Why does everyone blame Obama for the country being the way it is? He actually has only two obligations, to declare war and to veto or affirm bills passed by Congress. Even then, Congress can overrule both.
It seems that people want one man to solve their problems alone, as if it is a temporary dictatorship. Congress is made up of 535 people. Those people are people that citizens voted for. Even if they did not vote for Obama, they still probably voted for a member of Congress that won.
Obama really can't do much other than to plead to Congress to address the topics he wants Congress address in his State of the Union address. Besides, if Obama is doing any thing unconstitutional, Congress can't impeach him. The Supreme Court can only deem his actions unconstitutional, and then impeach him. He can be impeached from office, but not removed from office unless he did something horrendous.
So, why do people want to impeach Obama, force his image on the reason the country's status is like this, and blame him for not being able to be bipartisan with the increasingly leftist Republicans?
You need to do some research on analogies. When you compare two like things, chances are they won't be exactly the same. If the two things you were comparing were exactly the same, then you would be comparing two identical objects which is pointless.
So yes, the content in the bills Obama signed do differ from the content of the bills Bush signed, but understand that the same basic policies are the same.
This might be a little over your head, so let's not even debate semantics. Just focus on the main idea of the video that Obama is pushing bills that are similar to the ones Bush passed.
That wasn't even an analogy.
The part about him saying he can not allow the same policies is correct. The whole "set forth to do the opposite" is absolutely wrong.
You say what I say is wrong but you never prove it.
Let me rephrase what you said. Bush and Obama are creating similar policies, but because they aren't the exact same, then Obama is doing the opposite of what Bush did?
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that's what you wrote, just in a different order.
They passed bills on the same topics, but the policies defined in the bill are different.
They passed bills on the same topics, but the policies defined in the bill are different.
Of course the bills aren't exactly the same, because if they were then they would be passing the same bill twice!
I say the policies are the same. You say that because the bills are different, the policies are different. Okay, whatever, that's besides the point. You're completely ignoring the main point which is that these policies are very similar.
I don't have time for you to drown me out with fallacious arguments.
For the last ****ing time, this isn't a thread to complain about Obama. I am just trying to explain that everyone needs to stop blaming Obama for the problems that Congress caused.
Hey, I know that Congress has a strong say in the process too, but you cannot say that Obama is just one of 536, because he's not. He has power equal to about 2/3 of Congress, so he can't be entirely absolved of blame. And also, because his health care and economy plans won't work.
If NoName is really Libertarian, I don't know why he would want censorship... That would defy the principle of non-aggression...
You need to do some research on analogies. When you compare two like things, chances are they won't be exactly the same. If the two things you were comparing were exactly the same, then you would be comparing two identical objects which is pointless.
A quote can be used to humorously describe the "Bad Analogy"
From http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
"The solar system reminds me of an atom, with planets orbiting the sun like electrons orbiting the nucleus. We know that electrons can jump from orbit to orbit; so we must look to ancient records for sightings of planets jumping from orbit to orbit also."
Or, "Minds, like rivers, can be broad. The broader the river, the shallower it is. Therefore, the broader the mind, the shallower it is."
Or, "We have pure food and drug laws; why can't we have laws to keep movie-makers from giving us filth ?"
You say what I say is wrong but you never prove it.
I'm pretty sure that NoName thought that the video he linked was his argument, so if you can refute that in some way... then be my guest (I didn't watch it)
I don't have time for you to drown me out with fallacious arguments.
State the fallacies - this one is a fallacy in itself: ad hominem.
I applaud you on your wonderful usage of Ad-Hominem attacks. Well done, well done!
Bush lied many times,
But is it not human nature to do so? Hobbes wrote that 'Man is an evil creature', and lieing would be a trait of an evil Human Nature, would it not? And, as Storm stated, its not like Obama has lied either, so you're essentially demoninzing the Jackal, while ignoring the Wolf.
And yes, Bush lied, but I'd rather NOT know whats going on in Area 51 and such.
screwed the budget to hell
,
Because War, Natural Disasters, and an Economic Meltdown TOTALLY doesn't cost any money at all, what so ever.
started two wars,
Next you're gonna tell me that Katrina was Bush's fault. Seriously. Bush didn't 'start' any wars, ever. Last time I checked, it had something to do with some planes crashing into stuff, and a country refusing to give up the leader of a terrorist organization who was behind it. But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.
tried to make america a quasi-theocratic state
But the constitution clearly tells us that there is a 'seperation of church and state'. And the President of the US must uphold the Constitution. So, Bush trying to make America a 'quasi-theocratic state' as you said would be Un-Constitutional, and that would never be allowed.
and oh ya, spent roughly 2 years on vacation in texas playing cowboy
Wow. i think you may have exagertted *just* a teeny-weeny bit. Just a little. But I think its ok to forget about how Obama reguarly shoots hoops, swims in Florida, sun-bathes in Hawaii, and visits Martha's Vineyard. Seriously... -_-
Next you're gonna tell me that Katrina was Bush's fault. Seriously. Bush didn't 'start' any wars, ever. Last time I checked, it had something to do with some planes crashing into stuff, and a country refusing to give up the leader of a terrorist organization who was behind it. But by all means, correct me if I'm wrong.
That was the first war, the second was for oil. Though if you ask Bush it was for WMDs that everyone else said don't exist.
for when questions to his politics come up that show he is wrong, he just poofs them.
And then I'm pretty sure he'd be banned by the administration. So its not really worth the risk, if you ask me.
the second was for oil
Than how come gas prices continue to rise, instead of drop, after we invaded Afghanistan? If we had taken the oil, gas would be a dime a gallon, rather than 3.00 USD where I live, and rising.
don't fret, yours isn't the only post "magically" deleted by a certain mod, for when questions to his politics come up that show he is wrong, he just poofs them.
Seeing as to how I can't prove my innocence, it seems you'll just have to take my word.
I'm fairly confident Bush didn't invade anywhere for oil. The man was trying to protect america. We invaded afghanistan because planes ran into our buildings... we invaded iraq because Saddam Hussein was believed to have weapons of mass destruction. If you go back to 2003 and look at the intelligence gathered, there was no reason to believe Saddam didnt have WMDs and planned to use them. The only time people believed there werent WMDs was after we invaded. we gave saddam PLENTY of chances to submit a report of his weapons... he just didnt
