The President Obama Thread: "Screw You Thread Manager" Edition

[terry78]

Chavez is calling somebody else a fraud?

 

[Crazy Quilt]

It's funny how people will believe what they're told. It's not like our government and corporate media have any kind of interest behind slandering someone who stands up against long standing U.S. imperialism in Latin America.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Yes, because Chavez is a paragon of virtue and liberty. No one needs to slander the man, he does it himself. Just look at his Facebook friends list.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

Yes, because Chavez is a paragon of virtue and liberty. No one needs to slander the man, he does it himself. Just look at his Facebook friends list.

More so than the U.S. government's foreign policy.

Look at the U.S. government's "friends list".

 

[Thundercrack85]

More so than the U.S. government's foreign policy.

Look at the U.S. government's "friends list".

I can't see how you can directly compare a man to a foreign policy. Now if you want to compare Chavez' foreign policy to America's, that we can do. But even so, if you're right, that's hardly a compliment. He's just another petty dictator.

 

[Crazy Quilt]

I can't see how you can directly compare a man to a foreign policy. Now if you want to compare Chavez' foreign policy to America's, that we can do. But even so, if you're right, that's hardly a compliment. He's just another petty dictator.

Yeah, according to the American media and government/CIA. That's what they say, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_39PrBGKnc

 

[Thundercrack85]

Them, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the people Chavez has locked up, the victims of the terrorists he supports, and a few other people. Give me a break. Oliver Stone loses all credibility when he defends that man.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah, according to the American media and government/CIA. That's what they say, isn't it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_39PrBGKnc

No he actually is considering how he rigs elections in his favor, represses media that does not paint him in a favorable light, arrests the opposition, is criticized by various human rights groups, supports leftist terrorists throughout Latin America, supports nations like Iran and North Korea simply due to their anti-US policies, and so on. And just like how there were attempts to overthrow him, Chavez himself took part in efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan government in coup d'etats. Those are things that dictators do.

He is also not liked well my much of the world due to his bombastic attitude. The primary reason why Venezuela lost a chance at obtaining a seat in the UN Security Council in 2006 was because most nations did not like that Chavez would use the seat primarily to just be an anti-US voice as opposed to doing something productive. He has consistently antagonized Colombia and Peru with his actions and statements. The King of Spain told him to shut up. His relations with the United States (even as Barack Obama tried to establish nice ties with him), Israel, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Vatican and other nations are piss poor due to Chavez.

 

[KingMob]

In short, he's a d*** and his opinion is irrelevant.

 

[Destructus86]

You know...I think Obama will get re-elect simply because all the other candidates seem to be even more clueless than him.

 

[SV Fan]

You know...I think Obama will get re-elect simply because all the other candidates seem to be even more clueless than him.

If a third party candidate gets any press, Obama is a shoe in to win. If Romney wins I think it will be close but Obama probably will squeak it out(I am guessing they will focus on blaming the Congress). I honestly believe if the Republicans decided to back Huntsman that would be their best shot(he has a good record as a Governor and he doesn't come across robotic like Romney)

 

[enterthemadness]

Gary Johnson as in the LP or Paul in the RP can beat Obama. Johnson can beat out Mitt and Obama--on paper.

 

[SV Fan]

Gary Johnson as in the LP or Paul in the RP can beat Obama. Johnson can beat out Mitt and Obama--on paper.

Main problem with 3rd party candidates is the media will treat them as if they not part of the race and while they might get some support it won't be enough by people who believe whatever the media feeds them.

 

[enterthemadness]

That's why I said on paper, mostly towards Johnson. He may need Mr. Trump to go run as a independent--which Trump is saying he is. I just know if Paul gets Rep, and Johnson gets Lib, Obama would probably win.

 

[hippie_hunter]

You know...I think Obama will get re-elect simply because all the other candidates seem to be even more clueless than him.

Actually while the GOP nomination is filled with clowns like Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich, it is also filled with really intelligent ones like Romney, Paul, and Huntsman. Don't underestimate them, especially since those three would absolutely spank Obama in a debate.

 

[SV Fan]

Actually while the GOP nomination is filled with clowns like Bachmann, Santorum, and Gingrich, it is also filled with really intelligent ones like Romney, Paul, and Huntsman. Don't underestimate them, especially since those three would absolutely spank Obama in a debate.

I don't think Romney is that good a debator. the only reason he comes out looking good at GOP debates is because he says a couple of decent things and let's the others fall all over their stupidity. One on one when somebody is attacking him he doesn't come off that good.

Huntsman, although probably having the best shot to win if people actually backed him won't win the GOP.

Paul would be interesting for the simple fact he could bring up issues in the debate that would make Obama look bad that other Republican candidates couldn't(Obama's war record not being much better then Bush, Obama staying as far away as possible from Gay Marriage issues, legalization of weed, taking away liberties and freedoms, etc). Paul would also be hard to wage a campaign of the Dems are for the middle Class while Republicans are for Big Business(which is how I assume they will attack Mitt "Corporations are People" Romney).

On a side note I always found Mitt's Corporations are People comment funny because while it's wrong I think a strong argument could be made that in the US, laws state people are corporations

 

[Marx]

I just saw on CNN that President Obama is the "Most Admired Man" in the US while Michelle Obama is the third "Most Admired Woman" in the US.

 

[enterthemadness]

I just saw on CNN that President Obama is the "Most Admired Man" in the US while Michelle Obama is the third "Most Admired Woman" in the US.

I call shengians or whatever the word is on that.

 

[Marx]

...and just who do you think the "Most Admired Man" should be? Ron Paul?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Shenanigans (awesome word, by the way). I also find it strange that a majority of people can disprove of someone's job performance, but also admire him at the same time.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

No he actually is considering how he rigs elections in his favor, represses media that does not paint him in a favorable light, arrests the opposition, is criticized by various human rights groups, supports leftist terrorists throughout Latin America, supports nations like Iran and North Korea simply due to their anti-US policies, and so on. And just like how there were attempts to overthrow him, Chavez himself took part in efforts to overthrow the Venezuelan government in coup d'etats. Those are things that dictators do.

Whether you like it or not, Chavez was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela. He could have suppressed the oligarchs, but he hasn't, and that's why to this day they retain a lot of power in Venezuela, retaining ownership of some industries and controlling opposition TV channels that rail against Chavez in precisely the same terms you do. How many "dictators" can say the same thing?

He is also not liked well my much of the world due to his bombastic attitude. The primary reason why Venezuela lost a chance at obtaining a seat in the UN Security Council in 2006 was because most nations did not like that Chavez would use the seat primarily to just be an anti-US voice as opposed to doing something productive. He has consistently antagonized Colombia and Peru with his actions and statements. The King of Spain told him to shut up. His relations with the United States (even as Barack Obama tried to establish nice ties with him), Israel, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, the Vatican and other nations are piss poor due to Chavez.

Hold everything! The King of Spain told Chavez to shut up? Well gee whiz, if there's one person who knows a thing or two about democracy, it's an unelected monarch.

A lot of people find that kind of "bombastic attitude" refreshing in a world body that often acts as a rubber stamp for U.S. interests.

How is providing pointed critiques of American imperialism unproductive? It's great that somebody is providing a voice in the UN for the billions of people who suffer under the global rule of capital.

Methinks you're involved in a bout of victim-blaming here. Obama never tried to establish nice ties with Chavez. Far from it. Powerful vested interests in the US, the UK and other countries were against Chavez from the beginning because he promised a more equitable distribution of wealth in his country. They want a compliant servant of multinational conglomerates, like the presidents of...Colombia and Peru.

I just saw on CNN that President Obama is the "Most Admired Man" in the US while Michelle Obama is the third "Most Admired Woman" in the US.

 

[enterthemadness]

...and just who do you think the "Most Admired Man" should be? Ron Paul?

No.....

Maybe Tom Hanks...but I don't know.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Whether you like it or not, Chavez was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela. He could have suppressed the oligarchs, but he hasn't, and that's why to this day they retain a lot of power in Venezuela, retaining ownership of some industries and controlling opposition TV channels that rail against Chavez in precisely the same terms you do. How many "dictators" can say the same thing?[/QUOTE\
It's been widely reported that ever since Chavez has gained power democratically, that he's been rigging elections for himself and his allies. And yes, Chavez has suppressed the "oligarchs."

Hold everything! The King of Spain told Chavez to shut up? Well gee whiz, if there's one person who knows a thing or two about democracy, it's an unelected monarch.

You do know what Juan Carlos I did for Spain right? He singlehandedly restored democracy in Spain and restored the rights of the people in his nation. He pretended to be a supporter of the fascist regime, risking his reputation, just so he could undo everything Franco did almost immediately he took power. Once he took power he recognized other political parties (including the Socialist Party and Communist Party in Spain), paved the way for democratic elections and a democratic constitution. The King of Spain is an incredibly popular figure to the point where even the Communists in Spain have declared themselves in support of the monarchy.

He also told Chavez to shut up after Chavez was insulting a former Prime Minister of Spain, who was democratically elected leader. The current Prime Minister of Spain, who was next to the King, told Chavez more politely to stop insulting Spanish citizens. It was also a very rare display of public anger by the King, because Chavez was being Chavez, a huge jackass.

A lot of people find that kind of "bombastic attitude" refreshing in a world body that often acts as a rubber stamp for U.S. interests.

There's a difference between being bombastic and just being a jackass.

How is providing pointed critiques of American imperialism unproductive? It's great that somebody is providing a voice in the UN for the billions of people who suffer under the global rule of capital.

I'm all for critiquing American imperialism. I do it all the time, particularly in regards to American foreign policy regarding the Middle East and Latin America.

However, I want intelligent critiques. Blaming America for the sake of blaming America is nonsense. Chavez's use of personal insults towards political figures he doesn't agree with is rude and obnoxious.

Methinks you're involved in a bout of victim-blaming here. Obama never tried to establish nice ties with Chavez. Far from it. Powerful vested interests in the US, the UK and other countries were against Chavez from the beginning because he promised a more equitable distribution of wealth in his country. They want a compliant servant of multinational conglomerates, like the presidents of...Colombia and Peru.

1. Obama did offer a hand in friendship towards Chavez. Chavez immediately rebuked him because he continually needs to villainize the United States to distract people away from problems within Venezuela and to build his clout among leftist groups within the region.

2. Regardless of what you think about the governments of Colombia and Peru, that still does not give Chavez the right to support terrorists that want to overthrow the government of Colombia, to antagonize them, or interfere with their elections.

 

[hippie_hunter]

In bad news for the President's re-election efforts, it's a report has come out saying that it's expected that youth turnout (a demographic that Obama is courting very hard on) will drop substantially from 2008:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/elections-2012-youth-vote_n_1173244.html

 

[redfirebird2008]

In bad news for the President's re-election efforts, it's a report has come out saying that it's expected that youth turnout (a demographic that Obama is courting very hard on) will drop substantially from 2008:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/elections-2012-youth-vote_n_1173244.html

I'm 26 and not going to vote unless Paul is the Republican nominee. Screw Romney and Obama.