) [-]
Hmm... I'm having slight trouble wrapping my mind around your response. I mean I understand, but what you are saying almost seems trivial- let me try to break it down:

Tradition is personal, it has absolutely nothing to do with those who don't adhere to the tradition. Why then does it matter if the government recognizes a social institution (contract) as valid? That does not have to effect the people who believe in the tradition at all, the point of making gay marriage legal is making the union legally recognized. I don't care what those people think, and I don't think what those people think should matter in this situation. The people who do not agree don't have to consider it a valid marriage themselves- it just needs to be legally recognized. As I said, marriage is a social contract and not allowing someone to engage in the contract based on their orientation at birth is clearly not equal.
User avatar #4276 to #4247 - SgtObvious (07/15/2012) [-]
The US is the most influential country in the world. If it decides to define marriage as something other than a union between a man and a woman, then it effectively changes the tradition. While people who oppose gay marriage could just choose not to accept it as valid, the fact of the matter is that it is valid. I'm just saying that marriage is a very specific thing that was created to be a certain way. When a government decides to change that, it is encroaching on the beliefs of those who do not agree with it.

Let me give you a theoretical example:
Religion exists under a fair amount of governmental rule even though it was established independent of government. It is forced to abide by the government's laws even if they do not coincide with their religious beliefs. Let's say the government one day decides to say "hey Christians, we don't like that the bible classes woman as inferior to men so we we want you to stop reading the verses that mention that." Would that be fair? No, because that religion was established to follow that "guideline" and the government is trying to change it because some people don't like it. I'm following the same principle here. Marriage was established independent of government and now the government is involved in it, just like with religion. The government dictating that marriage change is the same as the government dictating that the church change. I know it's slightly different circumstances in each situation but like I said, I'm following the same principle.

I believe that every person has a right to gain benefits from the government for being in a long-term relationship, and not that they have a right to get married. I believe that if 2 men or 2 women want to get benefits from the government for being in that relationship, they can join into a Civil Union. We can equate Civil Unions to the same level as marriage without having to change long-standing traditions.
#4373 to #4276 - zacchaeus ONLINE (07/17/2012) [-]
ok you guys are asuming that the president has that kind of power.
only the judiciary branch and legislative branch can do that.
the states decide marrage laws and the supreme court can say discriminating against gays is unconstitutional because all people should have the same rights
#4271 to #4247 - SgtObvious has deleted their comment [-]
#4242 to #4240 - airguitar has deleted their comment [-]
#4225 to #4222 - hackapelite has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)