obama is a 'counterfeit president'

[Atomic Playboy]

You are being obtuse. You asked a question, I gave you an answer.

You did not like answer, so you proceeded to slobber, drool and foam at the mouth.

Rather than sending in a seal team or special forces, kill the terrorist and rescue Bergdahl, obama trades terrorist.

Tell me freeing terrorist is in the greater good.

You have failed to address my question: what is your criteria for judging whether or not the President is acting in a way that serves the greater good? You haven't listed a single criterion for judging such actions, you've simply repeated "Louisiana purchase good, Bergdahl bad," which is good for sharing your opinion on those two executive actions, but utterly useless for revealing what your criteria is for judging executive actions in the abstract. I am left to assume that the way you would define "greater good" is whatever you personally agree with after the fact. Or you could actually address my original question: Who is the judge of what serves the greater good? Is it you? Is it the President? Is it Congress? Is it a list of specific criteria that must be met? How do you define whether or not the President is acting in the interest of the greater good? You can't just say "Bergdahl decision wrong" because that's not information we can use to determine whether the next use of executive action will serve the greater good or not (unless it specifically relates to Bergdahl again, I suppose). So set aside specific examples and answer as to how "the greater good" is defined and who should be in charge of determining whether an executive action meets it?

 

[Jhhnn]

So you're saying that the life of an American citizen is worth less than that of a terrorist?

He's just saying it's wrong because Obama did it, whatever it was.

Can we get a chorus line goin' here?

Hate-um Obama! Hate-um Obama! Hate-um Obama! Hate-um Obama!

Get those kicks higher, girls!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Can we add the death of net neutrality to the list?
Obama cronies at the FTC. Mergers and monopolies, etc.

That one seriously gets me bent.

 

[Texashiker]

You have failed to address my question: what is your criteria for judging whether or not the President is acting in a way that serves the greater good? You haven't listed a single criterion for judging such actions, you've simply repeated "Louisiana purchase good, Bergdahl bad," which is good for sharing your opinion on those two executive actions, but utterly useless for revealing what your criteria is for judging executive actions in the abstract.

It would be nice if you learned what paragraph breaks are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good

Did the actions benefit all members, or the majority of society? Freeing one person who volunteered to serve did not benefit society.

By trading 5 terrorist has put the people of this nation at risk.

 

[Jhhnn]

You have failed to address my question: what is your criteria for judging whether or not the President is acting in a way that serves the greater good? You haven't listed a single criterion for judging such actions, you've simply repeated "Louisiana purchase good, Bergdahl bad," which is good for sharing your opinion on those two executive actions, but utterly useless for revealing what your criteria is for judging executive actions in the abstract. I am left to assume that the way you would define "greater good" is whatever you personally agree with after the fact. Or you could actually address my original question: Who is the judge of what serves the greater good? Is it you? Is it the President? Is it Congress? Is it a list of specific criteria that must be met? How do you define whether or not the President is acting in the interest of the greater good? You can't just say "Bergdahl decision wrong" because that's not information we can use to determine whether the next use of executive action will serve the greater good or not (unless it specifically relates to Bergdahl again, I suppose). So set aside specific examples and answer as to how "the greater good" is defined and who should be in charge of determining whether an executive action meets it?

Surely you jest. You can't get through to him like that. He has one criterium- Obama. If he's for it, Texashiker is against it, & that's that. He'll hop right in the sack with anybody who tells him what he wants to believe in the process. He'll entertain any fantasy scenario that supports it, as well. First Believe, then justify it later.

Send in the Seals! Send 'em where? They never did figure out where Bergdahl was being held, but, well, nevermind that. Send in the Seals!

What a maroon.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_good

Did the actions benefit all members, or the majority of society? Freeing one person who volunteered to serve did not benefit society.

Would you put in place a person or body of people to judge whether the President's actions met those criteria after any specific executive order had been issued? How would that body be selected? Would there be objective criteria or is the abstract concept of "common good" enough? If the actions were found to violate this criteria, would the action be disallowed, or would punitive action be brought against the President after the fact?

 

[thraashman]

Can we add the death of net neutrality to the list?
Obama cronies at the FTC. Mergers and monopolies, etc.

I guess people who want to show their ignorance can add it if they like.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Race is not an issue here.

The issue here is incompetence.

No, the issue is that you're a racist and so you're predisposed to believing negative conclusions about blacks.

Watch:

Wall street still in charge of our money.
Banks still to big to bail or fail.

If Obama had succeeded in passing regulation, you wouldn't be complaining about how he socialized 25% of the economy, you'd be complaining about how he socialized 35%.

If McCain had been elected and re-elected, and left Wall Street in charge, you'd be applauding him for his small government approach.

Killing US citizens without due process.

If he didn't, you'd cite him for promoting terrorism and failing to protect America. You'd call him weak.

If McCain was in office, you'd be lauding him for his tough stance, and how he is a military man and this is a military decision. You would grant him this without a problem because in your world whites make judgements. You exorcise Obama because in your world blacks are only the objects of judgements and so Obama has no right to make such a decision.

Relations with Russia gone down the drain.
Tensions with China on the rise.

If Obama kow-towed to them, you'd be complaining about it. You know that "Obama bowing to things," is already a conservatard panty-twister, right?

If McCain was in office, you'd be praising his "strong leadership."

Economy still in the crapper.

If Obama was trying to do more you'd be yelling, "SOCIALISM," "BIG GOVERNMENT," and, "DEBT!"

If McCain was in office you'd be pointing to the stock market at record highs, the increases in corporate profits, and the rebounding of the US auto industry.

Gave weapons to egypt, who knows where they are now.

If he didn't, you'd say he has no foreign policy.

If McCain was in office, you wouldn't care.

IS gaining access to anti-aircraft weapons.

If McCain was in office, you wouldn't be blaming him.

Snubbed England over Thatchers funeral.

If Obama had sent more, you'd be complaining about the multi-million dollar cost.

If McCain was in office, this wouldn't even be on your radar, as it would never have come up on conservative talk.

 

[Texashiker]

Would you put in place a person or body of people to judge whether the President's actions met those criteria after any specific executive order had been issued? How would that body be selected?

Let society decide that.

We do not trade with terrorist. We kill terrorist. Those people who kidnapped Bergdahl, where are their drone strikes?

Obama had a US citizen killed without due process. But he can not order kidnappers killed?

We do not see a problem with obama freeing terrorist and killing US citizens?

No, the issue is that you're a racist and so you're predisposed to believing negative conclusions about blacks.

Let me know when you arrive in Jasper Texas. I have this coming weekend pretty much free, except for working on the chicken yard.

I will buy some roses, then you and I can visit the grave of James Byrd jr. We will then lay those roses on his grave.

In other words, piss off with your racist crap.

 

[MrPickins]

No, the issue is that you're a racist and so you're predisposed to believing negative conclusions about blacks.

To be fair, TH doesn't seem like a racist, based on his posts that I've seen.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Let society decide that.

How would you propose society be allowed to decide this? Do we conduct polls? Should we have the people vote on every executive action? Do these votes need to happen before the executive action itself is allowed to occur, or would they be in response to it? If the executive action vote happened after-the-fact and it failed, would the President face punitive action, and what might those punishments include?

This is all becoming rather cumbersome. Why don't we just let Congress determine whether or not a certain course of action is in the best interests of the public?

 

[Jaskalas]

Furthermore, he is incredulous, the interview reveals, that Mr Obama sent a letter of condolence to Robin Williams before sending one to the Michael Brown family.

After careful consideration I have decided not to vote for Mr. Obama.

 

[boomerang]

 

[DominionSeraph]

To be fair, TH doesn't seem like a racist, based on his posts that I've seen.

That he's not spidey- racist doesn't mean he's not deep into the self-absorbed conservatard perspective enabled by unexamined tribal rule. He still exemplifies ingroup bias.

 

[ivwshane]

This is pretty big news folks! TH, one of the biggest righties on this forum thinks Obama isn't progressive enough!

I'm guessing, based on the issues the OP has raises that he won't be voting for a single republican!

Why the change of heart TH?

 

[Victorian Gray]

This is pretty big news folks! TH, one of the biggest righties on this forum thinks Obama isn't progressive enough!

I'm guessing, based on the issues the OP has raises that he won't be voting for a single republican!

Why the change of heart TH?

It was only a couple of threads ago when he claimed to be a socialist.

 

[smackababy]

No, the issue is that you're a racist and so you're predisposed to believing negative conclusions about blacks.

Watch:


If Obama had succeeded in passing regulation, you wouldn't be complaining about how he socialized 25% of the economy, you'd be complaining about how he socialized 35%.

If McCain had been elected and re-elected, and left Wall Street in charge, you'd be applauding him for his small government approach.



If he didn't, you'd cite him for promoting terrorism and failing to protect America. You'd call him weak.

If McCain was in office, you'd be lauding him for his tough stance, and how he is a military man and this is a military decision. You would grant him this without a problem because in your world whites make judgements. You exorcise Obama because in your world blacks are only the objects of judgements and so Obama has no right to make such a decision.



If Obama kow-towed to them, you'd be complaining about it. You know that "Obama bowing to things," is already a conservatard panty-twister, right?

If McCain was in office, you'd be praising his "strong leadership."



If Obama was trying to do more you'd be yelling, "SOCIALISM," "BIG GOVERNMENT," and, "DEBT!"

If McCain was in office you'd be pointing to the stock market at record highs, the increases in corporate profits, and the rebounding of the US auto industry.



If he didn't, you'd say he has no foreign policy.

If McCain was in office, you wouldn't care.



If McCain was in office, you wouldn't be blaming him.



If Obama had sent more, you'd be complaining about the multi-million dollar cost.

If McCain was in office, this wouldn't even be on your radar, as it would never have come up on conservative talk.

I'd argue a lot of these have little do to with the race of Obama, but more so his political party affiliation. If McCain, in your scenarios, were black, the exact same result would occur.

 

[Texashiker]

That he's not spidey- racist doesn't mean he's not deep into the self-absorbed conservatard perspective enabled by unexamined tribal rule. He still exemplifies ingroup bias.

Come to Jasper. I will take you to the grave of James Byrd jr so we can both pay our respects.

I will even buy you the roses to lay on his grave.

DominionSeraph, what is really sad, you have convinced yourself conservatives are racist.

The truth is conservatives are not racist. It is the liberals who promote abortion, which affects blacks and other minorities more than whites.

How can you claim conservatives are racist, when liberals promote the slaughter of unborn black children?

You really need to reconsider viewpoints. How can conservatives be racist when we work to protect life? Conservatives value life and family values. Liberals would as soon see a baby aborted as see it born. Libarals do not give 2 cents about your life or your values.

How would you propose society be allowed to decide this? Do we conduct polls?

Like what we are doing now. Opinion pieces, blogs, posting comments to articles.

History will form an opinion of obamas actions.

Chances are history will not be kind.

To be fair, TH doesn't seem like a racist, based on his posts that I've seen.

Thank you.

 

[Texashiker]

It was only a couple of threads ago when he claimed to be a socialist.

Yes, I lean towards socialism.

There are certain parts of our society where we need socialism, such as healthcare.

 

[DrPizza]

Here's a thought. Next time some terrorists have captured a prisoner, how about we offer to send TexasHiker in exchange for the prisoner? Think the terrorists would fall for it? How many of you agree that it would serve the common good? Remember, TH, we're in a "democracy" - if more than half the people think it's a good idea, then it serves the common good.

 

[MrPickins]

The truth is conservatives are not racist.

Really, the truth is that not all conservatives are racist (and probably not even most).

From my own personal experience, however, conservatives are quite a bit more likely to be racist than liberals.

 

[alzan]

Here's a thought. Next time some terrorists have captured a prisoner, how about we offer to send TexasHiker in exchange for the prisoner? Think the terrorists would fall for it? How many of you agree that it would serve the common good? Remember, TH, we're in a "democracy" - if more than half the people think it's a good idea, then it serves the common good.

If they agreed to that trade then they're dumber than I thought.

But yes, I'd vote for the trade.

 

[Texashiker]

Here's a thought. Next time some terrorists have captured a prisoner, how about we offer to send TexasHiker in exchange for the prisoner?

Hell yea, do I get to bring my AR-15?

Remember, TH, we're in a "democracy" - if more than half the people think it's a good idea, then it serves the common good.

I thought you were a teacher?

Why would you think we live in a democracy?

 

[Exophase]

Killing US citizens without due process.

I feel the president can bypass congress when it serves the greater good.

The truth is conservatives are not racist. It is the liberals who promote abortion, which affects blacks and other minorities more than whites.

You hear that? Pro-choicers are racist against fetuses!

How can you claim conservatives are racist, when liberals promote the slaughter of unborn black children?

How can you claim that liberals are racist, when conservatives promote the slaughter of criminals?

That's much about as much of a non-sequitor as what you're saying.

 

[Texashiker]

From my own personal experience, however, conservatives are quite a bit more likely to be racist than liberals.

While I respect your opinion that this matter, I have to respectfully disagree.

Liberals promote welfare which as helped destroy black familes - http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=36609027

Now that abortion is socially acceptable, more black babies are aborted than born in NYC - http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/21/black-abortion-sanger-planned-parenthood

How can you claim that liberals are racist, when conservatives promote the slaughter of criminals?

It is called due process.