List of thing Obama has accomplished during his Presidency?

[xj0hnx]

So you're arguing that he intended to piss off conservatives?

No, the fact that you think it's a positive.

 

[FoBoT]

http://www.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php

President Barack Obama has authorized 193 drone strikes in Pakistan since he took office in 2009, more than four times the number of attacks that President George W. Bush authorized during his two terms, according to the New America Foundation, a Washington-based public-policy institute.

 

[blackangst1]

http://www.cjr.org/feature/covering_obamas_secret_war.php

Who cares? American lives werent lost in those drone strikes I dont believe.

Well, there was that one guy, but he doesnt count.

 

[nageov3t]

Who cares? American lives werent lost in those drone strikes I dont believe.

Well, there was that one guy, but he doesnt count.

:hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

He managed to figure what his stance is on same-sex marriage

 

[alzan]

No, the fact that you think it's a positive.

It was good for a giggle or two.

People are entitled to their opinion(s). Sorry to hear you can't deal with that fact.

Are you also concerned with the comment from Sen. Mitch McConnell a couple of years ago when he said that (paraphrase); "making sure Obama is a one-term president is our (the Senate's) top priority"? Not doing the country's business, which is his and Congress's, job. Or of the various commentary by media personnel of all stripes over the past several years/decades which speak to partisan politics; with some claiming that we need more of it?

Choose your battles wisely.

 

[FoBoT]

Who cares?

many people don't care
my point on this is that both 'Liberal Democrats' and 'Conservative Republicans' can both be Pro-War, Pro-Military, Pro-Imperialistic etc, however you want to put it. some of the people that criticized Bush for this type of activity give Obama a pass for the same type of activity

my point is that Obama and Bush have some things in common and Romney is likely to be on the same page with some of those things, i.e., in many respects you get essentially the same results if you put Bush, Obama or Romney into the White House. if it is all the same regardless of which one is in the office, there is a problem with our system, unless of course you like how things are going, then you must be part of the system

 

[werepossum]

many people don't care
my point on this is that both 'Liberal Democrats' and 'Conservative Republicans' can both be Pro-War, Pro-Military, Pro-Imperialistic etc, however you want to put it. some of the people that criticized Bush for this type of activity give Obama a pass for the same type of activity

my point is that Obama and Bush have some things in common and Romney is likely to be on the same page with some of those things, i.e., in many respects you get essentially the same results if you put Bush, Obama or Romney into the White House. if it is all the same regardless of which one is in the office, there is a problem with our system, unless of course you like how things are going, then you must be part of the system

Good point. Obama is the farthest left President we've had since at least Carter if not FDR and you'd still be hard-pressed to find a lot of difference between him and George W Bush, the farthest right President (if still not at all a fiscal conservative) we've had since Reagan. Romney will likely be much the same. That isn't all bad either; most of us don't like large swings in government direction no matter how strident we might be over our team getting in.

 

[Doppel]

I find the fact that this country is allowing the president, with zero oversight, to unilaterally put anybody, in any country, on a kill list to be grossly reprehensible. That is tyrannical behavior that would be part and parcel of any third world dictator's status quo.

 

[Craig234]

I find the fact that this country is allowing the president, with zero oversight, to unilaterally put anybody, in any country, on a kill list to be grossly reprehensible. That is tyrannical behavior that would be part and parcel of any third world dictator's status quo.

I think that's a healthy political concern.

Who do you think might oppose it, corporatist R/D's, or progressives? What are you?

 

[Doppel]

I think that's a healthy political concern.

Who do you think might oppose it, corporatist R/D's, or progressives? What are you?

I am neither and none, I really hate the labels most use. The only two parties that matter right now would not change it. I am sure that even if Romney pretended otherwise, when push came to shove he would keep it going just as Obama has continued bush's wiretapping, gitmo, etc.

 

[blackangst1]

many people don't care
my point on this is that both 'Liberal Democrats' and 'Conservative Republicans' can both be Pro-War, Pro-Military, Pro-Imperialistic etc, however you want to put it. some of the people that criticized Bush for this type of activity give Obama a pass for the same type of activity

my point is that Obama and Bush have some things in common and Romney is likely to be on the same page with some of those things, i.e., in many respects you get essentially the same results if you put Bush, Obama or Romney into the White House. if it is all the same regardless of which one is in the office, there is a problem with our system, unless of course you like how things are going, then you must be part of the system

I can agree with that.

 

[Craig234]

I am neither and none, I really hate the labels most use. The only two parties that matter right now would not change it. I am sure that even if Romney pretended otherwise, when push came to shove he would keep it going just as Obama has continued bush's wiretapping, gitmo, etc.

What evidence do you have progressives would not change it? If you reject all of the above, do you just not vote or throw it away? Will that help change it?

 

[Doppel]

What evidence do you have progressives would not change it? If you reject all of the above, do you just not vote or throw it away? Will that help change it?

No evidence, as they've never had the chance specifically, but the reason I expect they wouldn't is because they are too mainstream. The mainstream--politicians, and unfortunately the populous--could easily be swayed to support this (big bad terrorism monster in the closet), and so in the name of security we throw away freedoms and rights, as has happened so many times throughout history and will happen so many times in the future. It's one of the lessons humans keep failing to learn.