What has Obama done for you?

[Katganistan]

Tripling is being quite generous.
Obama has racked up more debt than every other POTUS combined.

While some of his goals are quite noble actually, (ObamaCare, being the most obvious) we don't have the funds to support any of it.

Please offer PROOF that he tripled the national debt. You cannot make statements like that without backing them up.

National debt:
12/31/2008 BUSH $10,699,804,864,61
12/31/2011 OBAMA $15,125,898,976,397

Source: http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

There is my evidence that he did NOT triple the debt. Where is yours that he did?

Seems like the only thing rethuglicans can do any more is lie and attack women and the poor.\

Watch it. That's trolling. And posting it repeatedly is spamming.

[Earth Empire]

Nothing at all. We face a new future, we either do or die. I don't care if we get a liberal or conservative, just a true leader who can fix the US and bring us back.

[Hittanryan]

I'm betting a Canadian 50 cent piece that the people elected to replace them would be just as bad over time, if not worse.

That's actually his point. He's suggesting they shouldn't be given enough time to become just as bad. I believe he's arguing for term limits. Frankly, he's right.

Definitely, though term limits aren't without problems (lack of experienced officials, lack of responsiveness when you don't have to get reelected, etc.). Consecutive term limits (Serve for X number of consecutive terms, take a break, then run again later) help to mitigate some of those issues IMO.

[Hittanryan]

He's a holdover from the Regan years of terror if that's any indication of just how ill-suited to the task he is. Kennedy is another blight that should be excised from the judiciary as well, he's just as bad. Why he wasn't dismissed as soon as the ruling on Citizens United vs FEC was handed down is beyond me.

you dont really not understand why these 2 havent been dismissed, right?

Yeah...not sure where he got the idea that you can fire a Supreme Court justice. That's not how the Supreme Court works, at all.

[Lancaster of Wessex]

Nothing at all. We face a new future, we either do or die. I don't care if we get a liberal or conservative, just a true leader who can fix the US and bring us back.

No President can "fix" America; they can certainly improve upon it, and build, but the US, as since day one, is and forever will be impacted by global events. Not everything, of course, is within their hands.

[Confederation of American States]

Yeah he did, Libya, some say that doesn't count but thats bull. There were in fact troops on the ground, there was US military involvement/missle strikes/ causulties caused by american involvement, etc etc etc etc etc. He has also continued the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and while some say that he has ended Iraq thats a lie because since he has been in office the troops may be decreasing but Private Military Contractors numbers have been increased even more so than what Bush did, same goes with Afghanistan. He's also sent troops to Yemen, Egypt, all over Africa. He's also about to launch wars with Iran and Syria and arguably has already began with Syria...but enough about that.

What has Obama done for me?
Well first off he shredded my constitution (not just him Bush did too and a number of presidents before going way back). He has gotten rid of due process by signing the National Defense Authorization Act which has a provision that allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens without trial. He has given an executive order that allows the president to seize the entire economy, private property, as well as draft and intern citizens into work brigades and the military in the event of a "national defense emergency" which the order says can happen during peacetime. He has been the first president to assassinate a U.S. citizens with Al-Awlaki and his brother. Obama has continued the Keynesian policy of destroying the economy and done absolutely nothing to help it. He has called me a conspiracy theorist, extremist, possible homegrown terrorist, and told me I can sit in the back of the bus in numerous speeches since I am an avid liberty lover, constitutionalist, and libertarian. Should I continue? Basically he's destroyed the republic more than Bush did. Its like FDR on steroids...

You have sources of all of this, of course. I'm sure you just forgot to link them in your rush to set us all straight. Take your time but please, be very specific.

NDAA Signing and indefinite dentition: http://www.aclu.org/national-security/p ... n-bill-law
Executive Order National Defense Resources Prepardness (Seizing the entire economy, property, and people): http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... eparedness
Obama and DoJ declaring power to kill any citizen they want: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... l_doctrine
more on them declaring power to assassinate any citizen: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world ... wanted=all
Obama assassinates US citizen and his brother: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/ ... us-citizen
Obama Presiding over the UN Security Council (which is illegal under the constitution as the president cannot serve a foreign agency or take any title other than president I can get specific with where in the constitution if you really want to walk that path): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTB-LDWoETA
Panetta commits treason and says that Military gets authorization from UN: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovuWJQrwpIw
more: http://www.infowars.com/coup-detat-pent ... eremonial/
more: http://www.republicmagazine.com/news/pa ... syria.html

I have more sources than that for each thing that I mentioned those where just the first in my bookmarks so I pulled them for conveince. You can look all this stuff up for yourself if you really want to. I say things unless I have a source to back it up and with everything stated above I have MULTIPLE sources.

[The Black Forrest]

Going to ignore them sitting on their hands for three months and causing the disaster with substandard parts and work on the well?

And me, a troll? Good luck with that one.

I bet he thinks the dispersants actually did something besides just making the oil soluble in water, and thus harder to see. Gotta watch that PR, after all. What they don't see won't cause them to boycott, even if it might give them cancer down the line and kill several other industries. I wonder if he's reached down into the sand at the bottom of the Gulf lately, the oil's still there.

Extremely toxic dispersant at that.

This was not done to cleanup. It's more about the possible damages. As I read somewhere part of the measure is the size of the cloud. If it's dispearsed then you have to guessitmate.

It didn't clean as now the effects are starting to appear. Reefs are dying, etc.

We even have a generalite who lost much and told stories about BP. Some good; many bad.

BP is hardly a shining knight of good intent in this matter.

[Jocabia]

That's actually his point. He's suggesting they shouldn't be given enough time to become just as bad. I believe he's arguing for term limits. Frankly, he's right.

Definitely, though term limits aren't without problems (lack of experienced officials, lack of responsiveness when you don't have to get reelected, etc.). Consecutive term limits (Serve for X number of consecutive terms, take a break, then run again later) help to mitigate some of those issues IMO.

Nah, I think it's the accumulation of power that is the problem. Yes, you run into a lack of responsiveness issue, but they are still party members so you still have the effect on the party, which can hurt your bottom line in the long run. By not allowing people people to accumulate so much power you allow more room for junior politicians to make a difference and much more of an element of change in leadership which is a good thing.

I don't want politicians that are slavishly committed to promising whatever the electorate wants. That gave us Romney. We want leaders. People who know that doing right by the country overall is what sets the stage for the success of your party and your constituents. That's what we need. Leaders. Leaders aren't created by incumbency. It's actually more or less prevented by it.

[Swkoll]

Since I'm a white, vaguely conservative male who lives in a Southern US State? Exactly Zip. I'm the type the democrats belittle and ignore.

Well, I mean, you guys did elect Bush

Debatable.

[Confederation of American States]

You probably don't. I wasn't fully aware of your views on government until subsidies until I started to read the rest of your posts.

Probably?

You still don't know me, apparently.

I can tell by your flag that you don't approve of subsidies. Gotta say, I really like that flag

[The Black Forrest]

you dont really not understand why these 2 havent been dismissed, right?

Yeah...not sure where he got the idea that you can fire a Supreme Court justice. That's not how the Supreme Court works, at all.

Indeed.

Some of the scary solutions I have heard other people suggest are to make their positions; elected positions.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm betting a Canadian 50 cent piece that the people elected to replace them would be just as bad over time, if not worse.

That's actually his point. He's suggesting they shouldn't be given enough time to become just as bad. I believe he's arguing for term limits. Frankly, he's right.

So, a rather enthusiastic and 'true believer' tour guide made an interesting point about term limits on a recent tour of the California state capital (look, when someone is visiting Sacramento there isn't much to show them...)...she talked about the term limits in the California legislature that essentially limited them to six years in the office. Which meant that when they arrived, they didn't know much about how things worked and by the time they got the hang of it, they had to leave. This meant that most of the people as they arrive had to rely on staffers and lobbyists to guide them...which, to her estimation, meant that in our fervor to limit our politicians we've ceded essentially power to the power brokers and lobbyists by making our constant new legislature rely on them for assistance. That we've ejected people good at their job along with the bad while accomplishing little.

Now, granted, the views of a true believing tour guide are not exactly empirical, but it was an interesting take.

[UFF]

Absolutely nothing

[The Black Forrest]

Absolutely nothing

What? Did you expect him to clean your house?

[Ashmoria]

Absolutely nothing

you arent a US citizen then?

[Ashmoria]

Absolutely nothing

you arent a US citizen then?

[Ratateague]

Extended the Pell Grant, so that I can continue schooling in this terrible economy. Thankfully, without applying for a school loan (of which 2 million senior citizens still haven't payed off).

[Katganistan]

And not the ones who keep blocking them? Nice.

Yep, the buck stops where again?

With the folks responsible for blocking stuff.

[Jocabia]

That's actually his point. He's suggesting they shouldn't be given enough time to become just as bad. I believe he's arguing for term limits. Frankly, he's right.

So, a rather enthusiastic and 'true believer' tour guide made an interesting point about term limits on a recent tour of the California state capital (look, when someone is visiting Sacramento there isn't much to show them...)...she talked about the term limits in the California legislature that essentially limited them to six years in the office. Which meant that when they arrived, they didn't know much about how things worked and by the time they got the hang of it, they had to leave. This meant that most of the people as they arrive had to rely on staffers and lobbyists to guide them...which, to her estimation, meant that in our fervor to limit our politicians we've ceded essentially power to the power brokers and lobbyists by making our constant new legislature rely on them for assistance. That we've ejected people good at their job along with the bad while accomplishing little.

Now, granted, the views of a true believing tour guide are not exactly empirical, but it was an interesting take.

By why does it work in such a way that it takes 6 years to figure out how to create and enact legislation? Would it take you that long?

Part of the problem is that when you change things so drastically, you get a vacuum of power temporarily and it's no surprise that someone close to the process stepped in and stole it. However, that much turnover means that there is a constant vying for power, so there is no reason for those politicians to continue to cede it to lobbyists and professional office support.

I've always believed that congress at every level should be less active. Most laws are made and passed for the purpose of being reactive and playing politics. It's in our interest to slow down that process so that it's less reactive and more about a general trend. I don't want people to pass a bunch of new laws due to the Trayvon Martin case. If Florida needs new laws then they should be equally important in 4 years as they are today. So a slower process with people who have more to prove and are more enthusiastic is more likely to push true ideals through. Obviously, being freshman doesn't automatically make you less corrupt (see the teabaggers), but it does make it so it's more likely that the country is pushing for better performing parties since they are the consistent element. So you force Republicans to answer for the Bush years instead of saying "it wasn't us". And you force Democrats to create a party-wide agenda and work together at it. And you even open the door to rising third parties with good platforms.

Frankly, I think 6 years is enough time for anyone to do what they came to do and get out. At every level and in every political office.

[Katganistan]

He's a holdover from the Regan years of terror if that's any indication of just how ill-suited to the task he is. Kennedy is another blight that should be excised from the judiciary as well, he's just as bad. Why he wasn't dismissed as soon as the ruling on Citizens United vs FEC was handed down is beyond me.

you dont really not understand why these 2 havent been dismissed, right?

Disagreeing with them -- and I do -- does not mean they are guilty of misconduct and need removing.

[Shotgun91]

Let's see!

Tried to push through a few internet censorship bills...backdoor deals since most of you don't hear about them.

Tripled the US national debt, and has no plans to reduce it.

Cut the Keystone pipeline off from Canada, now we've taken our oil to China and refined it at home.

Failed on his healthcare policy.

Went into Libya without congressional approval, and thus can be impeached for it. (And yes there is a congressional hearing going on currently regarding this you can look it up)

Passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a direct violation of the first amendment and it puts journalists, photojournalists, and bloggers at risk for arrest if we speak out against the US government.

I'd say he's done some pretty stupid things in his terms, whilst not as stupid at GW Bush. I give Bush credit for getting congressional approval before he went in on both wars that the US started.

[Ashmoria]

you dont really not understand why these 2 havent been dismissed, right?

Disagreeing with them -- and I do -- does not mean they are guilty of misconduct and need removing.

exactly.

as long as they make their rulings based on their understanding of the constitution its just my tough luck that they didnt rule the way i wished they would.

[Farnhamia]

So, a rather enthusiastic and 'true believer' tour guide made an interesting point about term limits on a recent tour of the California state capital (look, when someone is visiting Sacramento there isn't much to show them...)...she talked about the term limits in the California legislature that essentially limited them to six years in the office. Which meant that when they arrived, they didn't know much about how things worked and by the time they got the hang of it, they had to leave. This meant that most of the people as they arrive had to rely on staffers and lobbyists to guide them...which, to her estimation, meant that in our fervor to limit our politicians we've ceded essentially power to the power brokers and lobbyists by making our constant new legislature rely on them for assistance. That we've ejected people good at their job along with the bad while accomplishing little.

Now, granted, the views of a true believing tour guide are not exactly empirical, but it was an interesting take.

By why does it work in such a way that it takes 6 years to figure out how to create and enact legislation? Would it take you that long?

Part of the problem is that when you change things so drastically, you get a vacuum of power temporarily and it's no surprise that someone close to the process stepped in and stole it. However, that much turnover means that there is a constant vying for power, so there is no reason for those politicians to continue to cede it to lobbyists and professional office support.

I've always believed that congress at every level should be less active. Most laws are made and passed for the purpose of being reactive and playing politics. It's in our interest to slow down that process so that it's less reactive and more about a general trend. I don't want people to pass a bunch of new laws due to the Trayvon Martin case. If Florida needs new laws then they should be equally important in 4 years as they are today. So a slower process with people who have more to prove and are more enthusiastic is more likely to push true ideals through. Obviously, being freshman doesn't automatically make you less corrupt (see the teabaggers), but it does make it so it's more likely that the country is pushing for better performing parties since they are the consistent element. So you force Republicans to answer for the Bush years instead of saying "it wasn't us". And you force Democrats to create a party-wide agenda and work together at it. And you even open the door to rising third parties with good platforms.

Frankly, I think 6 years is enough time for anyone to do what they came to do and get out. At every level and in every political office.

I beg to disagree. I don't want amateurs, even well-meaning ones, running the country. Not only do term limits hand over power to lobbyists, they give us single-issue representatives, people who make no effort to work with their colleagues and compromise because they know they'll be out in six years (or whatever). Term limits are the lazy person's answer to perceived problems with government.

[Laerod]

Tripled the US national debt,

Why does this keep getting parroted?

and has no plans to reduce it.

Buffett Rule.

[Ashmoria]

Let's see!

Tried to push through a few internet censorship bills...backdoor deals since most of you don't hear about them.

Tripled the US national debt, and has no plans to reduce it.

Cut the Keystone pipeline off from Canada, now we've taken our oil to China and refined it at home.

Failed on his healthcare policy.

Went into Libya without congressional approval, and thus can be impeached for it. (And yes there is a congressional hearing going on currently regarding this you can look it up)

Passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which is a direct violation of the first amendment and it puts journalists, photojournalists, and bloggers at risk for arrest if we speak out against the US government.

I'd say he's done some pretty stupid things in his terms, whilst not as stupid at GW Bush. I give Bush credit for getting congressional approval before he went in on both wars that the US started.

wow thats amazingly wrong. you might oughta study up on this stuff. it will make you feel much better when you find out how little of what you posted is real.