Can you name 5 policies of Obama that you like and 5 policies that you don't like?

[Ringel05]

No, because it was a fair question, it had fair conditions. Like any OP, you have a choice not to answer the question.

Look, nothing is black and white. My question is about credibility. Just because you are giving policies that you like about a politician, it doesn't necessarily mean you support him/her overall.

If you can't fully answer this question, then you do not have an informed opinion about Obama, and therefore have no business in criticizing him.

Yup, fair alright......

Okay, then answer me this: what is a fair number if it is not 5? What, in your opinion, should it be then? I had to pick some number, right?

No you didn't have to, you chose to, it's forcing others to adapt to a paradigm of your creation, like I said before, a control fixation.
And that's the real point you're missing, it honestly has nothing to do with the random number you chose it has to do with the snipet I quoted and bolded, i.e anyone can have an informed opinion without meeting your arbitrary qualification and that should be plainly (and painfully) obvious to anyone claiming critical (objective) reasoning.

 

[Si modo]

Which part of the Constitution did it "technically" violate.

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He took up with Al-Qaeda and committed treason. He was actively involved in helping terrorists that meant to do the US harm. And he was wanted by the Yemen government and was hiding from authorities.

The US clearly had every right to kill or capture this dangerous person.

But the argument these hardcore Ron Paul fans have is that he was not given a trial. Sometimes rules can be bent, however.

Fuck that.

There are 2 ways to deal with a terrorist hell bent on killing Americans.

One involves a hellfire missile. The other involves a bullet to the head.

However if they "surrender"...then like most POWs they get 3 hots and a cot.

Exactly. Don't bother with a trial if someone talks about murder.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Okay, I will play the game that you have outlined for us. I realize that as an Evangelical Christian Conservative Republican and member of the Tea Party, there are those here who would like to attribute all of the negative comments about Obama to some fictitious mental condition (Obama Derangement Syndrome - Orginally the Bush Derangement Syndrome contracted by the left) or preferably to the fact that he is black (50%). Racism is the left's EXCUSE for disliking FAILURE. However, I assure you that my EXTREME dislike for Obama and his policies have NOTHING to do with either of the above. Therefore, I will play. Here are my choices.

Five Policies that I like
1. Pre-Existing Conditions - I used to work in the insurance industry and I have sat in on meetings where they try and come up with reasons, any reason, to deny benefits to someone. That is wrong and I am glad that it is now unlawful.
2. Strikes on Terrorists - There is no other way to say it. These people SUCK and violent retroactive abortion is the only solution. A Hellfire a day keeps the maggots at bay! Barry does good here.
3. Libya - I like the outcome here. There are parts I don't like (refer below).
4. Insurance for handicapped children - As the father of a developmentally disabled 28-year old daughter, this was long over due. I need to be able to keep her on my policy for as long as possible.
5. Tax cuts - Although they are somewhat negated by the TAX INCREASES I am seeing because of Obamacare, there are some here that are good.

Policies I don't like
1. Obamacare - Probably the single WORST piece of legislation ever crafted by a bunch of one-eyed, three toed, inbred Washington beaurocrats. NO ONE understands what it says, what it will do, or the effect that it will have on business. This thing MUST be repealed. Socialistic medicine is WRONG. "SOME" of the ideas are good. But the way they were enacted is just ridiculous. Insurance premiums are going up; taxes are going up; and care WILL be rationed. And this is good because???
2. Military Policy Across the Board - Like every left-winger without a brain, Obama thinks that if we just want people to be nice to us, they will. The first thing they want to cut is the military and of course, when they do we always have GI's who will DIE because of their stupidity. And then we have to deal with these third-world shithole countries like Iran from a position of weakness. You want people to listen to you: Sail a freakin Carrier task force into the sea next to them and they NOTICE. When they kill one of yours, you level a freakin city of theirs and remind them that if you have to come back, there won't be shit to rebuild. Somebody show Barry the movie "The Untouchables." That is the CHICAGO way.
3. Taxes - It takes a minimum of a million dollars to retire. And if you work your ass off and scrimp and save every penny you can, you might just get enough. Now, Obama and his OWS crowd think that everyone who has done what they are supposed to do is part of this mythical 1%. Really? How stupid can a human being be? And of course, because we did the right thing and saved this money, now we're the bad guys because we don't want to pay our fair share. Uh, hey idiot, I paid taxes on this money once. Now you want more?
4. Subordinating Americans to Other Countries - Okay, whether you left wing hand wringers like it or not, America IS exceptional. In this vein, members of the American military should not be subordinate to anyone else. You want to be a member of the UN? Great! But when they start trashing the US and then want our money, it's time they piss off. Want to support the World Court? Wonderful! But American President's, members of Congress, and the military ARE NOT subject to the freakin circus they call the World Court. In light of this, when we decide it is time to bloody someone's nose and remind them that we're peaceful UNTIL you piss us off, we don't take orders from anyone. Kick them in the nuts and move on. If that doesn't get their attention, then carpet bombing by B-52's will.
5. The "government" is somehow important - When you start giving everyone everything they want through the government, you somehow assign the government some sort of intrisic value. Here's a clue kids: The government is a bunch of inept, ignorant, inbred, imbeciles who do nothing but get in the way, screw everything up, and make it worse. We even had someone on this board try and say how much smarter government employees were than those in the private sector! My Gawd! The government serves us, for Christ's sake. Not the other way around. Want to make me really happy: Cut the government in one year by half by first eliminating about 100 government departments starting with the Department of Education. Then really start whittling them beaurocrats down!

There's my list. I could have continued with the POLICIES I DON'T LIKE probably for a lot longer, but the thread said five. Because of these policies that I believe threaten the very existence of this country, I have DEMANDED that my Senators and Congressmen do whatever they can to STOP Obama's policies. What ever it takes...

 

[KissMy]

Washington Examiner: Obama gives Interpol free hand in U.S.

No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site is the Dec. 17 announcement and one-paragraph text of President Obama's Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: "Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities."In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it.

There are multiple reasons why this Obama decision is so deeply disturbing. First, the Obama order reverses a 1983 Reagan administration decision in order to grant Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization, two key privileges. First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI. Second, Obama has exempted Interpol's domestic facilities -- including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice -- from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens.

 

[Amelia]

Can you name 5 policies of Obama that you like and 5 policies that you don't like?

If you can't fully answer this question, then you do not have an informed opinion about Obama, and therefore have no business in criticizing him.

Come up with 15 dislikes if you are so inclined, but I challenge you to name at least 5 policies of Obama that you agree with.

If you don't agree with Obama on 5 things, you don't have an informed opinion of him? WTF?

 

[Amelia]

1.) I am happy with his promotion of the healthcare legislation. While it has some problems, it's a step in the right direction.

2.) I like the fact that he stood behind GM and Chrysler and pushed for their bailouts.

3.) I like the fact that while he got us involved in Libya, our involvement was limited, and we didn't get bogged down in another long drawn out military conflict.

4.) I like the fact that he is pushing for a tax increase on high income earners.

5.) I like the fact that he offered to make significant cuts in the budget, even though the Republicans did not approve of the cuts.

1.) While I approve of proposed tax increases on high income earners, I do not support the payroll tax cut. Revenue is down so much, cutting it more does not make sense.

2.) I am upset with Obama for giving in to the Republicans by agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts.

Guess that's all I can think of at the moment. I'm sure there are more.

According to Billy, you do not have an informed opinion of Obama and should limit your participation in threads about him.

Please go do more research.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you can't fully answer this question, then you do not have an informed opinion about Obama, and therefore have no business in criticizing him.

Come up with 15 dislikes if you are so inclined, but I challenge you to name at least 5 policies of Obama that you agree with.

Tell you what, I will match you. Start listing Obama policies you dislike and I will start listing the ones I like.

 

[KissMy]

Medicaid Fraud has increased by 30% since the Obamacrats took office. Medicaid Fraud is now $125 Billion per year. That is larger than the GDP of most countries. Government only intervenes in 20% of the fraud cases brought to their attention. Only about 69% of every dollar that Medicare spends goes to the intended Medicare beneficiaries. Source: C-Span2 DirecTV Channel 351 - House Committee on Medicaid Fraud, Waste & Abuse.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Ok after playing your stupid game and you ignoring me I can say this thread is a scam.

No, you didn't play the game. I asked for 5 policies. You gave me one: killing bin Laden. If you think that's the only positive thing Obama has done, then you are willfully ignorant.

Stop watching Fox News.

One can not give you 5 if there is only one that is liked. Pretty simple concept DUMB FUCK.

I can not even support his decision to stay in Afghanistan since he stated he has no intention of winning.

OK, here's one more if you are lacking a few: like the color he's chosen to dye his hair.

 

[Billy000]

Can you name 5 policies of Obama that you like and 5 policies that you don't like?

If you can't fully answer this question, then you do not have an informed opinion about Obama, and therefore have no business in criticizing him.

Come up with 15 dislikes if you are so inclined, but I challenge you to name at least 5 policies of Obama that you agree with.

If you don't agree with Obama on 5 things, you don't have an informed opinion of him? WTF?

Yes, Amelia, that is right. Objectivity is crucial to understanding any issue, and unfortunately, it is missing often times when it comes to politics.

 

[Billy000]

Yup, fair alright......

Okay, then answer me this: what is a fair number if it is not 5? What, in your opinion, should it be then? I had to pick some number, right?

No you didn't have to, you chose to, it's forcing others to adapt to a paradigm of your creation, like I said before, a control fixation.
And that's the real point you're missing, it honestly has nothing to do with the random number you chose it has to do with the snipet I quoted and bolded, i.e anyone can have an informed opinion without meeting your arbitrary qualification and that should be plainly (and painfully) obvious to anyone claiming critical (objective) reasoning.

The only paradigm I created was choosing the number 5. I am sure plenty of people would agree that objectivity is often missing when it comes to politics. By answering my question fully, you are demonstrating you have credibility when it comes to being informed on political issues. Are there other ways of demonstrating the credibility I am seeking? Absolutely, but I don't think there was anything wrong with setting my own parameters.

That being said, I do regret targeting the conservatives on this forum with this thread. I suppose it was easy to do since they far outweigh the liberals on here. Like many conservatives, liberals often lack objectivity as well. I should have made that more clear in my OP.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Okay, I will play the game that you have outlined for us. I realize that as an Evangelical Christian Conservative Republican and member of the Tea Party, there are those here who would like to attribute all of the negative comments about Obama to some fictitious mental condition (Obama Derangement Syndrome - Orginally the Bush Derangement Syndrome contracted by the left) or preferably to the fact that he is black (50%). Racism is the left's EXCUSE for disliking FAILURE. However, I assure you that my EXTREME dislike for Obama and his policies have NOTHING to do with either of the above. Therefore, I will play. Here are my choices.

Five Policies that I like
1. Pre-Existing Conditions - I used to work in the insurance industry and I have sat in on meetings where they try and come up with reasons, any reason, to deny benefits to someone. That is wrong and I am glad that it is now unlawful.
2. Strikes on Terrorists - There is no other way to say it. These people SUCK and violent retroactive abortion is the only solution. A Hellfire a day keeps the maggots at bay! Barry does good here.
3. Libya - I like the outcome here. There are parts I don't like (refer below).
4. Insurance for handicapped children - As the father of a developmentally disabled 28-year old daughter, this was long over due. I need to be able to keep her on my policy for as long as possible.
5. Tax cuts - Although they are somewhat negated by the TAX INCREASES I am seeing because of Obamacare, there are some here that are good.

Policies I don't like
1. Obamacare - Probably the single WORST piece of legislation ever crafted by a bunch of one-eyed, three toed, inbred Washington beaurocrats. NO ONE understands what it says, what it will do, or the effect that it will have on business. This thing MUST be repealed. Socialistic medicine is WRONG. "SOME" of the ideas are good. But the way they were enacted is just ridiculous. Insurance premiums are going up; taxes are going up; and care WILL be rationed. And this is good because???
2. Military Policy Across the Board - Like every left-winger without a brain, Obama thinks that if we just want people to be nice to us, they will. The first thing they want to cut is the military and of course, when they do we always have GI's who will DIE because of their stupidity. And then we have to deal with these third-world shithole countries like Iran from a position of weakness. You want people to listen to you: Sail a freakin Carrier task force into the sea next to them and they NOTICE. When they kill one of yours, you level a freakin city of theirs and remind them that if you have to come back, there won't be shit to rebuild. Somebody show Barry the movie "The Untouchables." That is the CHICAGO way.
3. Taxes - It takes a minimum of a million dollars to retire. And if you work your ass off and scrimp and save every penny you can, you might just get enough. Now, Obama and his OWS crowd think that everyone who has done what they are supposed to do is part of this mythical 1%. Really? How stupid can a human being be? And of course, because we did the right thing and saved this money, now we're the bad guys because we don't want to pay our fair share. Uh, hey idiot, I paid taxes on this money once. Now you want more?
4. Subordinating Americans to Other Countries - Okay, whether you left wing hand wringers like it or not, America IS exceptional. In this vein, members of the American military should not be subordinate to anyone else. You want to be a member of the UN? Great! But when they start trashing the US and then want our money, it's time they piss off. Want to support the World Court? Wonderful! But American President's, members of Congress, and the military ARE NOT subject to the freakin circus they call the World Court. In light of this, when we decide it is time to bloody someone's nose and remind them that we're peaceful UNTIL you piss us off, we don't take orders from anyone. Kick them in the nuts and move on. If that doesn't get their attention, then carpet bombing by B-52's will.
5. The "government" is somehow important - When you start giving everyone everything they want through the government, you somehow assign the government some sort of intrisic value. Here's a clue kids: The government is a bunch of inept, ignorant, inbred, imbeciles who do nothing but get in the way, screw everything up, and make it worse. We even had someone on this board try and say how much smarter government employees were than those in the private sector! My Gawd! The government serves us, for Christ's sake. Not the other way around. Want to make me really happy: Cut the government in one year by half by first eliminating about 100 government departments starting with the Department of Education. Then really start whittling them beaurocrats down!

There's my list. I could have continued with the POLICIES I DON'T LIKE probably for a lot longer, but the thread said five. Because of these policies that I believe threaten the very existence of this country, I have DEMANDED that my Senators and Congressmen do whatever they can to STOP Obama's policies. What ever it takes...

Step right up ladies and gentlemen! For less than the cost of a cup of coffee.....witness the instant transformation of a nutter as he moves seamlessly from measured, rational-sounding citizen to crazed, paranoid, partisan idiot.

 

[Ringel05]

Okay, then answer me this: what is a fair number if it is not 5? What, in your opinion, should it be then? I had to pick some number, right?

No you didn't have to, you chose to, it's forcing others to adapt to a paradigm of your creation, like I said before, a control fixation.
And that's the real point you're missing, it honestly has nothing to do with the random number you chose it has to do with the snipet I quoted and bolded, i.e anyone can have an informed opinion without meeting your arbitrary qualification and that should be plainly (and painfully) obvious to anyone claiming critical (objective) reasoning.

The only paradigm I created was choosing the number 5. I am sure plenty of people would agree that objectivity is often missing when it comes to politics. By answering my question fully, you are demonstrating you have credibility when it comes to being informed on political issues. Are there other ways of demonstrating the credibility I am seeking? Absolutely, but I don't think there was anything wrong with setting my own parameters.

That being said, I do regret targeting the conservatives on this forum with this thread. I suppose it was easy to do since they far outweigh the liberals on here. Like many conservatives, liberals often lack objectivity as well. I should have made that more clear in my OP.

Still missing it. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Okay, since you keep missing it I'll spell it out. Setting parameters, to confine and define an argument is fine and often necessary but in the OP you told everyone that if they don't meet your criteria for critical thinking then they aren't critical thinkers and they have no business criticizing Obama. Rather arrogant and dismissive. If you had simply omitted that personal belief and asked people to post 5 positives and 5 negatives you and I would not be having this exchange.

 

[Billy000]

No you didn't have to, you chose to, it's forcing others to adapt to a paradigm of your creation, like I said before, a control fixation.
And that's the real point you're missing, it honestly has nothing to do with the random number you chose it has to do with the snipet I quoted and bolded, i.e anyone can have an informed opinion without meeting your arbitrary qualification and that should be plainly (and painfully) obvious to anyone claiming critical (objective) reasoning.

The only paradigm I created was choosing the number 5. I am sure plenty of people would agree that objectivity is often missing when it comes to politics. By answering my question fully, you are demonstrating you have credibility when it comes to being informed on political issues. Are there other ways of demonstrating the credibility I am seeking? Absolutely, but I don't think there was anything wrong with setting my own parameters.

That being said, I do regret targeting the conservatives on this forum with this thread. I suppose it was easy to do since they far outweigh the liberals on here. Like many conservatives, liberals often lack objectivity as well. I should have made that more clear in my OP.

Still missing it. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Okay, since you keep missing it I'll spell it out. Setting parameters, to confine and define an argument is fine and often necessary but in the OP you told everyone that if they don't meet your criteria for critical thinking then they aren't critical thinkers and they have no business criticizing Obama. Rather arrogant and dismissive. If you had simply omitted that personal belief and asked people to post 5 positives and 5 negatives you and I would not be having this exchange.

You are contradicting yourself. You said before that asking for FIVE policies specifically was inconsequential, yet you are also saying that I am being arrogant for setting the criteria. Most people would agree that exploring all of Obama's policies is necessary in having an informed opinion of him. By doing that, you are bound to learn of policies that you like, even if you don't like him overall. In other words, that is not MY CRITERIA.

In my personal opinion, naming 10 policies of likes and dislikes is a demonstration of credibility. Had I just said name 1 policy, I likely would have gotten "ordering the kill of bin Laden" (which is something everyone agrees was a good move). 5 is a reasonable number.

 

[francoHFW]

Yes, and no....

Nobody understands Obamacare, but it's killing you, except the parts you are familiar with? Pffffft!! You are misled.

Sorry about the USA now using diplomacy, and being a good citizen of the world, rather than an arrogant a-hole.The world never so united against Iran and N. Korea. Change the channel.

 

[Ringel05]

The only paradigm I created was choosing the number 5. I am sure plenty of people would agree that objectivity is often missing when it comes to politics. By answering my question fully, you are demonstrating you have credibility when it comes to being informed on political issues. Are there other ways of demonstrating the credibility I am seeking? Absolutely, but I don't think there was anything wrong with setting my own parameters.

That being said, I do regret targeting the conservatives on this forum with this thread. I suppose it was easy to do since they far outweigh the liberals on here. Like many conservatives, liberals often lack objectivity as well. I should have made that more clear in my OP.

Still missing it. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Okay, since you keep missing it I'll spell it out. Setting parameters, to confine and define an argument is fine and often necessary but in the OP you told everyone that if they don't meet your criteria for critical thinking then they aren't critical thinkers and they have no business criticizing Obama. Rather arrogant and dismissive. If you had simply omitted that personal belief and asked people to post 5 positives and 5 negatives you and I would not be having this exchange.

You are contradicting yourself. You said before that asking for FIVE policies specifically was inconsequential, yet you are also saying that I am being arrogant for setting the criteria. Most people would agree that exploring all of Obama's policies is necessary in having an informed opinion of him. By doing that, you are bound to learn of policies that you like, even if you don't like him overall. In other words, that is not MY CRITERIA.

In my personal opinion, naming 10 policies of likes and dislikes is a demonstration of credibility. Had I just said name 1 policy, I likely would have gotten "ordering the kill of bin Laden" (which is something everyone agrees was a good move). 5 is a reasonable number.

No I'm not contradicting myself, I'm trying to make a point by getting you to see the obvious on your own but it's not working. I could care less if you have designated 1 or 100 examples, that's just a small part of the whole. I agree knowing as much as possible about a politicians policies is the ideal for deriving informed opinions but that is not what you said. You may have thought you were implying such but in truth it came across as arrogant and dismissive. It's really that simple.

 

[Billy000]

Still missing it. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Okay, since you keep missing it I'll spell it out. Setting parameters, to confine and define an argument is fine and often necessary but in the OP you told everyone that if they don't meet your criteria for critical thinking then they aren't critical thinkers and they have no business criticizing Obama. Rather arrogant and dismissive. If you had simply omitted that personal belief and asked people to post 5 positives and 5 negatives you and I would not be having this exchange.

You are contradicting yourself. You said before that asking for FIVE policies specifically was inconsequential, yet you are also saying that I am being arrogant for setting the criteria. Most people would agree that exploring all of Obama's policies is necessary in having an informed opinion of him. By doing that, you are bound to learn of policies that you like, even if you don't like him overall. In other words, that is not MY CRITERIA.

In my personal opinion, naming 10 policies of likes and dislikes is a demonstration of credibility. Had I just said name 1 policy, I likely would have gotten "ordering the kill of bin Laden" (which is something everyone agrees was a good move). 5 is a reasonable number.

No I'm not contradicting myself, I'm trying to make a point by getting you to see the obvious on your own but it's not working. I could care less if you have designated 1 or 100 examples, that's just a small part of the whole. I agree knowing as much as possible about a politicians policies is the ideal for deriving informed opinions but that is not what you said. You may have thought you were implying such but in truth it came across as arrogant and dismissive. It's really that simple.

The only arrogant thing about my post was that I was singling out Obama-haters. As you may have noticed, I acknowledged my mistake.

 

[Ringel05]

You are contradicting yourself. You said before that asking for FIVE policies specifically was inconsequential, yet you are also saying that I am being arrogant for setting the criteria. Most people would agree that exploring all of Obama's policies is necessary in having an informed opinion of him. By doing that, you are bound to learn of policies that you like, even if you don't like him overall. In other words, that is not MY CRITERIA.

In my personal opinion, naming 10 policies of likes and dislikes is a demonstration of credibility. Had I just said name 1 policy, I likely would have gotten "ordering the kill of bin Laden" (which is something everyone agrees was a good move). 5 is a reasonable number.

No I'm not contradicting myself, I'm trying to make a point by getting you to see the obvious on your own but it's not working. I could care less if you have designated 1 or 100 examples, that's just a small part of the whole. I agree knowing as much as possible about a politicians policies is the ideal for deriving informed opinions but that is not what you said. You may have thought you were implying such but in truth it came across as arrogant and dismissive. It's really that simple.

The only arrogant thing about my post was that I was singling out Obama-haters. As you may have noticed, I acknowledged my mistake.

Then it appears we've been engaged in an exchange of differing semantics leading to the same conclusion. Oops.

 

[Billy000]

No I'm not contradicting myself, I'm trying to make a point by getting you to see the obvious on your own but it's not working. I could care less if you have designated 1 or 100 examples, that's just a small part of the whole. I agree knowing as much as possible about a politicians policies is the ideal for deriving informed opinions but that is not what you said. You may have thought you were implying such but in truth it came across as arrogant and dismissive. It's really that simple.

The only arrogant thing about my post was that I was singling out Obama-haters. As you may have noticed, I acknowledged my mistake.

Then it appears we've been engaged in an exchange of differing semantics leading to the same conclusion. Oops.

Apparently. No harm done, though.

 

[KissMy]

Obama signed Executive Order 13526 that slammed the door shut on the "Freedom of Information Act." (FOIA)