Obama Is Average.

[lovetobtokn]

ok well why dont you break it down fur me then. i want you yo break down why you think we entered into every war since ww2 and how we started it.

[Phunx]

when a dictator controls a resource, that is allocated in such a way that they con form a world monopoly on it basically, do you realize they could basically DESTROY THE US. What do you expect us as a nation to do? Just crumble? or do something about it.... there is no such thing as a perfect world as some of you think. its called being realistic, not idealogical.

But the problem with that is if you want to call it being realistic then you can justify what Al-Qaeda did to the World Trade buildings. They view America as a danger that threatens their way of life - what did you expect them to do? just sit back and crumble?

Your very right in saying that its not a perfect world.

[lovetobtokn]

Hah, idk. People will think what they want. Everyone believes differently. I personally think the US has done a lot of good in the world. Others will spin the same ideas and say the exact opposite. It will always be this way, but who can say they are 100% correct? noone....

You know there are people who think capitalism is the answer, and there are those who think anarchy is the way to go, or communism, or socialism or what have you... its more frustrating than anything arguing about politics. Its a battle that cant be won, by anybody...

[Phunx]

Are you kidding me? You think america is the good guy in every situation?

What gives Americans the right to rule over other nations, and how they control their own resources? Are other nations allowed to control how we use our Own resources in the States, i dont fucking think so, that wouldnt be right- would it?

[Phunx]

Yes obviously i placed fallicies in that statement for a reason..

There is no justification in killing thousands of civs.

BUT there is also no justification to invade a country cause it has something we don't. That they could use to their advantage. GOD FORBID a country does something for a little bit of profit......

Nope no other countries do that....

All im saying is that as a society we are quick to condemn others actions as wrong, but we fail to realize our own shortcomings. Just cause you deem it wrong that a country uses one of its sole resources for a little bit of profit doesn't infact make it wrong. And just because it could potentially cripple your country doesn't make it wrong either.

[SpacedOut]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

You realize by that logic, it's pointless to hand out a peace prize at all since there's not world peace.

You show me someone who not as the leader of the free world, but mearly a member of a legislature, who has worked to reduce nuclear arms and been succesfull at it?

Thats a pretty big accomplishment, even if there's more work to do.

No, by my logic I would think someone should be awarded a nobel peace prize if they at least created more peace than killing. So far Obama has increased a shooting war, where real people are getting killed, and reduced nuclear stockpiles by an amount that wouldn't really make a difference anyway should a hypothetical war break out that neither Russia or the US wants at the moment. Anyone with half a brain can see that the overall effect of the Obama presidency as been more war.

We just drop all our toys and go home, that means we've once again fucked things up and then cut and run, which is what fucked up afghanistan in the 80's. But because he cant wave his magic obama wand and end all wars, he doesn't deserve a nobel prize even though he CURTAILED THE AMMOUNT OF WEAPONS THAT CAN ANHIALATE THE ENTIRE PLANET! But hey, he hasn't done enough, right?

Even if you think the war is justified, fighting a justified war shouldn't earn you a peace prize because it's not peaceful. Not every leader has the luxury of ruling in peace, leaders who fight justified wars for the good of their country should be respected for that, but not honored with a peace prize.

It's funny you bring up Gandhi, because he never won the Nobel Peace Prize. But Gandhi's overrated anyways, this is Obama we're talking about!

[pineapple skunk]

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides

to further your crooked partisan world view.

lol and what about your crooked partisan world view?

[hydrosRheaven]

Originally Posted by thedon420

well what the fuck happened to "a man should not be judged by the color of his skin but by the content of his charactor"? as a southern pastor, I'm sure that MLK jr. would be very proud of what obama stands for (abortion, gay marrige, ect)

My point had nothing to do with MLK. Obama is by definition unique. That doesn't make him the next leader of the black movement, it just precludes his being average.

[TheDankery]

Originally Posted by thedon420

as a southern pastor, I'm sure that MLK jr. would be very proud of what obama stands for (abortion, gay marrige, ect)

What? I understand the sarcasm (you suggest MLK would not be proud of Obama for his stance on gay marriage) but in reality; your irony/sarcasm is correct in that MLK would not be proud of Obama here. You're right - for the wrong reason - in other words. I don't want to jump all over what you're saying, but If I'm following you; you actually got it the complete opposite of reality.

Two facts for you.

1) Obama does not support same-gender marriage. He is less willing to give equal rights to gays than Martin Luther King or even Dick Cheney would be.

2) MLK Jr. would support same-gender marriage.

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,"..."A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages."

- Coretta Scott King, wife of Martin Luther King Jr.

She has also said that her husband would have supported same-gender marriage. I think she would know MLK's position on gay rights better than you.

Also, I am reminded of quote of MLK's...

“Why is the church so often the tail-light, rather than the headlight on matters of social justice?”

So yeah, your sarcastic comment is correct - for the wrong reason.

[TheDudeAbides]

Originally Posted by SpacedOut

No, by my logic I would think someone should be awarded a nobel peace prize if they at least created more peace than killing. So far Obama has increased a shooting war, where real people are getting killed, and reduced nuclear stockpiles by an amount that wouldn't really make a difference anyway should a hypothetical war break out that neither Russia or the US wants at the moment. Anyone with half a brain can see that the overall effect of the Obama presidency as been more war.

That's right. Reducing a nuclear stockpile by 1\3rd (which means that's 1\3rd less bombs to make there way into the hands of terrorist to become a lovely dirty bomb) doesnt mean anything. Clearly since Obama hasnt ended all wars he doesn't deserve any recognition for his work (BTW, name me on senator in the past ten years who has done as much for nuclear disamourment).

Also, I wasn't aware there has been "More war", as I dont think bringing the focus to the war that got sweeped under the carpet counts as "More war", it counts as finishing what we started. But hey, I am forgeting when we invaded Iran after there fraudulent elections.

[mong]

Why don't people like Obama Jokes?
Obama supporters don't find them funny and his opponents think they're not jokes...

[willisvillis]

Originally Posted by lovetobtokn

when a dictator controls a resource, that is allocated in such a way that they con form a world monopoly on it basically, do you realize they could basically DESTROY THE US.

Any examples of dictators with world monopolies on a resource?

[lovetobtokn]

Originally Posted by willisvillis

Any examples of dictators with world monopolies on a resource?

Let me rephrase that idk why i said monopoly, i was merely implying that we grt a large enough amount of oil from iraq for them to fuck us over.

Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports Top 15 Countries

With the exception of canada nearly every one of those countries is unstable. Its scary.

[smokinp]

Originally Posted by lovetobtokn

when a dictator controls a resource, that is allocated in such a way that they con form a world monopoly on it basically, do you realize they could basically DESTROY THE US. What do you expect us as a nation to do? Just crumble? or do something about it.... there is no such thing as a perfect world as some of you think. its called being realistic, not idealogical.

So anything in the world that is valuable the US has to go and control it out of fear that god forbid another nation might prosper from it...

[Gloom]

Originally Posted by hydrosRheaven

My point had nothing to do with MLK. Obama is by definition unique. That doesn't make him the next leader of the black movement, it just precludes his being average.

Skin color doesn't change make him unique, nor any different then all the other delusional politicians who are in over their heads.