Well, it's a good thing I'm not President. :P

But really, I can't look back onto his administration and find one thing to smile about (except the ridiculous circumstances in which he took office).

He's no Ronald Reagan, but he certainly didn't help any problems we, as a nation, face.

I laugh every time someone says Obama is for the people. Really, I do. The thing is, I don't disagree. He's for the people...just not our people. He's for the illegal immigrants, the rabid liberals, and the people around the world who hate the US without real reason.

On a side topic: That hatred is nothing new, and isn't even based on the US's actions. The US's actions have contributed to it, certainly, but they never caused it. Look back through history and consider the great empires and dominant powers...they were all hated and considered arrogant and even evil by those who did not inhabit that privileged position...and especially by those who envied them that position. It's a cycle of history that's repeated itself time and time again...but the media, of course, aren't ones to acknowledge history if it lessens the impact of their stories.

-Drac

Quote:...the illegal immigrants

Corvin, please be accurate.

"A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation." — Ronald Reagan

Lol- can defintetly see this becoming a left versus right fight.  Whatever, though.  I just wanted to say that whether Obama is a Christian or Muslim or Deist, etc, it truly doesn't make much of a difference. Even then, it's not as if he can't express his views or place special emphasis on his religion: that's his right, and there's no statute in the constitution that says he can't.  As for him bowing to these fellas in the middle east: there's no place that says he can't, lol.  I mean, folks who meet the pope may show signs of respect that other religions or nations would call "deference."  Again- that's his right as a human being to offer his respects.  If we wanna be biased against that, if we don't like the way he represents us, then we can vote him out, but otherwise he's a human being with the same inalieble rights as everyone else, and being president doesn't change that.

On a side note, someone commented earlier about how there's not ganna be a Christmas tree and how everything is "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."  I know that FOX is super slanted or whatever, so is every other station, but each side can bring up a good point, and O'Reilly (love 'em or hate 'em) made a strong case when he indicated that our country might be overlly "politically correct."  I mean, things are going a bit far: our public schools aren't even acknowledging Christmas in some cases?  That's a major cultural event, isnt it?  That's damaging, lol.  But what do we expect?  There's nothing in the constitution that allows for the creation of a public school system: the founders had no intention of the Federal government being so involved.  So the answer is purelly subjective at this point because there isn't a law or article of the constitution that can cover the matter.  The first ammendment simply states that people have a right to practice their own religion without government recourse; it's stated nowhere (certainly not in the Federalist Papers) that the same ammendment is meant to shield people from religions they don't respect.  You can warp it to say that, sure, but that was definetly not the intention.  So where do we go?  I dunno, lol.  I can bet, though, that as the government gets bigger, it's ganna try to be more and more fair, which is hipocritical to begin with: Obama making a point of his religion could be seen as "unlawful behavior," under the same pursuits. It's just way out of hand, lol.

Let's not get started on "The Gipper," Atrasin. He is the cause of most problems in our country. Not to mention that quote is logically inaccurate. A nation is not a country. A nation is a people. Nations exist where borders cannot, though most of the time a nation is included in a NATION-STATE. I beleive Reagan meant "state" in place of "nation", in which case the meaning becomes much more vicious.

"I laugh every time someone says Obama is for the people. Really, I do. The thing is, I don't disagree. He's for the people...just not our people. He's for the illegal immigrants, the rabid liberals, and the people around the world who hate the US without real reason."

Ok. Get over the idea that the United States is a standalone country. We are all part of the same world, and if we let the other parts fall into disrepair we'll be sitting ship with them pretty soon. We've got it pretty well off, it's time for that to finally trickle down to everyone else. If you think that Obama is ignoring America, I do urge you to remember that he is not the sole political presence of our state. Congress surely isn't pushing their efforts to look after the ret of the world. As long as Obama has his hands in both domestic and foreign I have no problem with the way he's running things.

Not to mention we're all a bunch of illegal immigrants.

So please, if you're going to laugh: laugh at your own individualist policies.

"Left-wing media bias" = capitalist media bias. I don't have any knowledge myself to argue your other points, but don't confuse the media for some sort of political boon. They may inadvertently aid or hinder the government, but they're doing it for capitalist self-interest.

For the time being, yes. However, I remember clearly a very long period of time when the media just ATE UP coverage of false anti-terrorist sentiments, including but not limited to "Mission Accomplished" type scenarios.

The media are supposed to question the government, not piggy back off of it and make a profit. They'll do anything to make a buck, and usually they're in the wrong. Just because they're aligned with the popular Mr. Obama now does not mean they can easily change their views in the interest of coin.

Right, and Fox news is the only impartial channel.

Newspapers are down for a variety of reasons, but the only truly biased news source, Fox, seems to be doing fine. The internet, printing and research cost, and the delay in information's passage from origin to paper are causes. If anything, paranoid, biased sources that don't even pretend to be unbiased are responsible for the decline. People don't want facts, they want statements that reinforce that worldview, such as the Obama controversies.

Geeze, Corvin. Selective reading, much?

From Arturo: "They expect impartiality, which isn't happening at all."

CBS, Fox, ABC...they're all equally biased. Which, you'll notice, those of us who agree with the Conservative viewpoint have readily recognized. We don't claim Fox isn't biased, but we do trust it over the other news outlets. The same is true with many arguing the Liberal viewpoint when it comes to ABC & CBS, etc. With all possible respect and not intending offence: Get off your soap box and use your head, man. ALL the media outlets are biased. Fox is the main one biased to the right, while CBS, ABC, & co are the main ones biased to the left.

"People don't want facts, they want statements that reinforce that worldview, such as the Obama controversies."

That statement is just as true on the other side of the political fence, my friend. However much you may want to pretend otherwise, the Liberals are just as dirty and dishonest as the Conservatives are. To think otherwise you've got to be either incredibly naive or willfully blinding yourself.

-Drac

You started this only to figure out the political spectrum of the VE!

You fiend!

PS- Angel, don't close this because I called Ron a fiend in good humor, pretty please

I'm sorry to go back to the whole Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan thing:

Quote:An excellent example of that is his recent visit to Japan. A deep bow to their Emperor? The POTUS should never feel the need or desire to do so to an equal. The man's an embarrassment to this country and the millions who've worked so hard to make it great.

But I'd just like to point out that the Emperor of Japan isn't actually the leader, just like in Britain, he's merely a figurehead, the true AKA equivalent leader of Japan, would be the Prime-Minister. Therefore, the Emperor would not be President’s peer, the Prime-minister would be.

Not saying that excuses his actions, or anything.
Then again, I might be completely wrong. But being Canadian myself, I know quite a bit about the parliamentary system.


P.S. My political views are Conservative (right-winged)

P.P.S. The CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), it’s also left winged. Although they show it mostly through parodies attacking the Conservative Party much harder then the Liberals. Of course they always go after whoever is in charge, especially if it IS the Conservatives. Just like everything Bush did was jumped upon by the media, it's the same thing here, with everything Stephen Harper does is ridiculed by the media. And any Liberal/ Left-winged/ Popular mishaps are swept under the rug.


Just my two cents and then some…

What was that exactly, oh devious one?

-Drac

a couple of quick points:

the Emperor of Japan is the Head of State, the PM is the Head of Government.  the POTUS is both, therefore he is the peer of the Emperor.

MSNBC is every bit as slanted to the left as FOX is slanted to the right

and as to dirty tricks...10 hours of total debate on a $1 TRILLION, 2000+ page health care bill that none of the Senetors have read is not only a dirty trick, but tantamount to treason in it's shear irresponsibility to KNOW what they are committing our nation to for the near and far future.

Corvin, i don't mind you being Liberal, but being silly and blind is inexcusable.

Garet, Ronald Reagan won the Cold War by pushing the USSR into bankruptcy, sadly Obama's legacy may be doing the same to the USA.

Decembrist wrote:The Ronald Reagan administration also instituted hundreds of ultraindividualist, capitalist policies that set the stage for the world's depression today.

Such as...?

....oh, and the current credit crunch was a result of the Clinton Administration ordering banks to open up lending to unqualified urban borrowers to win votes.