President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[steveo777]

The schools that have implemented the federal government's "common core" lesson planning and guides have stuff in there that would make your hair stand on end. It's has a liberal and socialist viewpoint on many topics. Not all school systems are using it but I understand the list is growing. Their certainly not teaching American history about freedom and liberty like they did when I was in school.

If my kids were still at home, I would not be sending them to the public schools. I don't care if I would need to take a second job, they would be privately educated. The progressives are starting with our kids, I fear. I hope you can see where this is all heading. Parents need to start paying attention and not just trusting that just because their kids are in school their minds are being fed the right kinds of things.

[The Sushi Hunter]

I do think wages are too low in some regard. It really depends on the sector. A McDonalds operation can better absorb higher wages than a semi-successful restaurant or dry cleaner. I think a higher minimum wage can hurt a lot of mom and pops.

Maybe minimum wages should based on profit margins. Say $7.25 for the "just-barely-profitable" shops and up to $15.00 for the hugely profitable shops. So Jim's Bar and Grill pays $7.25 and McDonalds pays $12 to $15 or so.

And I think there should be a factor for publicly traded companies, based on performance. Stock-holders are treated far more favorably than employees. I get why, but it's upside down to me.

Fact is, there are a TON of profits out there going a lot of places that are not the American family, the ones doing the work. It's disgusting how big the gap grows and grows between the rich and poor. A lot of that is based on the policies of our government and a lot is based on the policies of business. And right now, no one seems all that concerned about the sheer number of people leaving the work force and those being pushed to part time. I've never seen an administration with so little focus on the working class.

I know I normally spew the conservative economic views here and I believe capitalism is the only sustainable way of life, but there has to be a fairer set of rules. And by that I don't mean endless, mean-spirited regulations meant to cripple noble industries. I mean a much fairer tax code, better jobs and wages, and government out of the way otherwise. We have to do better.

McDonald's jobs are not meant to be a career. If someone is working there at 40 years old, then shame on them for not striving to advance themselves. They got what they earned. I worked fast food in my last couple years of high school so I could afford going out on dates, buying clothes, record albums, gas, etc.

Exactly. This is what McDonald's and fast food jobs are meant for, kids in high school and/or kids just starting out in college for extra spending money on the side. The only fast food place I worked at was when I was in high school. With the exception of the store manager, a few of the swing and shift managers and the adult mentally disabled workers during the weekday breakfast shift, everyone else working there was under 20 years old.

These assholes working fast food now for a living with kids and shit and wanting to strike are probably those same shitbags who spent their entire high school years just attending cooking class and hiding out around campus doing their dope. Now they're out bitching about not being able to make a living. Join a union, that'll save them.

[The Sushi Hunter]

McDonald's jobs are not meant to be a career. If someone is working there at 40 years old, then shame on them for not striving to advance themselves. They got what they earned. I worked fast food in my last couple years of high school so I could afford going out on dates, buying clothes, record albums, gas, etc.

I agree. Minimum wage jobs are not meant as a "life long" career. People need to strive to improve their working skills to improve their paycheck. If your unmotivated to do so, then you will be stuck in that minimum wage job. Doing an across the board minimum wage increase to $15HR as some have suggested would kill small businesses. It would be better if the focus was on improving our educational system so people have a better chance of getting jobs above minimum wage. The argument that the reason people are on food stamps is due to government mandated minimum wage requirements are set too low is a cop-out. Government mandates and programs do nothing to motivate a individual to improve themselves.

And you bring me to my next point: What are the teachers, that are training the teachers, that are teaching our kids, teaching them? I'd be very concerned about that at this point. Are they teaching them anti-america propaganda, are they creating more liberals....more entitelist society, just what are they saying in those class rooms? It really is a question worth asking. People want God out of our schools, want God off of our money and preach to kids, when disciplined, "YOU CALL 911!" Even Obama has instructed teachers to not discipline black children. Why!? Obama is a bad role model for everyone.

Right again. Among other fucked up things, they are teaching kids in school that it's "normal" for a man to jab his crank into another man's asshole and "it's ok to sexually experiment" before confirming if your a homo or straight. They are also handing out birth control (condums, patch, etc.) Teachers are also bullying kids who come from a republican family value background.

[slucero]

You guys have to look at the bigger picture...

Whenever the primacy of the USD is threatened, the parties agree.

because:

• the Saud family has been funneling billions into the Arab Spring insurgencies
• the Saud family controls OPEC, and OPEC settles oil purchases in USD.
• Oil settlements in USD give the fiat USD real value. (without the need for dollars to settle oil purchases.. the world has no need for the dollar as reserve currency.)

As long as the above continues... In return the US provides covert and overt (read: military) support for the Saudi's political goals and keeping the Saud family in power. It is why they have a token military and the US intelligence and military apparatus are always, in some way involved in their conflicts. The Saudi's want Assad gone, and they (via OPEC) guaranteed the efficacy of the dollar as reserve when they agreed to use only $USD to settle oil purchases. This in effect gives "value" to the fiat USD

and why BOTH parties, whist putting on a show.. eventually always agree.

[steveo777]

You guys have to look at the bigger picture...

Whenever the primacy of the USD is threatened, the parties agree.

because:

• the Saud family has been funneling billions into the Arab Spring insurgencies
• the Saud family controls OPEC, and OPEC settles oil purchases in USD.
• Oil settlements in USD give the fiat USD real value. (without the need for dollars to settle oil purchases.. the world has no need for the dollar as reserve currency.)

As long as the above continues... In return the US provides covert and overt (read: military) support for the Saudi's political goals and keeping the Saud family in power. It is why they have a token military and the US intelligence and military apparatus are always, in some way involved in their conflicts. The Saudi's want Assad gone, and they (via OPEC) guaranteed the efficacy of the dollar as reserve when they agreed to use only $USD to settle oil purchases. This in effect gives "value" to the fiat USD

and why BOTH parties, whist putting on a show.. eventually always agree.

Makes sense. Most people in this country don't want another war. This might explain why B.O. is so hell bent on having one anyway. It will be interesting to see what the liberals have to say, once Barry starts another war, when they admonished Bush for doing it.

[Boomchild]

On the subject of public schools and what are they teaching children, here's a story where a high school art teacher encouraged students to step on the U.S. flag and write down how they felt about doing so. This was part of a "art project". The teacher did apologized but I don't by it.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/to ... -flag.html

[slucero]

again... look at the bigger picture...

A 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress assessment in civics shows that while fourth graders have modestly improved their civics knowledge and skills, 12th graders—the students now poised to become voters—have even less civics knowledge and skills than their peers did in 2006. I'd venture it's even worse today.

Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been championing the restoration of civics in the classroom..

Until civics and government are seriously taught, and raising responsible, knowledgeable citizens is an actual goal.. we will have more americans who care less about how their country runs .. and more importantly... why.

[Memorex]

Seems like a basic equation to me. Use chem weapons on your people, you better look up for the red, white and blue raining down on you. The argument is that we have to have a line of what is absolutely not acceptable so that it doesn't become commonplace. But more fundamentally, no one should ever be allowed to gas people, or anything of the sort. This is the human race, for God's sake. I realize it's a small number of deaths in the overall fight, but you have to have a line somewhere, right?

We are not going to war. All this war talk is odd. We are simply going to bomb the shit out of stuff and hope to get lucky and cause some hurt.

The execution of this whole thing has been lame. We look so entirely weak. But infighting about whether or not we should hold those responsible accountable for such an over-the-line act is senseless and only hurts us more. I don't see why any American would want that kind of behavior to continue unabated. Are we that wrapped up in what's on TV and what shit we want to buy that we can't do a little follow-up on this shit?

The old me would have wanted us to go in there and rip the place apart (like Iraq). But I don't think America has the will or the ability to do such things right now. It would just be a disaster, diplomatically. So drop the bombs, drone a few bad guys, and don't send any soldiers (for now).

[Boomchild]

Makes sense. Most people in this country don't want another war. This might explain why B.O. is so hell bent on having one anyway. It will be interesting to see what the liberals have to say, once Barry starts another war, when they admonished Bush for doing it.

We already know what the liberal and B.O. supporters have to say. Nothing at all or only support for B.O. standing up for human rights. To them he's the golden boy, their Messiah and he can do no wrong. Funny how the Hollywood celebrities who were so vocal about not going to war when previous administrations were suggesting it have yet to speak out like they did then.

[Boomchild]

We are not going to war. All this war talk is odd. We are simply going to bomb the shit out of stuff and hope to get lucky and cause some hurt.

Yes, all they are talking about is strategic bombing at this point. But, were talking about an action being done in a region that is unstable. We have no way to knowing what it could lead to. It's not far fetched that it could drag us into war. I agree no one should have chemical weapons used on them. But the answer is not for the U.S. to take action ALONE or be the leader of the response. This is clearly something that needs to be addressed through the u.N.. This situation poses no immediate or grave threat against the U.S. directly. If we do what B.O. wants to do, the odds that it will blow up in our faces it higher then it going as they think it will go.

[Rick]

You guys have to look at the bigger picture...

Whenever the primacy of the USD is threatened, the parties agree.

because:

• the Saud family has been funneling billions into the Arab Spring insurgencies
• the Saud family controls OPEC, and OPEC settles oil purchases in USD.
• Oil settlements in USD give the fiat USD real value. (without the need for dollars to settle oil purchases.. the world has no need for the dollar as reserve currency.)

As long as the above continues... In return the US provides covert and overt (read: military) support for the Saudi's political goals and keeping the Saud family in power. It is why they have a token military and the US intelligence and military apparatus are always, in some way involved in their conflicts. The Saudi's want Assad gone, and they (via OPEC) guaranteed the efficacy of the dollar as reserve when they agreed to use only $USD to settle oil purchases. This in effect gives "value" to the fiat USD

and why BOTH parties, whist putting on a show.. eventually always agree.

Makes sense. Most people in this country don't want another war. This might explain why B.O. is so hell bent on having one anyway. It will be interesting to see what the liberals have to say, once Barry starts another war, when they admonished Bush for doing it.

Bush did it without giving a shit whether anyone liked it or not. I respected that. Obama started to, but has since hesitated. I would have rather seen Obama take the same route as Bush and just go take them out. Gassing their own people is the most reprehensible thing I've ever heard of. I was all for Bush going into Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban and going after Al Qaeda or however you spell it. I was initially for going into Iraq, but was against it before we actually went. I would have given more support to Bush's invasion of Iraq if he would have just said that Hussein is killing his own people. The WMD thing that never materialized blew up in his face. And I could give two shits what allies we have going in, as long as it's the right thing to do.

[Memorex]

We are not going to war. All this war talk is odd. We are simply going to bomb the shit out of stuff and hope to get lucky and cause some hurt.

Yes, all they are talking about is strategic bombing at this point. But, were talking about an action being done in a region that is unstable. We have no way to knowing what it could lead to. It's not far fetched that it could drag us into war. I agree no one should have chemical weapons used on them. But the answer is not for the U.S. to take action ALONE or be the leader of the response. This is clearly something that needs to be addressed through the u.N.. This situation poses no immediate or grave threat against the U.S. directly. If we do what B.O. wants to do, the odds that it will blow up in our faces it higher then it going as they think it will go.

If we did nothing, it would cause far more harm to the US. We would have backed away from an atrocity. We are already weaker these days. It would be a signal to the world that the US is weary of helping others, so have at it. It would open a can of worms, in my opinion.

[Memorex]

You guys have to look at the bigger picture...

Whenever the primacy of the USD is threatened, the parties agree.

because:

• the Saud family has been funneling billions into the Arab Spring insurgencies
• the Saud family controls OPEC, and OPEC settles oil purchases in USD.
• Oil settlements in USD give the fiat USD real value. (without the need for dollars to settle oil purchases.. the world has no need for the dollar as reserve currency.)

As long as the above continues... In return the US provides covert and overt (read: military) support for the Saudi's political goals and keeping the Saud family in power. It is why they have a token military and the US intelligence and military apparatus are always, in some way involved in their conflicts. The Saudi's want Assad gone, and they (via OPEC) guaranteed the efficacy of the dollar as reserve when they agreed to use only $USD to settle oil purchases. This in effect gives "value" to the fiat USD

and why BOTH parties, whist putting on a show.. eventually always agree.

Makes sense. Most people in this country don't want another war. This might explain why B.O. is so hell bent on having one anyway. It will be interesting to see what the liberals have to say, once Barry starts another war, when they admonished Bush for doing it.

Bush did it without giving a shit whether anyone liked it or not. I respected that. Obama started to, but has since hesitated. I would have rather seen Obama take the same route as Bush and just go take them out. Gassing their own people is the most reprehensible thing I've ever heard of. I was all for Bush going into Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban and going after Al Qaeda or however you spell it. I was initially for going into Iraq, but was against it before we actually went. I would have given more support to Bush's invasion of Iraq if he would have just said that Hussein is killing his own people. The WMD thing that never materialized blew up in his face. And I could give two shits what allies we have going in, as long as it's the right thing to do.

How many more resolutions should their have been? Full support of congress beforehand. Many countries backing us and joining in the fight. Not sure how much more Bush could have done. Right or wrong, he lined up his ducks long before the firing started.

Also, Hussein did gas his own people and we stood by and did nothing. I found that disgusting. So I supported his removal - I could care less what other weapons he had or didn't have.

[Rick]

Makes sense. Most people in this country don't want another war. This might explain why B.O. is so hell bent on having one anyway. It will be interesting to see what the liberals have to say, once Barry starts another war, when they admonished Bush for doing it.

Bush did it without giving a shit whether anyone liked it or not. I respected that. Obama started to, but has since hesitated. I would have rather seen Obama take the same route as Bush and just go take them out. Gassing their own people is the most reprehensible thing I've ever heard of. I was all for Bush going into Afghanistan and fighting the Taliban and going after Al Qaeda or however you spell it. I was initially for going into Iraq, but was against it before we actually went. I would have given more support to Bush's invasion of Iraq if he would have just said that Hussein is killing his own people. The WMD thing that never materialized blew up in his face. And I could give two shits what allies we have going in, as long as it's the right thing to do.

The WMDs are in Syria as we speak. Bush did explain Saddams killing of his own people right here in Cincinnati in the pre war run up at Union Terminal. Google Halabja images Rick.

I don't doubt that he did. All I remember hearing about was WMD though. I'm not sure that Iraq is better off right now as a result of us going in there, but they have more hope in the long run.

[Memorex]

For all the blood and treasure lost in Iraq, to completely disappear was wholly irresponsible. We've partnered with every other country we've destroyed. Japan, Germany, South Korea, yadda yadda. If we lose so many lives and so much money freeing a nation, there needs to be some long-term real involvement, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, it could end up all for nothing. And that would be very tragic.

[Memorex]

Well, Iraq can pay for it with all that oil.

[Rick]

For all the blood and treasure lost in Iraq, to completely disappear was wholly irresponsible. We've partnered with every other country we've destroyed. Japan, Germany, South Korea, yadda yadda. If we lose so many lives and so much money freeing a nation, there needs to be some long-term real involvement, whether they like it or not. Otherwise, it could end up all for nothing. And that would be very tragic.

It takes a lot of money to run Countries, we can't even run Detroit.

Funny and sad at the same time, because it's true.

[Rick]

Rick wrote:

Bush did it without giving a shit whether anyone liked it or not. I respected that. Obama started to, but has since hesitated.

Ummm, Bush had like 45 members of the so called Coalition, Barry has none except maybe France and then only if we go first.

Everyone was in our corner after 9/11. Everyone except those that never are.

[Rick]

This one's for you, FF!

[steveo777]

It's starting to look like we're doing to do this thing in Syria for sure. Too bad they've been alerted to our plans for so long before hand. By the time we get there the WMDs will be gone. So, then what is our mission, to topple Assad only? Not sure who the good and bad guys are over there.

[Memorex]

Rick wrote:

Bush did it without giving a shit whether anyone liked it or not. I respected that. Obama started to, but has since hesitated.

Ummm, Bush had like 45 members of the so called Coalition, Barry has none except maybe France and then only if we go first.

Everyone was in our corner after 9/11. Everyone except those that never are.

Yes. Bush could have invaded the Vatican with all the anger Americans had. Obama doesn't have that "luxury".

[Boomchild]

If we did nothing, it would cause far more harm to the US. We would have backed away from an atrocity. We are already weaker these days. It would be a signal to the world that the US is weary of helping others, so have at it. It would open a can of worms, in my opinion.

If you think us getting directly involved basically alone before the U.N. has released their findings will make the U.S. look stronger in the eyes of the world, I think your mistaken. Action is needed but the world needs to know whom exactly used the gas and that is not clear from a world's point of view. I don't think we would look weak if we worked it through the U.N. and a decision was made with the support of U.N. members. This image of the U.S. acting as the "world police" has got to go. The weakness that you speak of is not because of our hesitation to act militarily. It's because we have a President that appears weak on his economic and foreign policy that no one can seem to figure out what it is.

[Memorex]

It's starting to look like we're doing to do this thing in Syria for sure. Too bad they've been alerted to our plans for so long before hand. By the time we get there the WMDs will be gone. So, then what is our mission, to topple Assad only? Not sure who the good and bad guys are over there.

I don;t think you want to hit WMDs from the air. I doubt the intention is to get them or destroy them. Tat would take boots on the ground and that is not happening anytime soon, in my opinion. So better not to target them. What a disaster that would be. Not sure what we'll target. Airfields, anti-aircraft crap, maybe a children's hospital that we thought was a bomb manufacturer. You know how these things go.

[slucero]

funny (or ironic) how the U.S. lame(main)stream media is saying there is evidence....

.. and the U.N. has already stated that any evidence was destroyed long ago...

AND most foreign media outlets are say its the rebels that are doing it...


I wonder why the West is saying one thing... and the rest are saying different?

[Boomchild]

It's starting to look like we're doing to do this thing in Syria for sure. Too bad they've been alerted to our plans for so long before hand. By the time we get there the WMDs will be gone. So, then what is our mission, to topple Assad only? Not sure who the good and bad guys are over there.

B.O. made it clear this not about regime change. It even unclear if this mission is to take out the WMDs themselves. Which in my opinion the only way you can make sure you destroy or confiscate them is to have troops on the ground. Which is not the plan (at this point).

[Boomchild]

funny (or ironic) how the U.S. lame(main)stream media is saying there is evidence....

.. and the U.N. has already stated that any evidence was destroyed long ago...

AND most foreign media outlets are say its the rebels that are doing it...


I wonder why the West is saying one thing... and the rest are saying different?

I say show the evidence the U.S. has to world. It's not like it's a secret or a threat to national security to do so.

[slucero]

funny (or ironic) how the U.S. lame(main)stream media is saying there is evidence....

.. and the U.N. has already stated that any evidence was destroyed long ago...

AND most foreign media outlets are say its the rebels that are doing it...


I wonder why the West is saying one thing... and the rest are saying different?

I say show the evidence the U.S. has to world. It's not like it's a secret or a threat to national security to do so.

Absolutely.. but I don't want the U.S. to show the evidence.. I want the U.N. to..

..remember what happened to the veracity of Bush's "evidence"...

[slucero]

yeah, whats his face CIA guy said Slam Dunk for Bush back in the day, Kerry pretty much said it today. One guys slam dunk is another guys free throw.

like I said earlier.. .they'll put on a show.. but eventually they'll all agree..

[Rick]

Has capitalism spun out of control?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 8ZH1ejtIFo

[Memorex]

I'm not an expert, but I think there are so many things wrong with the way our economy runs and capitalism is not it.

You see the big gap between productivity and wages. A big portion of that gap is filled in by technology investments. I may be more productive, but my employer has to make larger tech investments for that to be true. In the old days, there was no spend on websites and computers. Health care was a lot cheaper, etc. So about the time that technology starts making a major impact, you see productivity skyrocket. It's not that the American worker was working any harder.

I don't think it's a crisis of capitalism. It's a crisis of there no longer being a need for such a huge workforce. We don't have the proper focus on 21st century employment. Everyone can't be a programmer or network guy.

The lower/middle classes have to find ways to share more of the wealth, but it can't be in a fashion that discourages people from trying to build wealth. We need reinvestment incentives, new manufacturing incentives, etc. And stop selling houses to people that cannot afford it. The American dream does not need to include a house if you can't afford a house. And if we want to make houses affordable, do it in a way that is not temporary.

I don't think there are any easy answers out there and we have no leaders willing to tackle these issues right now. It's pretty disgusting.