Obama Coming Out?

[Necris]

I'm not going to make an excuse for it since A. I don't support it and B. there isn't one. I'm not going to defend a democratic president for doing a shitty job any more than I would a republican president.

[Mordacain]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

Exactly , now we're getting some where.
Have you had time to form an excuse for Clinton's dis-regaurd for the issue of the banks loaning to anyone who could sign their own name?

Well, Clinton actually didn't have much to do with bank deregulation personally. The Democrats lost the Congress majority and Clinton, for 6 of his 8 years in office had a Republican majority in Congress; the same majority that Bush inherited when he took office at the end of the Bubble Economy. That Congress is what pushed the deregulation - see “the financial markets strategy” for more information.

That being said, Clinton didn't directly have much to do with establishing the bubble economy either; much as Democrats like to claim otherwise. What Clinton did do that was helpful, was raise taxes (which is probably what he got the most flak for in his first term).

[flint757]

The only power a president has is to set the agenda, veto and war power ( not on paper, but in practice). Everything unrelated to these things that go wrong is either ebb and flow of people/money or congresses fault.

[Stealthdjentstic]

Well if they pull a bush and appoint someone like Greenspan then it makes it pretty easy to screw over the economy. A recession may have been coming but being stripped of protections is what really ....ed the US over and made things much more severe than they would have otherwise been.

[flint757]

It happened the last time before that too. Deregulation is in practice a bad idea.

[Stealthdjentstic]

Exactly, unless you're as naive as RP.

[Treeunit212]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

I'll ignore the personal attacks for a bit and expouse some more real truth.

It wasn't Bush's policys that brought the economy down.
It wasn't Clinton's policys that set the stage.

It was this;

In the 90s far too many people began living well outside their means and the banks promoted this by entering into a huge loan grab competition.

They were loaning at super-low and sometimes 0% interest to people who couldn't even come close to earning the income it takes to live in $100,000+ houses and drive $35,000 SUVs.

It didn't take an economist or financial expert to know that Danny Dirt down the street coudn't afford that brand new Z71 package Chevy 4x4 while working at Chucky Cheese.

Did Clinton want to be the one to blow down the poorly stacked house of cards?
Of course not, can't blame him, as it would have greatly tainted his presidency.

Did Bushy want to be the one to topple the crippled giant?
Of course not, it would have been a double whammy for him with the war looming.

If the leaking banking intertube would have stayed afloat just a hair longer, it would have collapsed on Obama (although he'd likely not even been elected had it not imploaded on Bush).

If Obama would have been able to stall the problem off for another 4yrs you can guarentee he'd have turned a blind eye as well.

If any of these guys were true leaders, they would have sacrificed their own presidencys for the long-term good of the country.

But, they've ALL chose not to.

Do you know what the recurring theme with what you're talking about is?

First off, recessions and economic downturns tend to happen about ever 20 years, as one of my college professors pointed out. I'd like to take it a step further.

The key to these banks being able to loan money they know can't possibly be paid back is a lack of regulation. The Great Depression, the crash of 1987, the 2008 recession, all the result of economic bubbles blown up by credit on the backs of banks. It ALWAYS goes back to banks.

So, if banks aren't regulated to care about the loans they give out, they will do what makes them the most money. That's just capitalism.

You can argue personal responsibility all you want, but we still live in a country that encourages living beyond your means in almost every way. And this is why it deeply troubles me that the response to an economic recession caused by under-regulated banks is a call for smaller government.

Most people don't act responsibly. Corporations are people. So where's the regulation there?

[TRENCHLORD]

Originally Posted by Treeunit212

Do you know what the recurring theme with what you're talking about is?

First off, recessions and economic downturns tend to happen about ever 20 years, as one of my college professors pointed out. I'd like to take it a step further.

The key to these banks being able to loan money they know can't possibly be paid back is a lack of regulation. The Great Depression, the crash of 1987, the 2008 recession, all the result of economic bubbles blown up by credit on the backs of banks. It ALWAYS goes back to banks.

So, if banks aren't regulated to care about the loans they give out, they will do what makes them the most money. That's just capitalism.

You can argue personal responsibility all you want, but we still live in a country that encourages living beyond your means in almost every way. And this is why it deeply troubles me that the response to an economic recession caused by under-regulated banks is a call for smaller government.

Most people don't act responsibly. Corporations are people. So where's the regulation there?

Wrong again.
Making sure that the banks are loaning money to people and corporations that are very likely to pay it back DOES NOT require a huge bloating government, just a little common sense.

What's you excuse for so many other government agencies other than bank regulators running amuck?

Or are you just going to dig up some more liberal talking points to cushion the blame on your party and president?

[synrgy]

Can we just rename this thread to "Trench perpetually moves the goal posts"?

[Necris]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

Wrong again.
Making sure that the banks are loaning money to people and corporations that are very likely to pay it back DOES NOT require a huge bloating government, just a little common sense.

You say that, but history has shown time and time again that banks rarely exercise that common sense.
So if the banks themselves won't exercise common sense when evaluating people for loans then maybe it's time to take a new approach or we could just assume that "things will be better this time around".

[Adam Of Angels]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

Or are you just going to dig up some more liberal talking points to cushion the blame on your party and president?

Am I wrong, or does debate/argumentation consist of presenting one point against another?

[Treeunit212]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

Wrong again.
Making sure that the banks are loaning money to people and corporations that are very likely to pay it back DOES NOT require a huge bloating government, just a little common sense.

What's you excuse for so many other government agencies other than bank regulators running amuck?

Or are you just going to dig up some more liberal talking points to cushion the blame on your party and president?

Government agencies don't worry me. Oil companies still getting hundreds of millions in subsidies because of a RAMCO loophole deal President Truman made to combat Soviet interest during the Cold War. That worries me. Farmers making 18k a year while the grocery corporations they supply keep them in line by drowning them in mortgage debt. That worries me. Corporations have no morals. They have no long term goals for the future of the country.

What REALLY worries me is what Neil Degrasse Tyson spends so much time hammering into people's heads; the fact that the smartest 25% of China's population exceeds the entire population of the United States. China graduates half a million scientists and engineers a year, while America graduates only 70,000. Wanna know what America graduates half a million of? Lawyers. "That's a good thing, since we'll be quite prepared to litigate over the crumbling of our infrastructure."

Corporations don't invest in infrastructure.

[TRENCHLORD]

Originally Posted by Necris

You say that, but history has shown time and time again that banks rarely exercise that common sense.
So if the banks themselves won't exercise common sense when evaluating people for loans then maybe it's time to take a new approach or we could just assume that "things will be better this time around".

And why do you suppose that is?

Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.

This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.

Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
Not me.

[Adam Of Angels]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
Not me.

By Obama like figure, you mean a well spoken, educated, positively oriented guy who scarcely has anything bad to say about even his direct opposition, and who tries to find the middle ground between he and said opposition? I don't need a guy like this to be my "master", but if I were to have somebody representing me in a leadership role, it would best be somebody at least vaguely similar.

[Treeunit212]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

And why do you suppose that is?

Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.

This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.

Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
Not me.

Don't generalize on party lines. It leads to gross oversimplification and bias based in misinformation.

Did you know that Richard Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency? Or how about realizing that our most glorified and successful war was presided over by arguably the most liberal democrat to ever hold office: Franklin Roosevelt. That hardly seems feminine. Unless you count the thousands of women who were finally allowed to have factory jobs because of the war effort.

There's another thing that's missing today; a collective national effort during war time. There is no draft, and only 1% of the population is directly involved in the Military. That's a large reason people don't pay attention anymore.

But I guess talking about the femininity of liberals is a step back to the topic of the thread, since up until President Obama's term gay's couldn't "man up" and serve in the Military.

I can't see why this random jumping off topic for generalized personal attacks in an otherwise civil discussion is so appealing to you, but I can see how it could happen when you really don't have much of a response to real facts.

[flint757]

Trenchlord I'm slowly but surely losing every ounce of respect I have for you. Stop diverting and making personal attack. This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative

Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
Not me.

You may want and need banks and corporations as your master.
Not me.

Dude this is a discussion stop saying things like liberal talking points and whatever other garbage to make the things others say almost seem to insignificant to respond too or even walk over. Real rebuttals please.

[Necris]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

And why do you suppose that is?

Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.

Great let them fail, and then what? Do we just assume the next bank or corporation to start up and eventually take their place won't do the exact same thing? Again we've fallen back on the idea that "it will be better this time around".
The last time I checked the list of corporations and banks that were bailed out was extensive far beyond the point that would make taking that point of view should seem reckless at best.

[Electric Wizard]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.

Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
Not me.

Jesus, if you opened a Philosophy 101 textbook, you could probably find this as an example in the chapter that explains ad hominems.

This thread has devolved into political poo-flinging that is only tangentially related to the original topic at best. I've honestly seen more coherent political discussions on 4chan.


As for the actual topic, I'm unimpressed by Obama's announcement. It's nice that we share personal opinions, but the fact that he wants to leave the decision with the states is a let down. The fact that his announcement alone with no indication of changing the situation is seen as a bold political move is, in my eyes, a stark reminder of how prejudiced many Americans still are.

[Stealthdjentstic]

Originally Posted by TRENCHLORD

And why do you suppose that is?

Maybe it's because they get bailed out when they screw up.
Same with the folks, when they screw up it's bankruptsy, then 7yrs later their making the same mistakes again.

This nation, especially the liberals need to quit being so feminine and start manning up on things.

Many of you want and need a Obama like figure to be your master.
Not me.

Without the bail out you the recession would be a lot worse.

[flint757]

I agree, but who knows how the trail will end at this point. It definitely isn't bold, or surprising IMO, but this has brought it on to the table for discussion among citizens. You have celebrities (who have a lot of weight on others opinions sadly) speaking up, politicians picking sides to clearly define that if you want gay marriage to happen Romney isn't the guy (not like we didn't already know though ), in a way this forces Republicans to look like the bad guys in a lot of Americans eyes since they stand firmly on the other side. His word does have weight to it, but indeed he must do more than speak for me to give a shit about his opinion.

[TemjinStrife]

Plenty of baseless ad hominem and strawman arguments here. Sounds like someone is just out of real arguments, so we're just jumping around to absurd talking points faster than we can show that they're ridiculous and unfounded.

This thread's run its course, starting with its relatively insulting title, and now our OP is living up to his name by showing he's not just off the deep end, he's in the ....ing Marianas Trench

[ghstofperdition]

Originally Posted by Electric Wizard

Jesus, if you opened a Philosophy 101 textbook, you could probably find this as an example in the chapter that explains ad hominems.

This thread has devolved into political poo-flinging that is only tangentially related to the original topic at best. I've honestly seen more coherent political discussions on 4chan.


As for the actual topic, I'm unimpressed by Obama's announcement. It's nice that we share personal opinions, but the fact that he wants to leave the decision with the states is a let down. The fact that his announcement alone with no indication of changing the situation is seen as a bold political move is, in my eyes, a stark reminder of how prejudiced many Americans still are.

Amazing post is amazing!
Sadly, anytime Obama is mentioned, we will see more of this shit-slinging. Of course I lost interest after I read "Rush Limbaugh is an upstanding American citizen."

my feeling on that is along the lines of ohgodwhy.jpg

[groph]

Originally Posted by Pav

When you put it that way, I picture your candidates settling things by way of pond hockey, which I would be 110% in favor of.

That'd be a total disaster dude. There were riots in Vancouver after one of our ice golf teams lost the big Daytona 500 game. Separation of Stadium and State are one of Canada's pillars.

Originally Posted by BrianUV777BK

So. Tired. Of. This. Non. Issue.

Aren't there many more issues more deserving of the time and energy that people are wasting on this non-issuse? Who cares who wants to stick his what where? For the 99.9%of people who are opposed to gay marrige it isn't going to affect them anyway. Why is it such a problem?

Ideally yes, but it's not a non issue if a fair proportion of a nation's population are restricted from doing certain things like marrying. Ideally it would be a non issue but it's not, especially as of late with all these horrifying Christian Right groups gaining bigger and bigger voices. And the West is so terrified of the same thing happening in the Middle East. Interesting standard there. I wouldn't want to equate Western societies with Middle Eastern societies though, maybe there are some unique conditions that make religious fundamentalist governments better or worse depending on where you are.

Originally Posted by Necris

In the eyes of a sane individual what you're saying rings true but a couple of nights ago I saw a Catholic Priest (big surprise there ) go on a rant about how only a heterosexual couple can adequately raise a child and that they should be given special treatment under the law due to that completely unverified "fact".

It's funny the other assumption he makes too. Heterosexual is the first one, "couple" is the other. As in, it takes TWO people to raise a child. Two, specifically.

Originally Posted by flint757

What is sad is the people who typically feel strongly against atheism or gay marriage are also the ones who are "constitutional purist" so to speak, but they just gloss over these things anyways

These are the people who have a one-track mind and a preconceived narrative of what America is, has been, and will be. Everything Obama does will be interpreted as "socialist" even though these sorts probably have no shitting clue what socialism is (you can be a libertarian socialist), "liberals" are all conspiring in the institutions like universities to brainwash the college kids into voting Democrat (Communist) It's ....ing enraging. These hard line "conservatives" (in quotations to emphasize the relative nature of what a conservative is or is not, not invoking the no true Scotsman fallacy) just seem to be scared of everything. I don't know what it is.

Originally Posted by C2Aye

In the future, I wish that the words gay, lesbian, straight, black, white, atheist, Christian, Muslim, republican, democrat, liberal, communist, etc etc, ad nauseum, wouldn't mean as much and we would all united ourselves under the term 'human' and we would all treat each other as such.

But until such time Aliens that are pure beings of energy raise us beyond our petty strifes to join the greater universal community, I don't really see that happening any time soon

Sorry dude, but this has always struck me as the weirdest notion ever. Why do so many people seem to have this fantasy that eventually human societies will all unite under a common banner and become spacefaring collectivists with a league of extraterrestrial nations? Science fiction I guess. I've as of late likened the science fiction fantasy of colonizing other worlds to be an extension of colonialist tendencies but that's another kettle of fish.

It's just a weird, oddly specific course of human progress to have. We're probably never going to make contact with what we recognize as intelligent life, let alone be able to meaningfully communicate with it. We have differences, and we have to fight to keep our heads above the water. Some of us have to fight a hell of a lot harder than others, and some of us are fighting against enemies that aren't even there.

Anyway.

Is this a political move on Obama's part? Well, he is a politician. He's also a person with political beliefs like any of us, and when asked about a position, he'll give an answer now I guess determining whether or not he's speaking genuinely or not is tough to determine. But I imagine if he expressed any opinion on gay marriage at any point during his term he'd be called out by some conservative group as trying to pander to the liberal hippie communist fag loving anti marriage Jesus haters anyway.

I know that this thread wasn't supposed to be about "are you for gay marriage or not" but I don't want to talk about whether or not what a politician said was a political move or a genuine statement. How the hell do you prove that either way?

I would like two things.

1. Proof that America was supposed to be run on a fundamentalist Christian ideology. Not saying a formalized state religion necessarily, a de facto state religion would do just fine. I guess I can see how Christianity has become a de facto state religion given that most Americans are Christian and come from Christian European backgrounds if I understand correctly. But where's the proof that says all American citizens must be subjected to Christian rule?

2. Give me a good argument why gays shouldn't marry. Pro-gay marriage people have given PLENTY why they should, and so far from the anti-gay marriage crowd I've only heard "because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman. Gay people are free to get married to somebody of the opposite sex. Or gay people can't get married, but they can have civil unions that give them all the rights of married people. But they can't get married like straight people can."

Even if that last point was 100% true, it's still an unequal situation because marriage has had a privileged status that gay people aren't entitled to. Even if the legal implications are exactly the same (they apparently aren't) until gay people are entitled to walk, talk, shit and breathe like everybody else, in some way they aren't like everybody else, IE this whole "second class citizen" thing.

[flint757]

You always sum things up so nicely groph. I agree with pretty much everything you said...

[Treeunit212]

IN CONCLUSION, Obama is being a politician and he won the gay vote while losing the votes he already lost from day one for being black.

Can this be over now?

EDIT: Just saw this supposed Fox News poll on Tumblr. Pretty much sums it up.

"4.(IF ROMNEY) What would you say is the main reason you are supporting Mitt Romney?(OPEN-ENDED – DO NOT READ)

(Not Obama) 43%
(He’s a Republican/conservative) 14%
(Positions on the issues) 10%
(Jobs/economy) 8%
(Business background) 5%
(Same-sex marriage) 5%
(Honesty/Character/Values) 4%
(Want smaller government/reduce debt) 4%
(Other – record verbatim) 5%
(Don’t know/Refused) 2%

Romney 2012: NOT OBAMA"