We're the Kids of America discussion

97 views
Presidental > Obama's Progress Report Card

Comments Showing 1-50 of 161 (161 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4

message 1: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments CNN had a special about Obama's first 100 days in office. Here's the article: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/2...
Check out the vids, too!

The CNN site also has some polls about how well people think he's doing in certain areas (so far).

What do you think about how he's done so far and how it seems he'll do? I'm really not sure what people typically think about him, it seems like the country is split in the middle.


message 2: by Jayda (new)

Jayda CNN is biased.


message 3: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
Everything is biased.


message 4: by Jayda (new)

Jayda CNN is extreme biased :)


message 5: by Jesi (last edited Apr 30, 2009 12:03PM) (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments They're actually probably the least biased
You can actually see moderate and conservative views, as well! Unlike most other news systems.
Probably b.c they're international (and I think people mistake international views as overly liberal. Maybe we're just excluding ourselves).


message 6: by Jayda (last edited Apr 30, 2009 12:06PM) (new)

Jayda I don't think that they're the least biased at all. In fact, I think that they're one of the most biased news networks out there. I've never heard a correct conservative view point from them, ever.


message 7: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments I completely disagree. CNN is actually typically moderate, just stating the facts (that may seem liberal in comparison to the conservative news that the media feeds the country. As liberal as I am, I have CERTAINLY seen and read way more left wing stuff than CNN gives. I enjoy the network because it gives a balance of opinions and just tries to give the facts. Which the extremes of each sides don't like to do...


message 8: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
Fox is more biased then anything.


message 9: by Jayda (new)

Jayda From the Conservative view point, they aren't accurate at all in stating the honest truth. For example, those tea parties across the US - they said that they were about taxes. They weren't just about taxes. They were about government control and spending. And when one guy was being interviewed they decided that it wasn't "family viewing". That's ridiculous. We were trying to make a point, we weren't violent or anything, and it's not family viewing? There were kids there... CNN is biased.

And yes, Fox is also biased, but I believe that CNN is more biased because they don't admit it. At least Fox admits it.


message 10: by Sara (new)

Sara (weisthis) CNN is ridiculously biased


message 11: by [deleted user] (last edited Apr 30, 2009 08:26PM) (new)

Jayda wrote: "CNN is extreme biased :)"

So is Fox News :) And they've claimed to be fair for years. Ever see Outfoxed?


message 12: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) I don't get how this was about Obama, course what isn't nowadays *sigh*, and now about which network is biased.

Really it depends what your view points are if your Conservative you think FOX is the least biased and if you're liberal you think CNN is the least biased.

Like Jayda said though, FOX comes out and says "We're biased" and CNN "tries" to claim they're moderate but they're not. None of them are plain and simple.

Though FOX does produce the most viewers, and has like the top 6 news shows, just saying :D


message 13: by [deleted user] (new)

I don't see how CNN is biased, but I guess I am personally biased. Does anyone have an example though? Not trying to argue, just wondering.


message 14: by Jayda (new)

Jayda As an example, the tea parties. They said that it was just about taxes, they didn't take int account what we said. They even stopped a guy from talking in the middle of the interview because it wasn't "family viewing" even though he had a child in his arms, that sort of thing. And I do believe that while President Bush was in office they weren't very nice towards him, am I correct? But they're absolutely accepting of Obama, someone with MUCH less experience, even less than Palin.


message 15: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
Palin was at most a Governor, Obama actually was in D.C.


message 16: by Jayda (new)

Jayda But she had more experience than he had. Do you honestly think that the only people who can work in the white house have to have been in D.C.? That's ridiculous and close-minded.


message 17: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
No, but she had no foreign experience, and one of the most pressing problems is affairs with the Middle East.

I'm not saying she bad just because of that, but it helps to know how D.C. works by being there. And if McCain died, which was a stronger possibility, then she would have to be president, and I don't think she could have handled it.


message 18: by Jayda (new)

Jayda She would've been the VP, which would've helped her gain that experience.

And Obama could die just as McCain could've died. There's the possibility of assassination, medical problems, that sort of thing. And as I said above, with being VP you gain experience and she would've learned. I don't think that not being in D.C. should be the judge of whether or not someone is allowed to be the VP.


message 19: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
The VP is not the place to gain experience. It's somewhere you get when you have it.

McCain also had several cases of cancer.


message 20: by Jayda (new)

Jayda But she'd be in D.C., where you say that you can gain experience. Even though she wouldn't be the President she'd be able to gain experience.

Obama is just as much at risk of health problems as anyone, including McCain.


message 21: by [deleted user] (new)

Palin was a governer which I think is a bigger preemptive for presidency than senator. Because a governer has more executive duties - a senator has legeslative duties (for the most part; both jobs over lap).

Anyway I think Obama is doing a terrible job but I don't know if McCain would have done much better. Maybe if McCain was in office he'd be so focused on the wars that the economy would have fixed itself behind is back but even that is too much to hope for.

(Ron Paul, 2012!)

As for death and take over of an inept vice president (Biden - not leadership quality) ... well Obama you either love him or hate him and he is a rather large target for those nut cases with guns. (Just an observation, not an insult.)

Back to Mr. Obama's report card.

Let us see ... he had spent more than three trillion dollars interfering with captialism and (this is part that gets me mad) put our children - the not-yet-though-of children of the people in this group - in debt to government at birth for bailouts that we never wanted.

After doing that he refused GM's offer to give the money back and used the loan as an in to control the company - taking us down the road to socialism (yes, I took that from Mr. Beck).

Now I don't care which system we use; I'll go with the flow. I think captialism is the most effective system because it keeps itself in check but I'm adaptable. The problem with this government control is that it directly contradicts the first line of the consitution ("We the people" control our lives, no "Mister President of the United States") and with contradiction there is weakness.

Even the amount of control the government has assumed already is far too much ("pressuring" the CEO of General Motors to step down). Socialism in of itself does not work. Communism might work but it is a one-in-a-million chance no one should take. The logical choice left is captialism but I don't see Mr. President adhering to the logic.

The ten billion dollar bailout by Bush was stupid, the second most stupid thing he did in his presidentcy (the most stupid thing being the policies at Gitmo). But it was merely a misguided choice. Mr. Obama's bailout is three hundred times Bush's and has been used to begin destroying our economic system. The government now effectively controls General Motors. Facism or socialism, it doesn't matter. It is controled by "We the People" and it will inevitably lead to our destruction down the line if we continue to follow this road.

On a lighter note, I'd like to say that when ever I use an exclaimation point that I'm not being entirely serious or I don't want you to look into it too much. I don't use it for emphasis.


message 22: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) Domerin, everything you said about Obama's report card, I appluad you for. Except Bush's biggest mistake being what he ordered at Gitmo, I disagree with that but w/e.

I love how you pointed out Bush's bailout because EVERYONE attacked him for that but this new dude, Mr.Obama, comes in with a $3 trillion plan and everyone's like "this is the most amazing plan ever!" Yeah well obviously its not.

And yes I called Obama, Mr. Obama, to insult him. I will continue to call him that until he does what he promised the country, not that my family voted for him (were not that stupid, no offense to the family's in here that did). It might not be fair but where was fair the last 2-3 years of Bush's presidency? Everyone blamed every little thing that went wrong on Bush so, its my right to do the same thing :D

Also, socialism/communism = bad. And thats the way were going with Mr.Obama. I'm scared whats going to happen to our country these four years because its not gonna be good.


message 23: by Mikayla (new)

Mikayla | 218 comments "...not that my family voted for him (were not that stupid, no offense to the family's in here that did)"

Now that WAS offensive. It's fine to have your opinions. But you don't need to take it that far.


message 24: by [deleted user] (new)

I call him Mr. Obama out of respect. Not that he deserves it, but it is just how things are.

There is one thing he has done right and that is he merit pay for the public school teachers. The better the students do in school, the more the teachers are paid. Oho, I hated public school, but maybe this'll make it better for those still there. (I'm homeschooled.)

As for Gitmo, he ignored the Geniva Convention (spelling) which weakened the already weak UN. Plus it is so bad that my dad explicitly told me (after I had asked him about it) that if I were ever suspected of being a terrorist that I run. No trial means they don't need evidence to hold me for as long as they want and then they might forget about me.

But there Mr. Predsident of today has once again taken a bad problem and made it worse. Releasing terrorist suspects on American soil - just give them their trials so it can be legimate. Her Bush and Obama are on opposite extremes and neither extreme is helpful. We can hold everyone we suspect for risk of holding the wrong person, and we can't release everyone for the risk of us having more people poised to blow us up.

Give the their trials, weed out the terrorist, let go the innocent. Move on.


message 25: by Kyle (last edited May 02, 2009 12:36PM) (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) I get what you saying Domerin, I agree on everything on some levels and I'll leave it at that. And I call him Mr.Obama as an insult because I'm supposed to call him Mr.President or President Obama. Mr.Obama is an insult to him just as it was to President Madison with the war of 1812

I am truly sorry it offended you but well that is my OPINION. It was stupid to vote him in and anyone who did made a stupid decision as they will see the remainder of his four years.

It came off as I called the people stupid, and thats what I was saying no offense to, but I think the decision those people made was stupid, not the people who made them. Does that make sense?

Sorry I worded that wrong :( Didn't mean to attack anyone's intelligence just that one decision, my bad
:(



message 26: by [deleted user] (new)

I was just elaborating. Things with President Obama are tense if not down right terrifying.


message 27: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments Kyle wrote: "I don't get how this was about Obama, course what isn't nowadays *sigh*, and now about which network is biased...."

Well nobody replied to my question and it turned into a debate about networks... >.>




message 28: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments Jayda wrote: "As an example, the tea parties. They said that it was just about taxes, they didn't take int account what we said. They even stopped a guy from talking in the middle of the interview because it was..."

1. I'm sure they had a good reason but I really don't know what you're talking about anyway. Do you have a clip or article I could check out 'cause I'm interested in this

2. Everyone hated Bush...

3. I've seen them question what he's done.



message 29: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments Jayda wrote: "She would've been the VP, which would've helped her gain that experience. ..."

The VP literally does close to nothing. Their power is far, far less significant that the president's. The VP is the President of the Senate, and yet they can not even speak in front of them without being invited! She would have learned nothing.


message 30: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments Kyle,
HOW is calling him Mr. Obama insulting!?
And honestly a lighter form of socialism that countries like Canada and Britain use are OBVIOUSlY working fine! The only reason you're scared is because of Reagan.


message 31: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) I don't think everyone hated Bush sense they voted him into office twice. No one should HATE him, no one knows him as a person, he is a good man who made mistakes, yes some of them were large mistakes but they do not amount to people hating him.

Calling him Mr.Obama shows I don't recognize him as my president. They did it in 1812 - 1814 against President Madison when no one agreed with the war of 1812. So calling a President, is SUPPOSED to be insulting. Well it used to be, so I am going with that because its a subtle way to insult him w/o anyone really caring. Because apparently insulting this guy about anything is like attacking Jesus.

Really? I don't think the socialism is working to great in Canada sense most of their clinics and stuff are illegal just so people can actually get treated. And how is Britain socialist? Does their government give a bailout to companies and then refuse to accept the payback from that company, you know so they can literally CONTROL that company? Oh no wait, thats Obamd and GM. In any case Britain's and Canada's "socialism" works for them because their leaders are EXTREMELY far left, ours on the other hand is, and he would not be satisfied with a "little" socialism he wants full blown out socialism.

And the CNN lady cutting off the guy at the tea party heres the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43X8Jd... (clearly shows how jealous CNN is of FOX too, i love it. Oh and for all yall that didn't know FOX had no hand in collaborating the tea parties it was all done by the people. And thats why Obama's scared and called them terrorists, that and he's an ass.)



message 32: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments People say Mr. President, so what's the difference.
Well that's sad, because he IS your president, maybe you should acknowledge that.

About the War of 1812, he got Congress to declare war, and yet he was still re-elected for a second term. So obviously people didn't think TOO badly of him. Some believe the war was necessary. It is also know as The Second War for Independence.

"Mr. Madison" as you call him, also was president in the what is known as the era of good feelings. No president is perfect. Some believe he should have avoided war, but even still, the period in which he was president was mighty fine for Americans overall.

Illegal in Canda?? How?

What I mean by Britain being "slightly socialist" was because of universal taxing.

They aren't looking for total control over GM. The government just wants to keep a more watchful eye on them so they don't cheat everyone over again. It's probably for the better because they obviously don't know how to run their own business. And what if they let them go? Then what about all those people's jobs? The consequences of that could be monumental!

Obama can't have full blown socialism even if he wanted to. People are scared for no reason, this capitalist system of checks and balances basically allows free-form government. It can place out rules that are far left and far right in the same day and it doesn't matter because we're NOT run like a communist government. We still have the three branches. That's not going to be randomly and suddenly knocked down by one man.

Thanks for the clip I'll watch that.


message 33: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments I'd like to point something out. Before there was a discussion about age. However, Teddy Roosevelt, one of our nation's most beloved presidents, the man with his face on Mt. Rushmore, was 43 when elected into office. Obama was 47.


message 34: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
"She would have learned nothing. "

Until McCain dies and she's president, then everyone would have moved to Canada.


message 35: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments lmao well yeah (though still I doubt she'd learn anything ahahah).

Psst. I wouldn't wait for him to. I'd be gone by then.

Typically VPs are just people to state opinions. She probably would have swayed McCain well, he wouldn't have had to die.


message 36: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
Her sway is replacing science with creationism. I could never have her or McCain if that's her position.


message 37: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments Right?!
FSM FTW!


message 38: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
FSM! Intelligent Falling is correct!


message 39: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments lmfao never heard of it till now!!
i just looked it up dude i luv ppl


message 40: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
I know. It's like Poe's Law.

((that's a good one to look up too))


message 41: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments ahah cuz u so knew i didnt know about it :D
Okay I understand when the term is used but what is it exactly (unless people say Poe's Law only BECAUSE someone said something that's obviously not true and that person's making a point or is completely retarded and serious).

If you know about the Black Panther Party (I'd tell you to look it up but it's weird. Basically they are black people in the 60s creating a "Declaration", a list of demands for civil rights, that are so outrageously ridiculous. It's hard to tell if they're serious or making a point), then is that Poe's Law?

Or is Poe's Law actually something, a parody like FSM or ID, but when people talk about Poe's Law u can nvr tell what they mean by it. If so, then what is Poe's Law??

I'm rambling... b.c I'm confusing myself trying to explain my question... I hope you understand lol


message 42: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
No, Poe's Law is a term that states that people making fun of fundamentalists are indistinguishable from the real fundies, unless there is an obvious show of humor.

FSM is not Poe's Law, because they admit to being a parody. Check the recent Friendly Atheist posts.


message 43: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments ahh okay I see!!

no wayy i disagree! cuz you nvr know if ppl are actually FSM believers!! rofdogzz


message 44: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments ahahah that article was HILLLRRRIOUS!!!
dude, we're getting WAYY off topic


message 45: by Lauren, radical atheist...beware! (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 2702 comments Mod
We are. :) But everything gets off topic.


message 46: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) Yeah checks and balances...that would work if the idiots weren't running Congress too so, thats why people are scared.

Uh...the GM thing...Obama shouldn't have ANY control of GM. Obviously, GM has been doing fine till the last couple years, so Bush or Obama shouldn't have given them that bailout and made them run their own buisness. Oh the government can run GM better? Hmm..is that why 12,000 factories are being shut down over the summer because the government is SO much better at running GM's buisness, could've fooled me.

I meant that Canada has to have illegal clinics so people can get decent treatment. The government overlooks them most of the time but sometimes they have to crack down.

I don't call Mr.Madison, Mr.Madison, I call him President Madison. Saying Mr.(president's name) was an insult from President Madison's opponents which if you consider his opponents the poeple having different opinions from him, my views are "opponents" to Obama's.

And don't give me a history lesson, obviously if I knew people called him Mr.Madison as a form of disrespect, not a well known fact, I know the big things about the War of 1812. And I don't disagree with teh war of 1812, I never said I did, so I don't understand why your trying to convince me of that.


message 47: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments im sure the idiots in congress in your eyes are the liberals. Well others would say those idiots are the conservatives. Just remember, the power constantly shifts. But fear not because usually the longest periods are held by the Republicans.

And Obama doesn't have the control, it's the government. Well isn't that the point? Everything can look fine from the outside but one day everything turns ugly. It was a collection of wrong moves and bad circumstances through the many years before the ugly started showing (to the public at least). Not just suddenly a business going down the drains.

And btw government control has proved an EXCELLENT thing! Before that, there was laissez-faire attitudes about business. No child labor laws. No help for the minorities. No health benefits and no inspections for health and safety regulations at the work place! Now all the government wants to do is target one company, give it money with conditions and people freak out crying that Obama's taking control over businesses! He's not sitting there at their meetings regulation what they spend and what they spend it on, these are preset conditions.

Yeah, but where did you hear that about Canada?

Yes i realize that. What I was saying was that Madison was at worst a decent president. So anyone calling him Mr. Madison from the time shouldn't be taken seriously and shouldn't be a diss.

You don't understand what I'm trying to say. I was telling you those history things because YOU'RE the one that said you were calling Obama Mr. Obama in reference to those who called Madison Mr. Madison. Because you felt it was a way to view him as a person and not your president. But if you AGREED with the war of 1812 then wtf is your point here?! Because it was implied that you did disagree with it by referencing the Mr. Madison thing.


But w.e if you think it's an insult go ahead. I don't think so I don't care anymore. And I'm tired of fig


message 48: by [deleted user] (last edited May 03, 2009 08:44PM) (new)

"What I mean by Britain being "slightly socialist" was because of universal taxing."

That isn't socialism ... the ridiculously democrat. Socialism is government control of businesses (directly).

"Obama can't have full blown socialism even if he wanted to. People are scared for no reason, this capitalist system of checks and balances basically allows free-form government. It can place out rules that are far left and far right in the same day and it doesn't matter because we're NOT run like a communist government. We still have the three branches. That's not going to be randomly and suddenly knocked down by one man."

The system of checks and balances has already been screwed up one - our judical branch has largely taken over the job of local legslation with all these supreme court cases that decide what the law is saying rather than asking the legislators themselves.

But more importantly, communism is that lack of government due to everyone being an owner and a worker simultaneously ("perfect" communism anyway). It is different from socialism - opposite of it in fact - as socialsim is government control of businesses. They are very distinct from one another.

"And btw government control has proved an EXCELLENT thing! Before that, there was laissez-faire attitudes about business. No child labor laws. No help for the minorities. No health benefits and no inspections for health and safety regulations at the work place! Now all the government wants to do is target one company, give it money with conditions and people freak out crying that Obama's taking control over businesses! He's not sitting there at their meetings regulation what they spend and what they spend it on, these are preset conditions."

All those are laws protecting rights, not controlling the businesses. The effect they have on businesses are merely side effects, not the intention - the intention is to keep people safe. What Obama is doing with such acts such as pressuring the CEO of General Motors to shep down is directly controling the businesses.

Ironically he is mixing socialism with its opposite - comunism! Appearently he plans to given control of GM to the Unions - Marx's idea. But this is Union control with the government's help. Sounds like a totally new form of economics to me. Let's think of where it takes us.

Union controls GM making the workers the bosses (this has been done in small local chains like Woodman's but nothing on this scale). The workers now do all the grunt work to make it flow smoothly. But major problem happens and who makes the final call? The government whom the company will be in debt to because it won't take their money back. Then the government will start to make decisions on slightly less important problems ... then slightly less important. And this continues, possibly for decades if the business hasn't already collapsed or scattered, until the government has the power to control everything in the business. Not that it would, but if it wanted to do tinkering then it could. Rights start disappearing.

I doubt this is Obama's intention as the real damage wouldn't happen until he was out of office, but if he goes forward with this mix of all three economic systems and somehow imposes it on other businesses then that is what it could very well escalate to. The kind of totalitarian society that you read in science fiction stories.

Hmm ... I wonder why science fiction stories are usually the ones that talk and like and rarely, if ever, the fantasy stories. Must have something to do with technology being too powerful a tool and in the wrong hands it creates the greatest evil - the lack of free will. Of course, being a tool it is indiscriment and would be capable of great good as well...

... Sorry went off on my own there.



message 49: by Kyle (new)

Kyle Borland (kgborland) *claps for Domerin*
Could not have said it anywhere near as good. *applauds some more* lol


message 50: by Jesi (new)

Jesi (zoebabii328) | 43 comments You're just upset that the supreme court allows gay marriage.

They have way too many problems to deal with than to start nitpicking at the little things of the company. That's why the company hires workers to oversee other workers...

I personally think this is all fine, but that's an opinion gained from seeing it work for other countries.


« previous 1 3 4
back to top