• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

After Eight Years of Obama ...

After Eight Years Under Obama The United States Will


  • Total voters
    41
This is the poll I was expecting.

What will the United States look like after eight years of Messianic leadership from Obama?

I voted worse....I don't think even a Messiah can create a disaster, but I can see he's trying real hard to make it happen.

I'll let you know in eight years, Nostradamus.
 
1) It was intended as a joke. I doubt and hope he did not take offense.
2) From some one who has almost no ability to talk without using euphemisms like "dear leader" or more relevantly "Anti-republican", you have no room to even suggest that. I am going to remember this post for your next thread about how terrible "Dear Leader" and "the anti-republicans" are.
Anti-Republicans. I excuse philosophical liberals the error of their ways. The ones who run for office on that sort of rubbish are the ones who get my special sarcasm.
 
Anti-Republicans. I excuse philosophical liberals the error of their ways. The ones who run for office on that sort of rubbish are the ones who get my special sarcasm.

It's not really sarcasm. More like crying.
 
Obama's term can't possibly be any worse than Bush's. Seriously, doesn't anyone remember what happened on July 25th, 2004, when Skynet became self-aware?

You people are the reason my zone is filled with Hunter-Killers and T-101's. Get off your butts, grab your Phased Plasma Rifles in the 40 watt range, and do your jobs!
 
Obama's term can't possibly be any worse than Bush's.

That's what stupid people said about Ford when they voted Carter into office.

The lesson?

No matter how bad it is, a Democrat in the White House will make it worse if he can.
 
I think of you more as "an American anti-liberal".

No. That's redundant. All Americans are opposed to the ideologies promoted by the self-proclaimed "liberals" that want to help you with money stolen from someone else.
 
No. That's redundant. All Americans are opposed to the ideologies promoted by the self-proclaimed "liberals" that want to help you with money stolen from someone else.

That statement would be false.
 
That's what stupid people said about Ford when they voted Carter into office.

The lesson?

No matter how bad it is, a Democrat in the White House will make it worse if he can.

And yet, President Obama didn't have a nuclear war break out during his term, did he? From what I remember, machines weren't self-aware until 2004, and that was during President Bush's term.

Anyhow, who cares at this point? All I know is Cyberdine runs things now, and I spend my days dodging intelligent machines and gathering intel for the resistance.
 
So far, the recession is lifting, foreign policy is going well, the healthcare industry has committed to making changes, if it continues things will be much improved. But I do not think this thread is destined to be a real discussion, just a mud slinger of bipartisanship.

What evidence do you have that the recession is lifting? I am also interested in hearing how you perceive foreign policy as going well. Also, what changes do you see occuring in healthcare that will be beneficial?
 
I don't know why the right refers to Obama as "Messiah".
It is just about everyone. Not just one group.
The press coverage worked.
He has no actual qualifications to be president.

obamamessiah.jpg


obama6.JPG
 
Which has zero to do with the premise of this thread.

Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
No. That's redundant. All Americans are opposed to the ideologies promoted by the self-proclaimed "liberals" that want to help you with money stolen from someone else.

Applies directly to your rebuttal to this.
 
Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar
No. That's redundant. All Americans are opposed to the ideologies promoted by the self-proclaimed "liberals" that want to help you with money stolen from someone else.

Applies directly to your rebuttal to this.

Not really. Scarecrow's statement was about defining liberal Americans as non-Americans. I don't see how your statement adds much to Redress' rebuttal of that.

Basically let's all recognise that the original point about liberals being non-Americans is bloody stupid and move on.
 
Not really. Scarecrow's statement was about defining liberal Americans as non-Americans. I don't see how your statement adds much to Redress' rebuttal of that.

Basically let's all recognise that the original point about liberals being non-Americans is bloody stupid and move on.

I can agree. The first point is a little Reductio ad absurdum. I would rather focus on the socialism aspects. That is less subjective and more results driven. Much more evidenciary.
 
Last edited:
This is a poll nobody could possibly be authoritarian on an answer.It is gonna bepend on Obamas reaction to unforeseen events.
 
This is a poll nobody could possibly be authoritarian on an answer.It is gonna bepend on Obamas reaction to unforeseen events.

Hush, you are going to hurt some feelings if you keep that up. It's much more fun to doom and gloom about the future.
 
That's what stupid people said about Ford when they voted Carter into office.

The lesson?

No matter how bad it is, a Democrat in the White House will make it worse if he can.

And we all saw from Bush that no matter how great the country is doing a Republican in office can turn it into crap.

Aren't single points of examples fun?
 
That statement would be false.

It would be false if you didn't understand that the definition of an "American" is a person that doesn't live by stealing from others.

Now that you know the correct definition of an American, you can admit that, as usual, I'm correct.
 
Not really. Scarecrow's statement was about defining liberal Americans as non-Americans. I don't see how your statement adds much to Redress' rebuttal of that.

There is no possible rebuttal to that definition.

It's a friggin' definition, not an argument.

Basically let's all recognise that the original point about liberals being non-Americans is bloody stupid and move on.

No, since liberals do not share the values that made America great, since liberals blame America for all the evils of the world, since liberals don't know their asses from their elbows, it's plain liberals aren't Americans.
 
It would be false if you didn't understand that the definition of an "American" is a person that doesn't live by stealing from others.

Now that you know the correct definition of an American, you can admit that, as usual, I'm correct.

Hmmm, does not like like you are right.

. of or pertaining to the United States of America or its inhabitants: an American citizen.
2. of or pertaining to North or South America; of the Western Hemisphere: the American continents.
3. of or pertaining to the aboriginal Indians of North and South America, usually excluding the Eskimos, regarded as being of Asian ancestry and marked generally by reddish to brownish skin, black hair, dark eyes, and prominent cheekbones.
–noun
4. a citizen of the United States of America.
5. a native or inhabitant of the Western Hemisphere.
6. an Indian of North or South America.
7. American English.
8. a steam locomotive having a four-wheeled front truck, four driving wheels, and no rear truck.

No mention of stealing.

Course, we as a country do not steal either, so it's all a moot point. I suspect you are referring to taxes,which is not stealing.
 
And we all saw from Bush that no matter how great the country is doing a Republican in office can turn it into crap.

I must have missed that. Which US Republican president's policies turned the nation into crap do to the policies he himself enacted?

You can't be referring to Bush, the major regulatory and Constitutional failures the caused the banking meltdown were enacted under Democrats, every single one.

The Iraq war, though I opposed the invasion, was actually a success.

Overall, Bush failed to kiss European ass, which is the best thing a president can do, and he successfully ignored the efforts of the lunatic left to destroy the American way of life via silly environmental panic responses.

Overall, we weren't in that bad a shape when he left office, outside of what you have to expect from a mostly liberal presidency, ie, too much spending.

And you people aren't going to admit that too much spending is the major failure of the US governemnt, not while your Holy Leader has his hands on the cows tits, are you? All his pals are standing out there with their mouths gaping open hoping for a squirt of fresh green juice from the money cow, right now.

Aren't single points of examples fun?

Oh. You mean you had only ONE example.

FDR made the economy worse after Hoover.

JFK was such an embarassment someone in the US government had him shot, or so many of the more credible story lines go. He was replaced by a flaming socialist that enacted programs that wasted roughly twelve trillion dollars in the forty year period from 1965 or so.

Clinton's foreign policy was a shambles after Bush, his domestic programs were slapped back in his face by a Democrat dominated Congress, both Hillary Care and Kyoto were rejected soundly by Houses of Congress his party controlled. He dragged us into more unnecessary disparate foreign conflicts than any president before or since. He failed to seize the advantages offered by the collapse of the Evil Empire and his administrations policies led directly to the attacks on September 11, 2001.

The Repbulicans, not the Democrats, passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to cite on of the landmark legislative achievements of the last century.

The Republican president had the vision to push the Soviet Union off their economic cliff. He came into office because the preceding Democrat was cowering in terror before the thought of saying unkind words about the free world's mortal enemy.

Yeah. You had what could have been a single point example, except I demolished it.

I have the history of every Democrat that followed a Republican into the White House in the last century, and I've got you Messiah to point to, also.
 
Back
Top Bottom