Do you approve of Obamas policies?

[DJMishap]

I dont wanna hear why or why not....

Just do you or no?

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by DJMishap

I dont wanna hear why or why not....

Just do you or no?

It would be pretty damn hard to clown on your for the next few days if we dont get into some details and get the posts rolling in. A simple yes or no thread just isnt going to do it.

[Keith P]

100 fold over the previous administration but that doesn't magically omit criticism.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

100 fold over the previous administration but that doesn't magically omit criticism.

so what has he done that has been helpful that you admire?

trying to help out Kevin here Keith

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

so what has he done that has been helpful that you admire?

trying to help out Kevin here Keith

His repealing of the ban on stem cell research for starters. The implementation of an exit strategy for Iraq(which isn't what most people expected) but its a start at least.

The guy's been in office for what a month? So there's not much to go on. I was never expecting him to magically turn the economy around either, any real progress from his efforts probably won't be seen for awhile.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

His repealing of the ban on stem cell research for starters.

why is it preferable to create new human life to destroy it in research? why is it preferrable to use federal funds to do so?

Originally Posted by Keith P

The implementation of an exit strategy for Iraq(which isn't what most people expected) but its a start at least.

lol - the exit strategy was the surge. Don't read that as a defense of GW's fucked up prosecution of the war. But don't Obama credit for acknowledging that GW won already won it.

Think Obama will leave no troops in Iraq?

Originally Posted by Keith P

The guy's been in office for what a month? So there's not much to go on. I was never expecting him to magically turn the economy around either, any real progress from his efforts probably won't be seen for awhile.

Ok. When does the economy become his responsibility then?

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

why is it preferable to create new human life to destroy it in research? why is it preferrable to use federal funds to do so?

It is necessary research for scientific and medicinal progress. Why is it necessary to use federal funds for space exploration? No matter how much $ we throw into what we deem immediate concerns, the extension of life, space exploration, better medical treatment is the future of the human race(or SHOULD be the projected future at least).

lol - the exit strategy was the surge. Don't read that as a defense of GW's fucked up prosecution of the war. But don't Obama credit for acknowledging that GW won already won it.

He's done a great job with Afghanistan too right? Bush bit off more than he could chew.

Think Obama will leave no troops in Iraq?

That's what I was talking about with expectations. I don't have much of an opinion on it. Iraq is completely fucking worthless and will remain so, regardless of our presence.

[Keith P]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Ok. When does the economy become his responsibility then?

When we coin it Obamanomics?

[Nick]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

why is it preferable to create new human life to destroy it in research? why is it preferrable to use federal funds to do so?

So the scientists can cure cancer. He said it in his speech.

I don't fully trust him, but I knew he could beat Bush after he put out Audacity of Hope. He might be using the credit crisis to shadow his healthcare agenda in the large bill everyone is talking about, which has nothing to do with the banks freeing the credit markets. In fact, I've heard health stocks have dropped since it's introduction. That might be shady, but it's also the way things work. It was how the Bush administration got the Iraq War. Anyways, a lot of the money is to free up credit. (which is what keith is saying we wont know if it will work til later)

We have to get credit flowing again so the economy can create jobs and new industry can begin. We have to start building more here and stop outsourcing.

The past administrations let banks get so big they could no longer fail. If they fail we all fail. No one wants to hear it, but there will probably be bank nationalization in the near future. The slick bankers took advantage of the lack of regulation.

Also, I think he is being a complete cornball in having Earth, Wind, and Fire play for him at the White House. He needs to keep a serious image and that shit doesn't help.

[J. Fees]

Ok. When does the economy become his responsibility then?

classic xian. 68 days in and already trying to bash.

how bout your boy bush, was he even in the office in the first 68 days?

- First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history (25%)

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Keith P

It is necessary research for scientific and medicinal progress. Why is it necessary to use federal funds for space exploration? No matter how much $ we throw into what we deem immediate concerns, the extension of life, space exploration, better medical treatment is the future of the human race(or SHOULD be the projected future at least).

So why not use unwanted children, death row inmates, persistently vegatative people etc?

And, ftr, Obama lifted no ban on anything. Obama said he'd use federal dollars to fund the research. If lack of ederal funding is a ban then I'm federally banned from eating.

Originally Posted by Keith P

He's done a great job with Afghanistan too right? Bush bit off more than he could chew.

Switched topics on me their Keith. You, oddly, brought up Iraq as a credit to Obama.

As far as Afganistan goes, I've long said it is a place we need out of. He did bite off more than he could chew and went about the chewing poorly. Obama campaigned on escalating in Afganistan and taking it to Pakistan (with or without their permission).

Originally Posted by Keith P

That's what I was talking about with expectations. I don't have much of an opinion on it. Iraq is completely fucking worthless and will remain so, regardless of our presence.

I disgaree. But time will tell.

Originally Posted by Keith P

When we coin it Obamanomics?

lol

Originally Posted by J. Fees

classic xian. 68 days in and already trying to bash.

how bout your boy bush, was he even in the office in the first 68 days?

feezy feezy... I disagree with his stance on stem cell research and said Obama gets no credit for Iraq and you call it bashing?

Bashing is mindless antagonistic drivel like the shit that pours out of that hole in your face. If it has a basis and avoids personal attacks - its fair criticism. I wouldn't expect you to understand the distinction.

Originally Posted by Nick

So the scientists can cure cancer. He said it in his speech.

Got any kids you want to donate to research?

Originally Posted by Nick

The past administrations let banks get so big they could no longer fail. If they fail we all fail. No one wants to hear it, but there will probably be bank nationalization in the near future. The slick bankers took advantage of the lack of regulation.

Speaking with an authority on our credit markets she noted that regulation in fact is the specific thing that often clogs our credit markets. When financial institutions go into bankruptcy and have to file these extensive declarations upon every move the cost is so overwhelming that it even if the company can reorganize it does so after needlessly pissing millions of dollars away on reports that accomplish nothing useful.

What economy in this global crisis has more regulatrion (most of them) and has been saved the consequences as a result? If you cannot show me that how can you argue we need more regulation?

[tricky]

absolutely.

and xian

STFU with your slippery slope nonsense. whiny little bitch.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

absolutely.

and xian

STFU with your slippery slope nonsense. whiny little bitch.

Well, then let's see if you'll actually address my points then. Last time you ran away with your tail between your legs.

An embryo is A) alive and B) human.

If not then what is it?

If yes why is it ok to kill it?

If it is ok to kill a living human embryo why isn't it ok to kill others I've listed?

[tricky]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Well, then let's see if you'll actually address my points then. Last time you ran away with your tail between your legs.

An embryo is A) alive and B) human.

If not then what is it?

If yes why is it ok to kill it?

If it is ok to kill a living human embryo why isn't it ok to kill others I've listed?

read the other thread. it's no more a human than caviar is a prizewinning fish. they have the potential to create life if FURTHER developed. as of now, they're jack shit

[PETA]

Originally Posted by tricky

read the other thread. it's no more a human than caviar is a prizewinning fish. they have the potential to create life if FURTHER developed. as of now, they're jack shit

You are laboring under a mistake of fact. Allow me to explain to you how this works.

Fish (most) don't give live birth. Caviar is removed from a living fish. Eggs in a sturgeon are unfertilized. They are like eggs in an ovary.

Embryos are fertilized eggs; a new life, not jack shit.

So, back to my questions. Address them now that you understand the topic a little better.