Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 13, 2012, 12:59 PM   #126
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntn View Post
He is Presidential (10x more presidential than Mittens) and competent whether you agree with his direction or not. Unfortunately he is the head of a disorganized and hostile group (called Congress).

Can you imagine how ineffective a C.O. of any military outfit would appear if half of his organization refused to follow orders? While members of Congress are not obliged to follow orders, it paints a very good picture of how one party can refuse to cooperate, refuse to do anything the President wants and then have the nerve to turn around and tell the public how ineffective he is? The GOP deserves at least half of the criticism. If I blame Obama it is for taking way to long, in fact the next election to get out there and hard sell his position directly to the voters. He should have been doing this for at least 2 years.
How was the 2008 Obama more qualified than Romney? If a former governor is unqualified, how is a junior senator qualified?

You're right. The Repubs are 50% to blame, which means the other 50% falls on the Dems. The problem is, neither side wants to compromise. They say the do, of course, but at the end of the day, they don't.
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 01:28 PM   #127
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
1) To say that Obama is better than any Republican over the last 12 years... sounds great... but really, not that big of a compliment.
Actually it is. I could go back farther. But let me ask you a question to get a point of reference, if you think the Republicans suck, and you think the Democrats suck, when was the last time you think we had a decent President?

Quote:
2) You didn't contend the actual point that Obama was green when he took the oath.
Why would I contend something I agree with? He was green when he took the oath, but he was still very Presidential. I believe a lot of this is internal...something you are born with..something that isn't learned. He gets it. Romney doesn't, and will never seem Presidential. It's like acting, singing or being an olympic athlete. You either got it, or you don't.

Quote:
3) Obama has "done a pretty damn good job." How so?
Are we hemorrhaging jobs to the tune of 600,000 lost jobs a month the way we were when he took office? No

Did the auto industry collapse? No

Is Osama Bin Laden still running around? No

Are we still wasting money with DADT? No

Are we on the road to healthcare reform? Yes

He also reformed hospital visitation rules, and did some reform on credit.

In numerous ways this man has improved our lives. Some of you just don't see it yet, but someday you perhaps will. It's a pity that you cannot now.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 01:43 PM   #128
APlotdevice
macrumors 68020
 
APlotdevice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
How was the 2008 Obama more qualified than Romney? If a former governor is unqualified, how is a junior senator qualified?
Well the Senate does actually have the critical roll of approving international treaties.
__________________
There is something deeply wrong with a society more offended by breasts than by entrails.
Pebble SmartWatch | iPhone 5c | 11" Macbook Air '13 | HTPC | TV | Numerous Old Consoles
APlotdevice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 03:55 PM   #129
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Actually it is. I could go back farther. But let me ask you a question to get a point of reference, if you think the Republicans suck, and you think the Democrats suck, when was the last time you think we had a decent President?
Early Reagan... He got a little out there in the late 80's...

JFK. While I wasn't alive, and though I don't agree with everything he did, I think he was a pretty good president.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Why would I contend something I agree with? He was green when he took the oath, but he was still very Presidential. I believe a lot of this is internal...something you are born with..something that isn't learned. He gets it. Romney doesn't, and will never seem Presidential. It's like acting, singing or being an olympic athlete. You either got it, or you don't.
I hear ya... but in a way, I kinda like people who are not so "refined" if that makes sense. There is a point when politicians become too smooth (at least in their own minds) and then they become slimey (Read: John Edwards). I'm not saying Obama is at that level, but I do think Romney has some presidential qualities about him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
Are we hemorrhaging jobs to the tune of 600,000 lost jobs a month the way we were when he took office? No

Did the auto industry collapse? No

Is Osama Bin Laden still running around? No

Are we still wasting money with DADT? No

Are we on the road to healthcare reform? Yes

He also reformed hospital visitation rules, and did some reform on credit.
No, we aren't losing jobs hand over fist, but we aren't really gaining either. Every recession has been followed by a pretty quick uptick. In 4 years, Obama has only netted 300k jobs.

Auto bailout . . . great. We (the taxpayers) still own GM stock, and are set to lose around 27 BILLION dollars on the deal. Meanwhile the bailout was constructed so that the unions made out like bandits.

Personally, I let them go into bankruptcy. First off, that doesn't mean they stop production. They just have to redo their contracts - which would have affected the union pension plans. Would people lose their jobs? yes. Would it have sucked? Yes. But in the end, they still could come out of it okay, and we wouldn't be on the hook for billions of dollars.

Plus, let's remember that the main reason why GM / Chrysler were in trouble was because they were making cars that no one wanted to buy. Now, GM is losing money like no one's business on the Volt (according to an article in Reuters)...

Osama is dead. Okay.

DADT... Fine. Although, I find it ironic that people love to say how much Obama's ideology is like Clinton, but yet here is Obama repealing one of Clinton's things.

YEA Healthcare reform! My company is going to stop their employer plan because it is going to be too expensive for them. That means I'm going to be paying more! AWESOME!!! Thanks healthcare reform!

Obamacare: It is sooooo awesome that the lawmakers that passed it exempted themselves from it. It is sooo awesome labor unions requested, and were given waivers excluding them from it. It is sooo awesome that both Nevada and New Hampshire (ENTIRE STATES) were granted exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
In numerous ways this man has improved our lives. Some of you just don't see it yet, but someday you perhaps will. It's a pity that you cannot now.
Agree to disagree. This president, along with his predecessor, have saddled me, and my children with MASSIVE debt who's only idea is to "tax the rich" and make them "pay their fair share".

Newsflash - they do pay MORE than their fair share. The top 10% of income earners pay roughly 70% of taxes. Honestly, how much more do you want them to pay?

(Sorry, this last rant isn't really directed at you, just a general question.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by APlotdevice View Post
Well the Senate does actually have the critical roll of approving international treaties.
You're right. But Obama was in the senate for what 2 years before he started campaigning? While doing so, he missed a TON of votes. So, how much did he actually do????

A governor actually runs a state, which is comparable to a president running a nation.
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 03:58 PM   #130
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
Auto bailout . . . great. We (the taxpayers) still own GM stock, and are set to lose around 27 BILLION dollars on the deal.
Source?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
A governor actually runs a state, which is comparable to a president running a nation.
Um, no it isn't. You might be able to argue that running Massachusetts is more serious than running Tuvalu. But it isn't equivalent to running Israel or Singapore or even Slovenia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
only idea is to "tax the rich" and make them "pay their fair share"
The rich don't usually do much good with their money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
The top 10% of income earners pay roughly 70% of taxes.
And they earn 70% of the income.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant

Last edited by Eraserhead; Sep 13, 2012 at 04:08 PM.
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 04:14 PM   #131
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Source?
Seriously?

The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

In a monthly report sent to Congress on Friday, the Obama administration boosted its forecast of expected losses by more than $3.3 billion to almost $25.1 billion, up from $21.7 billion in the last quarterly update.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz26Nm4im4i


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Um, no it isn't. You might be able to argue that running Massachusetts is more serious than running Tuvalu. But it isn't equivalent to running Israel or Singapore or even Slovenia.
Let me spell it out for you.

The states are kinda set up like the federal government. There is a state legislature that makes/passes bills, these bills then go to the Governor of the state to pass/veto. If they pass, they become law.

Sound familiar?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
The rich don't usually do much good with their money.
And... with this, I'm done with you.
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 04:18 PM   #132
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
Seriously?

The Treasury Department says in a new report the government expects to lose more than $25 billion on the $85 billion auto bailout. That's 15 percent higher than its previous forecast.

But the original cost was supposed to be $44 billion. Regardless $1,000/job or so isn't really that much money. If there was no bailout there would be no American auto-industry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
Let me spell it out for you.

The states are kinda set up like the federal government. There is a state legislature that makes/passes bills, these bills then go to the Governor of the state to pass/veto. If they pass, they become law.

Sound familiar?
But the states don't have that much power, so they aren't as serious a job as running a real country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
And... with this, I'm done with you.
The rich invest their money in shares in big established businesses. The poor spend their money every month so it stays in circulation.

Having money to invest is important, but so is keeping money in consumers pockets so they can support local jobs.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 04:25 PM   #133
ericrwalker
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Albany, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
If there was no bailout there would be no American auto-industry.

Did Ford take the bailout?

What about bankruptcy? That doesn't put a company out of business. It allows them to restructure. Also there is Tesla and Fiskar that would have been excited to pick of some of the market.
ericrwalker is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 04:32 PM   #134
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericrwalker View Post
Did Ford take the bailout?
Ford didn't take the bailout, but if the bailout hadn't happened Ford would have been screwed as it shares a lot of suppliers with GM who would have been taken out by GM collapsing.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 04:40 PM   #135
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
But the original cost was supposed to be $44 billion. Regardless $1,000/job or so isn't really that much money. If there was no bailout there would be no American auto-industry.

But the states don't have that much power, so they aren't as serious a job as running a real country.

The rich invest their money in shares in big established businesses. The poor spend their money every month so it stays in circulation.

Having money to invest is important, but so is keeping money in consumers pockets so they can support local jobs.
I'm going to ignore the "there would be no auto industry" comment, because, really!?

I wasn't arguing the point of states having as much power as the federal government. I was making a point that because Romney was a governor of a state, that would make him just as, if not MORE qualified to be president than a junior senator.

Yep, the rich only invest in BIG business. Tell that to the first few investors of Apple, Google, Facebook and pretty much EVERY other major company out there. They all start off small and need investors. Guess what, every person who invests in a small-cap mutual fund, is infact investing in small businesses.

Good day, sir.
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 04:48 PM   #136
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
I'm going to ignore the "there would be no auto industry" comment, because, really!?
From the communist rag known as the Economist (source):

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Economist
Given the panic that gripped private purse-strings last year, it is more likely that GM would have been liquidated, sending a cascade of destruction through the supply chain on which its rivals, too, depended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
I was making a point that because Romney was a governor of a state, that would make him just as, if not MORE qualified to be president than a junior senator.
That is probably fair, but Romney now has less experience than the incumbent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
Yep, the rich only invest in BIG business. Tell that to the first few investors of Apple, Google, Facebook and pretty much EVERY other major company out there. They all start off small and need investors. Guess what, every person who invests in a small-cap mutual fund, is infact investing in small businesses.
And how big are those investments compared to the amount of investment in existing large companies?

EDIT: For the UK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
Some analysts dismiss the SME sector. After all, the biggest companies, those with over 250 employees, account for more than 80% of investment.

...

"We reiterate our view that SMEs are an important but largely neglected area of the UK economy. They provide almost 50% of UK gross turnover. They also account for almost 60% of UK private sector employment," he said.
So the companies that have 50% of the gross turnover, and 60% of the jobs, only get 20% of the investment.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 04:57 PM   #137
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
...No, we aren't losing jobs hand over fist, but we aren't really gaining either. Every recession has been followed by a pretty quick uptick. In 4 years, Obama has only netted 300k jobs.
Keep in mind that this recession is very different because it was created by a financial crisis, so we can't expect the same upticks you would normally get. Furthermore, a lot of the structure problems remain.

Quote:
...Auto bailout . . . great. We (the taxpayers) still own GM stock, and are set to lose around 27 BILLION dollars on the deal. Meanwhile the bailout was constructed so that the unions made out like bandits.
This is repeated in conservative media, but can you explain how the unions "made out like bandits?"

Quote:
...Personally, I let them go into bankruptcy. First off, that doesn't mean they stop production. They just have to redo their contracts - which would have affected the union pension plans. Would people lose their jobs? yes. Would it have sucked? Yes. But in the end, they still could come out of it okay, and we wouldn't be on the hook for billions of dollars.
That depends on the bankruptcy and the American auto-unions were in such a state that simply redoing the contracts wasn't enough, they needed the cash infusion from the Federal government because credit had otherwise completely dried up. And, even a sharp production slowdown might have nuked the surrounding auto business and lost thousands of more jobs, which would have created a downward spiral deepening the recession.

Quote:
...Plus, let's remember that the main reason why GM / Chrysler were in trouble was because they were making cars that no one wanted to buy. Now, GM is losing money like no one's business on the Volt (according to an article in Reuters)...
Toyota lost huge piles of money on the Prius and now it's a moneymaker for them. Companies have to look toward the future, which is what GM/Chrysler refused to do so they ended up with a glut of truck platforms right when the price of gas started to climb.

Quote:
...DADT... Fine. Although, I find it ironic that people love to say how much Obama's ideology is like Clinton, but yet here is Obama repealing one of Clinton's things...
DADT was a compromise the Clinton administration put into place after they were stymied by the Joint Chiefs and members of the House Armed Services Committee to put into place an election year promise to remove the ban on homosexuals in the military.

Quote:
...
A governor actually runs a state, which is comparable to a president running a nation.
Well, that depends on the state. In some states the governor is a fairly weak office, subject to the whims of the legislature and, in the case of Texas, the Lieutenant Governor.

In Massachusetts, the governor is a powerful position and is comparable to a president in terms of duties and structure, but it's lacks foreign policy experience.

Recent presidents, Reagan and Clinton lacked direct foreign experience, but ran their states as powerful governors. However, Bush Sr. had the foreign policy and military experience that Reagan lacked. Clinton, of course, had a Senator as VP.

As for experience, Pres. Obama was certainly still a new senator, by comparison JFK had seven years as a senator and six as a representative, though he never served in the state's legislation.

George H.W. Bush was a House representative, an Ambassador, and liaison to China, and the Director of the CIA before he became president.

Bill Clinton was twice elected governor and was the state's attorney general.

The point is, there's a mixture of experiences even among the last few presidents.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 05:09 PM   #138
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Shine a pervy light on it Larry!

Quote:
One of the nation’s top pornographers is offering a $1 million bounty for the publishing rights to a different kind of booty.

Larry Flynt and his publication, Hustler Magazine, have taken out a full-page advertisement in today’s Washington Post offering the reward for anyone who can bring them information on Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s “unreleased tax returns and/or details of his offshore assets, bank accounts, and business partnerships.”

“What is he hiding?” the ad asks in bold font, and tells readers the cash reward will be paid to anyone they publish with verifiable documentation of the former governor’s financial records.

ABC
I certainly hope that President Obama at some point asks Mitt if he plans on eliminating the tax loopholes he uses, or if he just plans on eliminating the things that benefit the poor/middle class.
mcrain is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 05:18 PM   #139
Huntn
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
How was the 2008 Obama more qualified than Romney? If a former governor is unqualified, how is a junior senator qualified?

You're right. The Repubs are 50% to blame, which means the other 50% falls on the Dems. The problem is, neither side wants to compromise. They say the do, of course, but at the end of the day, they don't.
I could tell by the candidate that Obama had enough sense to govern at the top spot, not 100% sure, but I was comfortable and my suspicions were correct. This applies to me not you. In contrast I sense bad things about Romney. He's a doofus. These bad things are not imagined or partisan. I used to be a Republican and it would be nice to think there is one out there somewhere, not shunned by the party as too moderate who would be allowed to run.

I kind of disagree with you about Dems vs Republicans. I feel the Democrats have and will sacrifice to get something done. With the GOP it's a line in the sand and compromise in their view is seeing it their way. This has been amply demonstrated over the last 12 years.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 09:58 PM   #140
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
Early Reagan... He got a little out there in the late 80's...

JFK. While I wasn't alive, and though I don't agree with everything he did, I think he was a pretty good president.
So in other words, most Presidents of the last 50 years have not been worth voting for, is that what you are saying? That's either not a very good track record or points to how hard the job is. People tend to expect miracles from their Presidents I think. Kind of like praying to God. Strangely when God doesn't answer those prayers they are still okay with it, but if a President isn't meeting every single one of their needs they deem him a failure.

Quote:
I hear ya... but in a way, I kinda like people who are not so "refined" if that makes sense. There is a point when politicians become too smooth (at least in their own minds) and then they become slimey (Read: John Edwards). I'm not saying Obama is at that level, but I do think Romney has some presidential qualities about him.
The more he talks the less Presidential he seems. It's not Presidential to have these massive flip flops in position, sometimes even on the same DAY. A President needs to have an even steady hand. Romney is rash, prone to leaps and lapses in judgement and huge reverses in course. He also seems to not want to talk about the things he would do in any clarity what so ever. So, no. I don't think he would make a good President. A King maybe. But not a President.

Quote:
No, we aren't losing jobs hand over fist, but we aren't really gaining either. Every recession has been followed by a pretty quick uptick. In 4 years, Obama has only netted 300k jobs.

Auto bailout . . . great. We (the taxpayers) still own GM stock, and are set to lose around 27 BILLION dollars on the deal. Meanwhile the bailout was constructed so that the unions made out like bandits.

Personally, I let them go into bankruptcy. First off, that doesn't mean they stop production. They just have to redo their contracts - which would have affected the union pension plans. Would people lose their jobs? yes. Would it have sucked? Yes. But in the end, they still could come out of it okay, and we wouldn't be on the hook for billions of dollars.
The recession we were in was like no other. It cannot accurately be compared to other previous ones because the world is interconnected in different ways now. Things that would not have affected another countries economy before, now do. Additionally, technology and offshoring have made a lot of jobs in the USA, just up and disappear.

That being said, your comments are somewhat contradictory if you are complaining that not enough jobs are being generated but then suggest that the auto industry should have been allowed to lose even more. Where do you expect all these people to work?

Quote:
EA Healthcare reform! My company is going to stop their employer plan because it is going to be too expensive for them. That means I'm going to be paying more! AWESOME!!! Thanks healthcare reform!
No company that wants to stay competitive will be able to toss their health plan aside. Suspect your company is ran by a Republican who is trying to make some talking points. Like that Papa John Pizza guy.

Quote:
It is sooo awesome that both Nevada and New Hampshire (ENTIRE STATES) were granted exceptions.
Ah I see...when states are forced into a one-size-fits-all thing it's bad, but when they are given a choice it's bad too. Just can't win here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quote:
Agree to disagree. This president, along with his predecessor, have saddled me, and my children with MASSIVE debt who's only idea is to "tax the rich" and make them "pay their fair share".
The debt the current President has lumped on, is a direct result of the previous President. If it had not been incurred, millions would have gone hungry without Food Stamps or unemployment and the auto industry would have collapsed making the economy even worse than what we are experiencing now. Again, a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 10:14 PM   #141
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
I'm not a fan of Mitt by any stretch, but I do think it's a bit ridiculous that the press has spent more time arguing about Mitt's criticism of Obama's mishandling of the Middle East crisis than they did on Obama's mishandling of the Middle East crisis.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 10:23 PM   #142
Peace
macrumors P6
 
Peace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Space--The ONLY Frontier
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
I'm not a fan of Mitt by any stretch, but I do think it's a bit ridiculous that the press has spent more time arguing about Mitt's criticism of Obama's mishandling of the Middle East crisis than they did on Obama's mishandling of the Middle East crisis.
Other than using vague generalities what do you think would have been the "right" way to handle the middle east crisis ?

Specifics please.
Thank you.
Peace is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 11:05 PM   #143
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace View Post
Other than using vague generalities what do you think would have been the "right" way to handle the middle east crisis ?

Specifics please.
Thank you.
I would not have issued that apologetic statement from the embassy in Cairo. Someone pretty high up on the food chain had to have known that was going out. Maybe it wasn't President Obama, but perhaps it was Secretary Clinton. At the very least it was the ambassador to Egypt. We should investigate that to start.

We also should have had military protection of our ambassadors throughout the Middle East in Libya and Egypt. Whenever there is a coup, however "peaceful," there is the risk of anarchy. It's the first time in 33 years that an ambassador has been killed. Since then, we've seen revolutions in Afghanistan, Iraq, almost every Eastern European country, Russia, the massacre of Tiananmen Square, unrest in Latin America, and elsewhere. Somehow our Administrations, Democrat and Republican alike, have managed to keep our ambassadors safe until two days ago.

We don't apologize for our Constitution or our respect of the rights of free speech. Like it or not, it exists to protect the crazies as much as anyone else. All the fault lies with the killers, not with some idiot in Florida who posted a cheap video to YouTube.
KPOM is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 13, 2012, 11:54 PM   #144
BladesOfSteel
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
So in other words, most Presidents of the last 50 years have not been worth voting for, is that what you are saying? That's either not a very good track record or points to how hard the job is. People tend to expect miracles from their Presidents I think. Kind of like praying to God. Strangely when God doesn't answer those prayers they are still okay with it, but if a President isn't meeting every single one of their needs they deem him a failure.
I don't expect any miracles. I just think that the last few presidents have done more damage than good.

Quote:
The more he talks the less Presidential he seems. It's not Presidential to have these massive flip flops in position, sometimes even on the same DAY. A President needs to have an even steady hand. Romney is rash, prone to leaps and lapses in judgement and huge reverses in course. He also seems to not want to talk about the things he would do in any clarity what so ever. So, no. I don't think he would make a good President. A King maybe. But not a President.
Rash? that isn't the first word that I would use to describe Romney.

Just so you, and everyone else here knows, I'm not in the Romney camp. Obviously, I'm more conservative than most here, but unfortunately, that leaves me without a party.

Quote:
The recession we were in was like no other. It cannot accurately be compared to other previous ones because the world is interconnected in different ways now. Things that would not have affected another countries economy before, now do. Additionally, technology and offshoring have made a lot of jobs in the USA, just up and disappear.

That being said, your comments are somewhat contradictory if you are complaining that not enough jobs are being generated but then suggest that the auto industry should have been allowed to lose even more. Where do you expect all these people to work?
My comments about jobs weren't contradictory. It was brought up that the nation isn't losing 600k jobs a month. Which we aren't. I'm not debating that. However, during Obama's 3+ years he's only netted a total of +300k jobs. Not exactly the best.

The same conversation brought up how he saved the auto industry. Which I'll still contend that GM should not have been helped. The billions of dollars that were lost... the union favoritism... American Airlines went through bankruptcy just a short time prior... how come we didn't bail them out?

Quote:
No company that wants to stay competitive will be able to toss their health plan aside. Suspect your company is ran by a Republican who is trying to make some talking points. Like that Papa John Pizza guy.
I can't tell you how stupid of a comment this is. Yep, you nailed it. My company is going to ditch the healthcare because they want it to be a talking point... nailed it.
Quote:
Ah I see...when states are forced into a one-size-fits-all thing it's bad, but when they are given a choice it's bad too. Just can't win here. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Whoa there. Again, I was told that Obamacare was something that Obama did that was so awesome for us. If Obamacare was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why are WHOLE states asking for exemptions? Why are unions being granted exemptions? Why are the lawmakers exempt?

Quote:
The debt the current President has lumped on, is a direct result of the previous President. If it had not been incurred, millions would have gone hungry without Food Stamps or unemployment and the auto industry would have collapsed making the economy even worse than what we are experiencing now. Again, a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.
Crap... I totally forgot. It was Bush's fault.

Give me a break. It is like when you Obama lovers have nothing to argue, that's your fail safe... Why did Obama say just yesterday that Egypt wasn't an ally?? ummm... BUSH'S FAULT! Bush made him say it!

When Obama farts, is it Dubya's fault?

You just let me know when Obama will finally be responsible for something - unless you actually think he can do no wrong!
__________________
Let's just say I own a lot of apple products.
BladesOfSteel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 02:33 AM   #145
MadeTheSwitch
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
I would not have issued that apologetic statement from the embassy in Cairo. Someone pretty high up on the food chain had to have known that was going out. Maybe it wasn't President Obama, but perhaps it was Secretary Clinton. At the very least it was the ambassador to Egypt. We should investigate that to start.
From where I am sitting, there was nothing wrong with that statement. My god, all this penis waving that so many of you seem to want to do all the time. We already have the biggest military in the world. Weak we are not. So tired of hearing absurd comments about apologizing.

Quote:
We also should have had military protection of our ambassadors throughout the Middle East in Libya and Egypt. .
I do agree with you there, 100%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
Rash? that isn't the first word that I would use to describe Romney.
Yes, his statements about Libya were said in haste, he made comments on Sunday morning about preexisting conditions that were refuted and reversed by the end of that same day, and there have been similar reversals before. That reeks of rash and poorly thought out decisions. The last thing you would want in a leader.

Quote:
My comments about jobs weren't contradictory. It was brought up that the nation isn't losing 600k jobs a month. Which we aren't. I'm not debating that. However, during Obama's 3+ years he's only netted a total of +300k jobs. Not exactly the best.
I understand that. But saying that GM should not be helped and that more people should be out of work would only ADD to that number. It is the same problem that people who constantly call for smaller government ignore...they complain about unemployment but never consider that their ideas would only ADD to that unemployment number. So I will ask again....where are all these people supposed to work?? No one EVER seems to have an answer to that question.

Quote:
American Airlines went through bankruptcy just a short time prior... how come we didn't bail them out?
AA wasn't going to take down the entire domestic airline industry with it. That's why.

Quote:
I can't tell you how stupid of a comment this is. Yep, you nailed it. My company is going to ditch the healthcare because they want it to be a talking point... nailed it.
And I think your comment was equally stupid. So now we are even. The idea that a company is going to give up it's health plan because of Obamacare and be less competitive and attractive to employees is ludicrous.

Quote:
Whoa there. Again, I was told that Obamacare was something that Obama did that was so awesome for us. If Obamacare was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why are WHOLE states asking for exemptions?
Cause some people (like you) think it's a bad thing? Because some people like options? Another ludicrous notion by conservatives...whine that you aren't given a choice bash when you are. (Just like the welfare thing) There is no winning with that mindset. Again, damned if you don't damned if you do. There is no pleasing some people.

Quote:
Why are unions being granted exemptions? Why are the lawmakers exempt?
Don't know. Write your Congressman and ask them.

Quote:
Crap... I totally forgot. It was Bush's fault.

Give me a break. It is like when you Obama lovers have nothing to argue, that's your fail safe.
Ah...going in to avoidance mode I see. Unlike you though, I am not just a fan of Obama, I am a fan of reality. The reality people like you seem to want to ignore. If you think the current person in the chair is to blame for the previous person sitting there and that's okay, then I want to go out to dinner with you so I can stick you with the bill after I get up and leave. Conservatives and Republicans can't seem to acknowledge that the previous eight years before Obama even took place. But try as they might to make him disappear (from the convention even), the fact is the history of the U.S. did not start in January of 2009. People like me keep saying that it was Bush's fault, BECAUSE IT WAS. You don't deal with the ramifications of what the previous administration left you by magic. It takes real dollars on the line. And it takes TIME too. It would also help if there was not an obstructionist congress in the way.
MadeTheSwitch is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 02:55 AM   #146
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
I would not have issued that apologetic statement from the embassy in Cairo.
Muslims don't like people attacking their religion, so the Egyptian embassy putting out a statement sounds normal.

I'm sure it was the Egyptian ambassador who did it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
not with some idiot in Florida who posted a cheap video to YouTube.
All they did was make this statement, but dressed up slightly prettier.
__________________
Actually it does make sense. Man created god, so if we exist, He exists. - obeygiant
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 09:38 AM   #147
mcrain
Banned
 
mcrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Illinois
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
I would not have issued that apologetic statement from the embassy in Cairo.
Out of curiosity, do you support the bigotted video that led to the unrest and its message? If not, how would you have said that doesn't represent the views of the American people? It wasn't an "apology" so much as it was a statement that the views of that film weren't the views of the American people. Do you disagree with that?

Quote:
We don't apologize for our Constitution or our respect of the rights of free speech.
WHO APOLOGIZED FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Quote the statement and show me where anyone apologized for our rights, including the 1st Amendment. What you will find is a statement saying the views in that film are reprehensible and don't represent the views of the American government or the American people. Seriously, you need to stop listening to the crackpots on the right who are characterizing the statement as something it isn't. Read it for yourself. In fact, quote it here and you analyze the actual working. I'd like your take on it. (If you follow typical right wing argument style, you won't, but will just reiterate the same disputed and wrong talking points. Please prove me wrong).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BladesOfSteel View Post
I don't expect any miracles. I just think that the last few presidents have done more damage than good.
I agree, Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. were terrible. Clinton was the one exception. President Obama has accomplished amazing things, but done so in a time where we are suffering as a result of 20 years of terrible top-down fiscal policy.

Quote:
However, during Obama's 3+ years he's only netted a total of +300k jobs. Not exactly the best.
If we lost a *****-load of jobs as Obama was coming into office, and he has netted +300k jobs, how many jobs have been created? How much is a *****-load + 300K?

Quote:
I can't tell you how stupid of a comment this is. Yep, you nailed it. My company is going to ditch the healthcare because they want it to be a talking point... nailed it.
Actually, it's probably more likely that your company is using Obamacare as the scapegoat to screw over its employees. Ask your CEO to explain what part of Obamacare is forcing them out of providing healthcare. Demand specifics. If they can't provide a real answer, then you're just getting screwed and that's the excuse (they sure as heck aren't going to say they are cutting your healthcare because they want to pay their shareholders/officers/directors more money).

Quote:
Whoa there. Again, I was told that Obamacare was something that Obama did that was so awesome for us. If Obamacare was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why are WHOLE states asking for exemptions? Why are unions being granted exemptions? Why are the lawmakers exempt?
Why don't you know what you're talking about? Why do you think the "exemptions" are exemptions from complying with Obamacare? Do you even know what the exemptions are?
Quote:
BACKGROUND: The passage of the Affordable Care Act included the promise that Americans can keep their current health insurance. As part of this promise, the law provided flexibility to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) in writing regulations limiting annual benefit caps on essential benefits to “ensure that access to needed services is made available with a minimal impact on premiums.” In order to preserve existing coverage, the HHS regulations allow plans with an existing annual cap under the new limits to apply for a waiver. This is vital to making sure that workers don’t lose their employer-sponsored healthcare coverage.

•The waiver process is a key part of healthcare reform because it helps ensure that workers won’t lose their employer-provided health coverage.


•It’s important to remember that the coverage we're talking about is low cost plans that cover low-wage workers, some of whom have never had healthcare coverage in their lives.
•Example: Houston janitors. Most janitors in Texas don’t have any health insurance, but thanks to the SEIU Fund and this waiver, the janitors in downtown Houston can get the health care they need, including free primary care through the Houston Service Workers Clinic. Link
In other words, the waivers are granted based on criteria designed to prevent the loss of employer provided coverage. You don't get a waiver from compliance, you get a waiver for policies that exist but don't have the same terms as the ACA requires.

Quote:
Crap... I totally forgot. It was Bush's fault.
Yep, now you're getting it. Keep saying that over and over again, and remember that you can pull that out anytime you want because it's probably true. (edit - a variation that also works and is equally if not more true is "it's the republican's fault.")

Quote:
You just let me know when Obama will finally be responsible for something - unless you actually think he can do no wrong!
Obama is responsible for the things he has passed. You can't blame him for the damage that happened because the things that he proposed were blocked by an intransigent congress. They didn't pass the jobs bills. They refused to pass the debt limit extension. They refuse to work with the president on anything. Despite that, the President has accomplished a lot and managed a pretty amazing turnaround of the economy. It's not that he isn't responsible, but you have to consider the circumstances when he took office and the degree of cooperation he received from the opposing party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadeTheSwitch View Post
AA wasn't going to take down the entire domestic airline industry with it. That's why.
Oh, and AA wasn't liquidating, it was restructuring. GM was closing.

Quote:
People like me keep saying that it was Bush's fault, BECAUSE IT WAS. You don't deal with the ramifications of what the previous administration left you by magic. It takes real dollars on the line. And it takes TIME too. It would also help if there was not an obstructionist congress in the way.
See KPOM, "it was Bush's fault" almost always works and is almost always true.

Last edited by mcrain; Sep 14, 2012 at 09:46 AM.
mcrain is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 10:14 AM   #148
Huntn
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
I would not have issued that apologetic statement from the embassy in Cairo.
Allow me to assist you in your understanding of the situation:

Mittens, his Campaign, (or maybe his Campaign first) followed by Ryan decided to criticize a statement put out by U.S. Embassy personnel trying to distance official U.S. policy and views from a crackpot inflammatory anti-muslim movie that was causing widespread unrest and public protests in the entire region. Except Romney described it as an apology for "American Values". Yeah we promote free speech, but is this movie what we want to promote as our values??? LOL. Stike 1.

His timeline was wrong. Strike 2. The Embassy statement was released before the U.S. Consulate was attacked by an organized, opportunistic militia/possibly terrorist group. He implied that after the Consulate was attacked and 4 Americans killed (I also heard, along with 9 Libyan guards protecting the Consolate), that the Obama Administration through our Embassy apologized for our "American Values"!! This would be too funny if not so tragic. The two events are not connected other than (apparently) the protests set up a situation where it was convenient to attack the Consulate. Romney's initial criticism, followed by reinforcing his view in front or reporters the following day, displayed an appalling lack of restraint, good judgement, and basic understanding of the facts. Strike 3. A little too fast out the gate and he STILL has not apologized for ****ing this up so badly. Strike 4- A candidate for U.S. Presidency, not privy to sensitive/classified information elects to inject himself into the middle of U.S. foreign policy during a crisis questioning our leadership in front of the world. I think he hopes it will blow over, just like his tax returns... I imagine him in a future confrontation with the Russians and pushing the button. Oops.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.

Last edited by Huntn; Sep 14, 2012 at 10:22 AM.
Huntn is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 10:25 AM   #149
KPOM
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrain View Post
Out of curiosity, do you support the bigotted video that led to the unrest and its message? If not, how would you have said that doesn't represent the views of the American people? It wasn't an "apology" so much as it was a statement that the views of that film weren't the views of the American people. Do you disagree with that?

WHO APOLOGIZED FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT? Quote the statement and show me where anyone apologized for our rights, including the 1st Amendment. What you will find is a statement saying the views in that film are reprehensible and don't represent the views of the American government or the American people. Seriously, you need to stop listening to the crackpots on the right who are characterizing the statement as something it isn't. Read it for yourself. In fact, quote it here and you analyze the actual working. I'd like your take on it. (If you follow typical right wing argument style, you won't, but will just reiterate the same disputed and wrong talking points. Please prove me wrong).
First of all, I'm not a right winger. I'm also not a closed-minded "open-minded liberal" like you who worships every Democrat because he has a D after his name. Bush Sr. was far more like Clinton than Reagan. I look at the eras as "Ford/Carter," "Reagan," "Bush/Clinton" Bush II. The jury is still out on whether Obama will have his own era or if he's just the third term of Bush II. Bush II started a lot of the "Obama" bailouts that I hate, and Obama's continued lots of the Bush policies that I despise (like the invasive TSA inspections, warrantless searches). Economically every president in my lifetime has been an interventionist. The difference between Obama, Bush II, and even Clinton is mostly on degree, and areas of emphasis. Clinton, for all his tough talk, let Enron and Worldcom happen under his watch. They blew up in Bush's first year, but the actual frauds went undetected by Arthur Levitt's supposedly tough SEC under Clinton.


To the original point, even our incredible president who's done such amazing things pulled back on the statement from the embassy, absolving himself of any blame. It looked bad. All we had to say was nothing. Why give the crackpots any more publicity by even acknowledging the video? If someone wants to storm an embassy or kill people because of a dumb video or a cartoon, the fault lies with them, and not the cartoonist or poster of a video on YouTube. We don't need to make excuses for the exercise of free speech. The right reaction would have been to condemn violence at our embassies and not dignify the video by vilifying it.

"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

This comes across to me as apologetic. The right to free speech and free exercise of religion also means the right to attack the religious beliefs of others. We are supposed to have separation of church and state, and not having the state take sides in a religious dispute as they did here. "Normal" people do that all the time when attacking cults. Heck, it's perfectly acceptable in the US to mock Terry Jones, who ostensibly is simply practicing his own religion. When it comes down to it, all religions are dumb. Getting into arguments over which religion is dumber is sort of like arguing over which professional wrestler is better.
KPOM is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Sep 14, 2012, 11:31 AM   #150
Huntn
Thread Starter
macrumors 604
 
Huntn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The Misty Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post
"We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."

This comes across to me as apologetic. The right to free speech and free exercise of religion also means the right to attack the religious beliefs of others. We are supposed to have separation of church and state, and not having the state take sides in a religious dispute as they did here. "Normal" people do that all the time when attacking cults. Heck, it's perfectly acceptable in the US to mock Terry Jones, who ostensibly is simply practicing his own religion. When it comes down to it, all religions are dumb. Getting into arguments over which religion is dumber is sort of like arguing over which professional wrestler is better.
Let's forget for a minute when the Embassy statement was issued and according to Romney we are apologizing for our American Values and First Amendment rights.

Wouldn't you agree that although we have the right of free speech, it can be used in an undesirable manner, in a manner that can be inappropriate, and can hurt our (the U.S.'s) International relationships?

And you feel that it is bad diplomacy for the U.S. Administration through our Embassies to publicly state when they disagree with the intent of a statement/video/movie created for the sole purpose of causing tension and ill will? If so, please explain. I don't see an adequate explanation so far.
__________________
The modern business ethos: "I'm worth it, you're not, and I'm a glutton!"
MBP, 2.2 GHz intel i7, Radeon HD 6750M, Bootcamp: W7.
PC: i5 4670k, 8GB RAM, Asus GTX670 (2GB VRAM), W7.
Huntn is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mitt Romney has 'Romnesia' 184550 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 34 Oct 20, 2012 10:41 PM
G.W. Bush Is Now More Favorable Than Mitt Romney Prof. Politics, Religion, Social Issues 3 Sep 28, 2012 03:50 AM
Mitt Romney raising taxes? dscuber9000 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 33 Aug 6, 2012 02:54 PM
Hello Mr Leader. Mitt visits the Limeys Queso Politics, Religion, Social Issues 53 Jul 28, 2012 12:55 PM
Mitt Romney and all his money... JMB1911 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 99 Jul 12, 2012 02:36 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC