Anyone Still Support Obama After Ndaa?

[Leilin]

Everybody knows that The Daily Beast is just a libtard rag! You can tell because they didn't say Sarah Palin is god.

[Horndog]

Everybody knows that The Daily Beast is just a libtard rag! You can tell because they didn't say Sarah Palin is god.

Just typed "Sarah Palin is God" on Google Images, and this is what I got.

and this...

[TBlazer]

If conservatives were to actually READ what the president has said and done, youd see hea quite the moderate. For exAmple, before passing healthcare reform he conferred with religious leaders (including tim dolan) about what was going to be in the bill in regards to contraceptive coverage. For that reason actual churches are exempted, as well as Ru 486, the so called abortion pill. It was a compromise everyone agreed on.

Yet here are, two years later, and this issue is raised in a highway funding bill. Complete nonsense.

I could go on and on, but I wont resort to name calling so I assume most will glance over this post.

If we continue down this path of tuning in to talking heads for our news, then we deserve what we get.

[KittenAB]

Surpisingly, he has actually expanded the freedom of gun use. Thanks to him, it is now possible to take guns to a national park.

It's a deflection used by the media, debate something even when evidence is to the contrary so people will forget to scrutinize the other issues. People are easy to fool this way because of a lack of perspective. Obama has made some horrible decisions though, bailouts anyone?

My problem with the majority of people in this thread, it was not a debate, it's just a partisan bickering back and forth, mostly. There is no debating with someone who won't think beyond simple slogans, mythologies, or the use of really bad comparisons (one country versus another without actually living there ... for example). If not for some other places that I have seen actual debate, I'd fear more of the same in the US. Luckily the younger generation seems to be more willing to consider, discuss, and even think beyond red and blue.

[Diapered Jason]

It's a deflection used by the media, debate something even when evidence is to the contrary so people will forget to scrutinize the other issues. People are easy to fool this way because of a lack of perspective. Obama has made some horrible decisions though, bailouts anyone?

It depends on what media you watch or read, but it seems Fox news and affliates like to scare people by telling them what Barrack Obama might be thinking rather than what he is legislating.

Moving on, I actually agree with the bailouts and here is why. The bailouts were all about restoring consumer and investor confidence in a time when everyone was pulling their money out of the banks. If they were allowed to fail and go to chapter 11, people would have continued to panic, and it is reasonable to assume the economy would have imploded resulting in a depression (It was a domino effect; one bank fails, then another fails, and so on). Yeah, your money would have been worthless if something was not done. I know what you are thinking, if we bailed them out, why is it they are still too big to fail and growing? You have to remember, not all banks were failing at the time. If we were to bailout one of the banks, the consumers would have an understanding of which bank was going to fail next and pull all their money out of that bank. To actually restore confidence, a bailout had to be sent to all the major banks, not just the ones that were failing. In order to get all banks to accept a loan, there had to be minimal strings attached. So, the government did not have the power to split up the banks nor prevent the banks' CEOs from going on vacation after recieving the bailouts.

That said, to sense and comprehend after disaster is not worthy of being called comprehension. We should have never had to resort to bailouts, and something needs to be done to prevent this the next time around as that has not been done yet. The banks are actually bigger than they were 4 years ago and AIG still insures 3/4 of the world's banks. The loans have been paid back. We can now take care of this issue. Unfortunately, that is no longer on our minds now.

[redneck diaper boy]

wait isn't it the republicans claiming social security is running out of money? pretty sure i've heard that out of the republican party many many times..... theres over 1 trillion dollars in the Social security fund and it is CONSTANTLY being added to......

but what do i know.. i just work for them.....

So are you saying that Social Security is a trust fund in a locked box? That being the case, how do you explain President Obama stating that they may not be able to produce Social Security checks with no debt increase?

Here is the video of Obama making that statement!

[robb]

Its fun to listen to people like BoTox ruminate on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Regardless of what these intellectually special needs people might like to believe, the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Rather it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Leaving aside the inability of people like Clarance Thomas to read and research, the founding fathers were clearly guaranteeing a militia. They had made a conscious decision to NOT maintain a large standing army in that they had unpleasant experiences with such in the person of the British Army. Rather they decided to rely on a small standing army and a large state militia. The army was to serve as a trip wire while the militia could be brought up. This was true up to the 20th Century. The US Civil War was fought (on the Union side anyway) by state militia units. A popular line was "We are here Father Abraham, 100,000 strong!" In 1789 the militiamen brought their personal weapons to militia drill, creating among other problems a logistical nightmare. You had an army where your neighbor may very well be unable to give you musket balls should you run short. His might well not fit your weapon! Also the weapons with which the founding fathers were familiar were flint lock muzzle loading weapons with a lethal range of something like 100 to 500 yards. Not fully automatic weapons with a rate of fire on the order of 1000 rounds per minute.

The NRA maintains we need AK47's as great sporting weapons. That's true only if the deer start carrying Uzi's! Neither the AK47 nor the M16 are very good sporting weapons. And for the record I have both of them.

Although dissapointed in Obama will I vote for him? Looking at what the Republicans are scraping off the bottom of their collective shoes, my vote for Obama is a certainty!

[BoTox]

I love it, the liberals, right on queue, have inferred I want to ban things when I could care less. I merely do not want government funding such things. That is the definition of taking from one to fund something I not supported.

As for Obama on gun control, look at any of these terms up in google and take the reference of your choice for his REAL stance on gun control. The NRA is strong enough to keep him, Brady and the ilk at bay and it would never pass the house even if Harry Reid managed to shove it through like he and Pelosi did on Healthcare.

Obama M14 reimportation = http://www.google.com/search?q=Obama+m14+reimportation&ie

Obama has quietly banned the reimportation of collectable, American made rifles that were used in Korea. Fail!

Obama reasonable gun control = http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+reasonable+gun+control&ie

He used a natioanal appearance on TV and Gabby Giffords' injury by a deranged madman to call for "reasonable gun control" that are always about restricting the rights of legal owners and do little to deter criminals.

The whole time he was in the Illinois legislature, he voted to ban guns in the state.

Also, it was Bush that started the process of allowing guns in parks by licensed gun owners. To his credit, Obama somewhat defended it.

[Leilin]

You do realize that a Google search full of right wing blogs and irrelevant links is not evidence, right? Do you even bother to read the things that you are posting or are you just throwing everything you can like a pile of equally useful crap at a wall and hoping some of it sticks?

Also, I'm not sure you watched your School House Rock when you were younger.

Here's the ACTUAL process this went through:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-627

Notice that law, to which the act was an unrelated rider (bad, even if you agree with the bill's content) was authored on 1/22/2009. Suggesting that bush "started" this is completely baseless in a realm where facts exist.

But, then, I doubt you live in that realm with the rest of us.

[Horndog]

Basically, Obama is not really touching the Second Amendment.

You know, all this fear-mongering about Obama... and last night, The Daily Show (once again) called out those who do it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-22-2012/indecision-2012---president-evil

[Diapered Jason]

So are you saying that Social Security is a trust fund in a locked box? That being the case, how do you explain President Obama stating that they may not be able to produce Social Security checks with no debt increase?

She did not really say that. Social Security is an open bank account and it is part of the federal budget, but that does not necessarily make it a Ponzi Scheme. The reason being is Social Security has a record of fullfilling their obligations by giving back the money. Everything the government takes from Social Security for other parts of the budget must later be put back, otherwise, Social Security will not be able to pay out or be sustainable. It is still a pay-as-you-go system in which today's workers pay for today's beneficiaries (one group pays for one group). If the government cannot continue to meet its obligations by paying out Social Security checks to senior citizens, that would be because the federal government itself is bankrupt. As a corollary, had we not raised the debt ceiling, we would have gone bankrupt, because it was too late for cuts as we had already spent the money.

A Ponzi Scheme on the other hand uses money of a second group of investors as well as the first group of investors rather than profits to pay extroadinary rates of return to the first group of investors (two groups pay for one group) to attract a greater number of investors who think they will get the same extroadinary returns as the first group of investors. With the larger number of investments, he gives the money from the third group of investors (generally equal in size to the first and second group of investors) to the first and second group of investors (Though the size of the groups have changed, we still have, once again, two groups paying for one group). Obviously, this is not sustainable as investments from the first and second group of investors pay for the returns of the first group of investors, but it usually continues for quite awhile until the person running the Ponzi Scheme either disappears with a large sum of money from the newest group of investors (equal in size to the current number of investors) or goes to jail.

[redneck diaper boy]

Its fun to listen to people like BoTox ruminate on the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Regardless of what these intellectually special needs people might like to believe, the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Rather it says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Leaving aside the inability of people like Clarance Thomas to read and research, the founding fathers were clearly guaranteeing a militia. They had made a conscious decision to NOT maintain a large standing army in that they had unpleasant experiences with such in the person of the British Army. Rather they decided to rely on a small standing army and a large state militia. The army was to serve as a trip wire while the militia could be brought up. This was true up to the 20th Century. The US Civil War was fought (on the Union side anyway) by state militia units. A popular line was "We are here Father Abraham, 100,000 strong!" In 1789 the militiamen brought their personal weapons to militia drill, creating among other problems a logistical nightmare. You had an army where your neighbor may very well be unable to give you musket balls should you run short. His might well not fit your weapon! Also the weapons with which the founding fathers were familiar were flint lock muzzle loading weapons with a lethal range of something like 100 to 500 yards. Not fully automatic weapons with a rate of fire on the order of 1000 rounds per minute.

The NRA maintains we need AK47's as great sporting weapons. That's true only if the deer start carrying Uzi's! Neither the AK47 nor the M16 are very good sporting weapons. And for the record I have both of them.

Although dissapointed in Obama will I vote for him? Looking at what the Republicans are scraping off the bottom of their collective shoes, my vote for Obama is a certainty!

The Supreme Court has ruled that everyone has a right to own a gun. The milita issue has been put to bed. There is a reason for the public to be armed. Hurricane Katrina showed us that we cannot expect our government to protect us! Thomas Jefferson also gave another reason! " The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

[robb]

Obviously redneck is as illiterate as the majority of the Supreme Court. Just what we need, a bunch of crazy NRA members running around shooting congresswomen!

And for the record, when John Q. Homeowner hears a noise in the night and grabs his trusty hand gun to go investigate, guess who winds up dead? Frequently its his 18 year old son trying to sneak in at 2:00 am.

[redneck diaper boy]

Obviously redneck is as illiterate as the majority of the Supreme Court. Just what we need, a bunch of crazy NRA members running around shooting congresswomen!

And for the record, when John Q. Homeowner hears a noise in the night and grabs his trusty hand gun to go investigate, guess who winds up dead? Frequently its his 18 year old son trying to sneak in at 2:00 am.

So can I ask some questions? Have you ever dischared a firearm? Have you ever had any formal firearm training? Have you or any neighbor, family or friend been the victim of a gun accident?

My neighborhood is classified as a redneck haven. (My residence is not on wheels! I have a trailor on some rual property though! My neighbor was minding his own business. Someone decided to break in his home while he was there! The robber did not leave alive! The thug will never break in to anyone elses house! A 90 cent bullet save a lot of taxpayer's money!

The next item is a comment. If you are refering to Congressman Giffords, the shooter was not a member of the NRA! The murderer was just plain nuts. Media outlets like MSNBC and Huffington Post just wanted this guy to be a right winger and they were laughingly disappointed.

[BoTox]

Obviously redneck is as illiterate as the majority of the Supreme Court. Just what we need, a bunch of crazy NRA members running around shooting congresswomen!

And for the record, when John Q. Homeowner hears a noise in the night and grabs his trusty hand gun to go investigate, guess who winds up dead? Frequently its his 18 year old son trying to sneak in at 2:00 am.

Wow, talk about your fear mongering and baseless statements. I've owned guns all my life and never had to resort to firing one in self defense. Anyone that REALLY knows anything about guns would hardly shoot someone prior to identifying them as friend or foe.

The simple fact is if someone breaks into an occupied home, they probably aren't there to just rob it. Home invasion seldom ends in simple robbery and often is the result of some other motive.

Citizens with guns at least have a fighting chance, subjects that wait for the police may get hauled off to the morgue. Remember, when seconds matter, the cops are mere minutes away.

As Redneck said, Giffords' attacker was neither NRA nor rightwinger. He would arguably be one of Barack's own if more were known.

AND, Bush's administration overturned the ban on firearms in parks. Talk about cherry picking your search results. It was one of Bush's last acts in office, Dec 2008. Silly liberals, I can't believe you aren't blaming Bush for something he actually did.

[Alexandra]

I have mixed opinions on this issue on one hand I've lost two people in my family to the barrel of a gun but I also know that guns have there purpose. I will say that attacking the NRA is wrong they are actually, at least from my experinces, very strict with there member's usage of firearms and actually do a great deal to help enforce gun control regulations. my mom still has my dad's old glock 22 however its only been used shooting ranges which I hope and pray never changes. I think we need to find a happy medium because no personal defense is just as bad as handing a mad man an AK47 so I'm in favor of stricter gun control laws however I also support the second amendment

[KittenAB]

It depends on what media you watch or read, but it seems Fox news and affliates like to scare people by telling them what Barrack Obama might be thinking rather than what he is legislating.

Moving on, I actually agree with the bailouts and here is why. The bailouts were all about restoring consumer and investor confidence in a time when everyone was pulling their money out of the banks. If they were allowed to fail and go to chapter 11, people would have continued to panic, and it is reasonable to assume the economy would have imploded resulting in a depression (It was a domino effect; one bank fails, then another fails, and so on). Yeah, your money would have been worthless if something was not done. I know what you are thinking, if we bailed them out, why is it they are still too big to fail and growing? You have to remember, not all banks were failing at the time. If we were to bailout one of the banks, the consumers would have an understanding of which bank was going to fail next and pull all their money out of that bank. To actually restore confidence, a bailout had to be sent to all the major banks, not just the ones that were failing. In order to get all banks to accept a loan, there had to be minimal strings attached. So, the government did not have the power to split up the banks nor prevent the banks' CEOs from going on vacation after recieving the bailouts.

That said, to sense and comprehend after disaster is not worthy of being called comprehension. We should have never had to resort to bailouts, and something needs to be done to prevent this the next time around as that has not been done yet. The banks are actually bigger than they were 4 years ago and AIG still insures 3/4 of the world's banks. The loans have been paid back. We can now take care of this issue. Unfortunately, that is no longer on our minds now.

I don't watch TV ... at all ... save a few clips on Youtube, mostly featured clips on atheist vids debunking creationism and such.

Bailouts I disagree with, it's not even a "bandaid" as some have claimed, what it did do was draw out the inevitable. Most of that money is pretty much gone, and nothing to show for it. We're still in trouble, and now the government is having to cut back a lot .. even though it's not it has to. The thing is, I believe that capitalism would have made the correction in a way that would have stung for a moment but then created longer lasting results. Market crashes and companies failing is a part of what makes our economic booms so awesomely great. A recession is the time consumers get enough power to effect corporations the most. My favorite bank would have failed, I would have had to bother with the whole account moving and such, but meh, small price to pay really. But meh, we can agree to disagree on this since it's done and we can't undo it to see what would have happened without them.

Now, I need to address the gun ownership thing which is a bit off topic since I am not addressing you on this:

No, he is not going to change US laws on the topic, all that I can find that can be supported is a signing of a treaty. Which I have not looked into so I don't know what that entails. The reason treaty signing is bad is because no one ever covers it, so it winds up being pretty unaccounted for. At worst you could say it will be a waste of money though, since most treaties do not extend beyond the laws of the land and the only thing I can think is that this one promises to enforce the transport of weapons across borders better.

Now the anti-internet treaty known as ACTA is one that can overstep the law of the land, and thus why it's so dangerous. It essentially gives other countries the right to prosecute you for crimes you comit online based on those countries laws, which vary a bit much. The privacy angle is not even an issue because ISPs already record that information and have to relinquish those if a court order demands it, but the treaty bypasses the court order requirement, which is what has most people's shackles up. But this is an internatioal issue, and Obama did sign it.

[Leilin]

I don't personally believe it is prudent to use the young man who shot Giffords in any relevant discussion on this topic.

Only one word should be used to describe that guy: Crazy. Whether he was right wing or not in that scope is irrelevant.

As Redneck said, Giffords' attacker was neither NRA nor rightwinger. He would arguably be one of Barack's own if more were known.

... and calling him a leftwinger is just as stupid as calling him a rightwinger, and equally without merit.

Look at the views that he actually expressed:

1. Doesn't believe women should hold office.

2. Hates both George Bush and Giffords. I've looked for a conservative that he expressed hatred for but as of yet haven't seen evidence for that. He definitely dislikes both centrist liberals and authoritarians.

3. Anarchist leanings.

4. Believes in, well, pretty much every political conspiracy, ever. Also believes in the 2012 apocalypse.

Attempting to espouse a political leaning to that utter crackpot is a level of disingenuous which is reserved for demagogues and dittoheads.

So I'm pretty sure nobody is surprised.

AND, Bush's administration overturned the ban on firearms in parks. Talk about cherry picking your search results. It was one of Bush's last acts in office, Dec 2008. Silly liberals, I can't believe you aren't blaming Bush for something he actually did.

Nope. Wrong again there. Bush's administration expressed a WISH to overturn that ban. Obama's administration actually did it. This is why evidence, like the actual text of the law drafted end to end under Obama's watch, is important. It's almost as if things like clear records of when these things happen exist! Hey! Cool!

You can no more credit Bush with ending the ban than you can credit Obama with closing Gitmo.

[sarah_ab]

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/04/0956797611421206.abstract

"In an analysis of two large-scale, nationally representative United Kingdom data sets (N = 15,874), we found that lower general intelligence (g) in childhood predicts greater racism in adulthood, and this effect was largely mediated via conservative ideology. A secondary analysis of a U.S. data set confirmed a predictive effect of poor abstract-reasoning skills on antihomosexual prejudice, a relation partially mediated by both authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact."

Peer reviewed research.... Just putting it out there.......

[Horndog]

I see a lot of "This post is hidden" posts. I'm glad. The disrespect for truth is like a disease.

I do not like the bailouts one bit. It was very nerve-wracking to see our financial institutions rely so heavily on toxic assets, credit default swaps, and bad derivatives -- and they we had to bail them out because they just so happen to contain a lot of our assets that aren't problematic. The lesson learned is that we have to be smart with our money, and move it to smaller banks. The Huffington Post's "Move Your Money" campaign explains the benefits of doing that. If we move enough of our money out of these "too big to fail" institutions, we can let the free market deal with the banks that collapse.

[Leilin]

I see a lot of "This post is hidden" posts. I'm glad. The disrespect for truth is like a disease.

I do not like the bailouts one bit. It was very nerve-wracking to see our financial institutions rely so heavily on toxic assets, credit default swaps, and bad derivatives -- and they we had to bail them out because they just so happen to contain a lot of our assets that aren't problematic. The lesson learned is that we have to be smart with our money, and move it to smaller banks. The Huffington Post's "Move Your Money" campaign explains the benefits of doing that. If we move enough of our money out of these "too big to fail" institutions, we can let the free market deal with the banks that collapse.

Apologies if my prodding of BotoX is bringing his silly rants back into your field of view. I just have a thing about letting blatant falsehoods go unchallenged.

[Diapered Jason]

Bailouts I disagree with, it's not even a "bandaid" as some have claimed, what it did do was draw out the inevitable. Most of that money is pretty much gone, and nothing to show for it. We're still in trouble, and now the government is having to cut back a lot .. even though it's not it has to. The thing is, I believe that capitalism would have made the correction in a way that would have stung for a moment but then created longer lasting results. Market crashes and companies failing is a part of what makes our economic booms so awesomely great. A recession is the time consumers get enough power to effect corporations the most. My favorite bank would have failed, I would have had to bother with the whole account moving and such, but meh, small price to pay really. But meh, we can agree to disagree on this since it's done and we can't undo it to see what would have happened without them.

You do know they were loans with collateral right? The money from the bank bailouts was paid back with interest. Don't you see Kitten, everyone's bank was failing or about to fail at the time since everyone was pulling their money out of the banks. There would have been no safe place to put your money. The issue with bankruptcy is the shareholders probably would have received nothing since the people in charge of the liabilities have first dibs on the failed bank's assets, which is why people were selling like mad. In addition, if a major institution fails like Lehman Bros., everyone loses confidence in all the banks, so people begin pulling money out of the other banks resulting in another bank failure. This is how it is a domino effect. What happens when there is no solvency in any of the banks including a solid bank like Goldman Sachs? Keep in mind the assets you thought were good all of a sudden have no liquidity. Had the bankruptcies persisted, the stock market would have continued to crash resulting in a depression similar to 1929 rather than a recession, which is what we got instead. I would recommend reading a book on this, because there are so many falsehoods out there about this and it is a really complicated subject. We were really at the brink of a great depression due to this systemic risk.

One more thing, a private sector solution was tried and failed twice. There was an attempt at a buyout as well as a merger to stabilize the situation. One attempt was to have the most likely bank to fail (Lehman Bros.) be bought out by a bank in England (Barclays). That failed and Lehmen Bros went into bankruptcy. The next attempt was to merge all the major U.S. banks with each other to restore consumer confidence. That failed as a deal could not be achieved. The bailouts were actually a last resort and luckfully before Morgan Stanley went bankrupt. I am not saying you should like the bailouts, but I am saying it was I think the second best of a worst case scenario. There were talks about nationalization by Timothy Geithner, but they ultimately decided not to pursue that.

[Horndog]

Apologies if my prodding of BotoX is bringing his silly rants back into your field of view. I just have a thing about letting blatant falsehoods go unchallenged.

It's alright. I haven't even read a single post of his. Nothing personal toward him. I just don't want my eyes to get AIDS.

[BoTox]

Apparently, everyone believes their side is the only true fact and cherry pick their results to match. As a fervent second amendment supporter, I have hard copy of NRA mailings and magazine articles describing the progress of trying to get the ban on weapons in parks overturned. It happened on Bush's watch but it actually passed under Obama's.

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes over and over again. Liberalism/Socialism/Communism do not work. Sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

Government at the Federal level is way too large, needs to be downsized and taxes need to be reduced so that the real economy, not the government propped up mess we have now will throw off the shackles of oppression and thrive again. Their is no right to someone else's money, there is no right to free healthcare, there is no right to a house, only a right of freedom to persue happiness.

As for the racist study, I didn't see reference to anything about the race of the racists. From my experience, blacks overwhelmingly voted, and say they will vote again, for Obama merely because he is black (only half at that) which begs the question, are they racists?

His life experiences and personal history are so atypical of the average black person it shows the black support is based solely on skin color and not genetic or shared history. His family, the black half, were never brought to America as slaves. He and scarce few others can rightly claim the description African American. Anyone more than two generations living on US soil can hardly claim living memory in another land. I don't call myself an Irish-English American because I have no ties to them other than maternal and paternal sur names. Either you are American or you are not. You cannot split your allegiance.

[robb]

The issue in Tucson is not that the shooter was an NRA member, it is that the foolish (criminal?) policies of the NRA make handguns (and assault rifles) readily available to unbalanced people in the US. Take a close look at the Michigan Militia as a case in point. The main purpose of the leadership of the NRA is to extract money from the intellectually challenged anyway. They get rich (look at Wayne LaPierre for example). When I was a member of the NRA I asked for a financial statement. That was good for a laugh! And by the way, I am familiar with weapons. I shot competetively for a number of years and hand load too.