Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Cao Ang

Was Obama a good president?

Recommended Posts

Chiarii

they should be strung up by their heels, slashed at the wrists, and allowed to bleed out dry on the Capitol steps for all of us to watch

 

This barbaric, vindictive, childlike statement defines you. I really do hope you can get the help you obviously need.

 

 

under Obama's tenure the unemployment rate is back to 'normal' and even lower than the point at which Mitt Romney had bragged he would lower it.

 

This line of bullsh*t is from Bill Maher (one of your primary news sources) and is the product of manipulation. The labor force participation rate proves I'm right.

 

This site won't allow enough quotes to dispel every falsehood in your rambling post of psychobabble and personal attacks. Can you limit your comedian-inspired claims to say... maybe 2 or 3 per post?

 

 

 

Then you've got specific indices for human freedom, like that run by the Cato Institute, which focus exclusively on civil liberties and personal freedoms. Let's not forget here that the Cato Institute is a libertarian think-tank and use that to frame their findings. The top ten as they interpret it are:

 

So in other words this is an opinion.

 

 

Wonderful magical thinking here. James O'Keefe would have been criminally prosecuted in Europe because he committed a criminal act.

 

 

You explicitly said imprisonment was likely. We're talking about free press here....

 

 

So you say, but my inclination is to just dismiss your offhand assertions like this as either an unwillingness or inability to address counter-attack rs.

 

 

It is doesn't need to be addressed. I'm saying 'this is why the sky is blue' and you're saying 'the sky is more blue on this side of the Atlantic'.

 

 

 

 

Did you forget about the two Bushes and Reagan, or are you afraid of being proven wrong?

 

 

Well go ahead and prove me wrong? I'm betting you'll just say something like "you are wrong/stupid and Obama is better" then act like you proved me wrong and humiliated me.

 

By the way, Eutyphro already asked me this question and I answered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

Actually, Reagan consistently ranks in the top 10 to 20 of greatest presidents. On average he's, ranked no. 10. But this is what it says of posterity and human nature, that we're more inclined to believe the myth, rather than the actual policies.

 

As I mentioned earlier, I personally put Obama in the top 20; not because I think he was a great president, but because of the social significance alone. There's only been 3 surveys on Obama's place in the rankings, but he's at about where I've judged his presidency, in the lower rankings of the upper half, ie. top 20 to 25.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Michael

 

Only one I can think of is William Henry Harrison. Granted he died a month into his term, I think we can safely say he doesn't have a civilian body count. :p

to be fair, Harrison was pro-slavery and as a US general he led numerous attacks on Native American Indians ;)Lmao, knowing that, it's probably better he croaked then. :p

 

E: then again, both of those things were somewhat normal back then. Glad I didn't exist yet tbh.

Edited by Sir Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

This line of bullsh*t is from Bill Maher

Bill Maher has literally nothing to do with it.

although that's a nice little distraction coming from someone who obviously cannot support the stupid claims they're making. would you like to try again?

 

I'm talking facts and statistics as reported by the Department of Labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

It's not. Drones are evil. They are cowardly and evil.

Explain how "drones" are more "cowardly" or "evil" than conventional airstrikes.

 

And you have faith in this data because..? You actually expect the US to be honest about their own pseudo criminal behaviour?

They're a nonpartisan think tank whose estimates lie roughly between the low figures issued by organisations less critical of the program and the exceptionally unreliable personal survey mechanism used by the prominent organisations with very high figures with result in the same victims being counted multiple times. Either way, they're not reliant on the US government's transparency or lack of.

 

Edit: I looked up the foundation, and it is quite clearly based on very incomplete data. I'd say your '1 in 14.1' figure is quite meaningless, considering how incomplete the data is and how non transparent the US is about this practice

"Their estimates are incomplete and inaccurate, not for any clear reason I care to explain but because I say so. However, these estimates which just so happen to correlate with my personal views on the subject are much more accurate, again not for any clear reason I care to explain but because I said so".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Happy Hunter

 

It's not. Drones are evil. They are cowardly and evil.

Explain how "drones" are more "cowardly" or "evil" than conventional airstrikes.

Don't know about evil, but when it comes to cowardice ...

 

Well, one method involves going out to fight, and taking the chance that you'll get shot down. Granted, you probably won't be shot down, since you're in a multi-million dollar military aircraft, and the enemy's some guy with his AK (or maybe some old Stinger or something if the CIA's funded him). But at any rate, you're there; you're at some risk.

 

The other method involves sending out some remote controlled toy to drop bombs on people for you. You're at no risk. You are - quite literally - a keyboard warrior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

 

It's not. Drones are evil. They are cowardly and evil.

Explain how "drones" are more "cowardly" or "evil" than conventional airstrikes.

Don't know about evil, but when it comes to cowardice ...

 

Well, one method involves going out to fight, and taking the chance that you'll get shot down. Granted, you probably won't be shot down, since you're in a multi-million dollar military aircraft, and the enemy's some guy with his AK (or maybe some old Stinger or something if the CIA's funded him). But at any rate, you're there; you're at some risk.

 

The other method involves sending out some remote controlled toy to drop bombs on people for you. You're at no risk. You are - quite literally - a keyboard warrior.

 

 

Yes, let's risk soldiers lives unnecessarily and create even more potential collateral casualties by putting boots on the ground or raining bombs from airplane. That is the more honorable way to kill your enemy, as opposed to sending in a drone with a surgical strike. All because of bravery.

 

Like at the end of WW1, when the armistice was already signed and war as set to be over starting at noon. Didn't stop commanders sending their troops to be mutilated and maimed and murdered by machine gun fire, causing thousands of casualties, all for "bravery" and "honour".

 

Such logic.

Edited by Tchuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Well, one method involves going out to fight, and taking the chance that you'll get shot down.

This might have been a valid point if the majority of modern munitions used by ground attack aircraft weren't stand-off ones, deployed anywhere between 20 and 1,000 miles from the target. More often than not they never need to go anywhere near the target area to attack it; even unpowered precision guided munitions can hit a target the size of an average window from ten-plus miles away.

 

Not sure how wanting to preserve a pilot's life is "cowardice" either. Surely any rational or reasonable person would advocate limiting the prospect of casualties on both sides?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

Maybe we should go back at fighting on equal ground with sticks and stones ? :p

 

Since this thread is not in D&D making a joke does not get me flamed right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ten-a-penny

 

 

Yes, let's risk soldiers lives unnecessarily and create even more potential collateral casualties by putting boots on the ground or raining bombs from airplane. That is the more honorable way to kill your enemy, as opposed to sending in a drone with a surgical strike. All because of bravery.

 

Like at the end of WW1, when the armistice was already signed and war as set to be over starting at noon. Didn't stop commanders sending their troops to be mutilated and maimed and murdered by machine gun fire, causing thousands of casualties, all for "bravery" and "honour".

 

Such logic.

 

 

You kinda missed his point. He simply explained how [he sees] using a drone is "coward-ly" compared to using ACTUAL aircraft against targets. Whether he agrees or disagrees about it is irreverent.

 

Well, unless I ended up missing one of his posts somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

 

 

Yes, let's risk soldiers lives unnecessarily and create even more potential collateral casualties by putting boots on the ground or raining bombs from airplane. That is the more honorable way to kill your enemy, as opposed to sending in a drone with a surgical strike. All because of bravery.

 

Like at the end of WW1, when the armistice was already signed and war as set to be over starting at noon. Didn't stop commanders sending their troops to be mutilated and maimed and murdered by machine gun fire, causing thousands of casualties, all for "bravery" and "honour".

 

Such logic.

 

 

You kinda missed his point. He simply explained how [he sees] using a drone is "coward-ly" compared to using ACTUAL aircraft against targets. Whether he agrees or disagrees about it is irreverent.

 

Well, unless I ended up missing one of his posts somewhere.

 

 

Right, but that is a line drawn in the sand. Sure flying drones is "cowardly" (it really isn't) if compared to aircrafts. But well, technically aircrafts are just as cowardly since you fire your missiles from so far away that your target doesn't even know you exist before being blown to pieces. So technically flying modern aircrafts against targets is "cowardly" if compared to say land-based vehicles. But then again, tanks can also shoot at targets from miles away, same for artillery pieces, so you could be hidden away, make some math calculations, and boom goes your target. Quite cowardly. The only answer would be infantry. But then you have cowardly snipers, who can kill you from a km or more away. You die before even hearing the bullet. Not very brave. And on and on and on. It's a moot point.

 

His argument is basically "if there's no risk, then you are just a coward". Which is a pretty stupid statement to make, specially when it comes to war practices. Your country is being invaded: Would you prefer a "coward" drone operator pinpointing his target and minimizing casualties, or would you prefer an airplane dropping a load of bombs over a large area because hey airstrike and he might be hiding, but at least they are brave, or even braver soldiers boots on the ground caught in crossfire killing innocents by accident etc. It's such a retarded argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Switch

One of the main reasons Reagan is put on the number 10 spot of best presidents is usually because people believe he won them the cold war and defeated the Soviet Union. Don't know anything else people could say about him that is positive besides that. I do think that too many people give Obama more credit than he deserves to a certain point. Can't really blame them with this new orange guy taking his spot..

Edited by Switch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkSavageDeathlyCloud

To be honest everyone has his definition of what is a cowardly action in war.

I say the whole term is kinda a myth in this case, since if there is such a thing, you have to assume there are wars were all parties are fighting with equal assets and have equal skill.

 

Thing is, if that was the case wouldn't all wars be never ending never changing conflicts ?

 

Equality is a myth if you ask me btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

the level of candor, insight, wisdom, empathy, and intelligence displayed by Barack Obama is amazing on it's face value.

it's about 10x more amazing when you compare it with the abject buffoon and cartoon of a man who's about to replace him.

 

c'est la vie

 

 

 

take a good look at the last normal, sensible, reasonable, and honest press conference you're ever going to see for about 4 years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip

it's about 10x more amazing when you compare it with the abject buffoon and cartoon of a man who's about to replace him.

 

c'est la vie

Obama better get his due credit for the past 8 years.

 

It's like a dream...or nightmare. It all feels very surreal and not true...

 

I'm forever an optimist and I like to think that it will just be a 4 year long joke and that the rest of the world will "understand".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

Bill Maher has literally nothing to do with it.

although that's a nice little distraction coming from someone who obviously cannot support the stupid claims they're making. would you like to try again?

 

I'm talking facts and statistics as reported by the Department of Labor.

 

 

You're quoting him so he does have something to do with it.

 

Anyway according to the bls labor force participation is 62.8%. Some might say that it's so low because of baby boomers retiring but I'd counter that by saying most baby boomers aren't retirement age (which increases anyway) and then advance it further by citing that gen y unemployment is almost 13%.

 

But I'm guessing you won't say that. You'll just say 'you're wrong ____x' or 'you don't understand what you're saying'. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shaytan

As I stated previously, from my point of view Obama was a good president as well as most of his measures. He tried to bring free health care to those in need and, higher equality measures regarding sexual orientations, race and religion and, one of the things I despise the most on Trump, he cared about the environment.

 

One of the things I really don't appreciate from his legacy on the White House is the war question. The problem imo is not the drones by themselves, but the simple fact he had promised to stop the war and he hasn't done so; US keeps attacking other countries, causing massive losses on the civil population and using massive destruction weaponry without close investigation, giving death sentence to people without judgment with an, explosion blast. I fail to see where the human rights are at that moment, but how innocent I am for believing those were ever more than a piece of paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

So in other words this is an opinion.

...No, it's a combination of perceptions and empirical measurements. Look, I understand that you don't like it because it conflicts with the ridiculously distorted images of the US and rest of the world that you hold in your head, but this is getting absurd, especially given your only counterarguments seems to comprise a heady combination of cherry picking, non sequitur and a straw man. Let's not forget your fairly categorical claim that Scandinavian/European states are "not" freer than the US; now you're shown evidence to the contrary any discussion of the matter is simply a voicing of opinion...Presumably including your own?

 

Come back when you've got something vaguely resembling a coherent rebuttal to post.

 

You explicitly said imprisonment was likely.

When I said "likely...here" I was referring to the UK, not to Europe more widely. But yeah, I would have no qualms in seeing a private citizen who had falsely accused an organisation of criminal activity using doctored evidence being arrested and charged with Perverting the Course of Justice. Regardless of whether or not they cast themselves as a "journalist".

 

We're talking about free press here....

Being a member of the press does not protect one from criminal investigation or conviction if they commit a criminal act. Thankfully this doesn't play any role in determining if a country has a free press or otherwise, given that it's utterly asinine.

 

Funny, I see you arguing leniency towards O'Keefe on the grounds of journalistic protection as a positive despite him having committee criminal acts in pursuit of a fabricated narrative, yet suspiciously ignoring the harassment and arrest of journalists covering the Occupy protests and the lack of accountability in reporting on national security issues caused by archaic espionage and sedition laws.

 

It is doesn't need to be addressed.

I disagree; if it's anything like as clear cut and obvious as you seem to suggest then it's hardly a taxing use of your time. No, on the balance of probability I think it's far liklier you just want to dismiss them offhand as they're inconvenient for your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cj2000

 

Already tolld you the 2 incidents. The first was mentioned by you and the second was that failure of russian satelite. You also mentioned the Cuba crisis.

No, you said two excluding AA83. And the satellite incident is much less significant than you make out. Still, I fail to see the relevance as there's no single set of incidents, or even sequence of incidents, even remotely comparable to any of the above mentioned near misses for you to assert we're close to WWII under Obama.

 

 

I have never excluded AA83. We also have the acident NATO shuting down a russian military plane in Syria, where we also still have one of so called proxy wars between USA and Russia. Also I was tallking about Obama pushing the world towords WW3 in the context of the peace Nobel price. You have to agree, the level of confrontation has strongly increased under Obama. You can say it´s all just Putins fault, which is only particulary true, because Putin was there long befor Obama, but the level of confrontation never was as high. Obama was also inwolved in some smaller local conflicts, so he really not deserving the nobel price. So if Obama be honest, he should give the nobel price back.

At least Obama ordered to release that gay wistleblower, which was the first good thing he has ever done.

Edited by cj2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I have never excluded AA83.

You did claim there were more events than those two:

Only in the 80s there were more than 2 times when Warld War 3 was about to begin

We've established two of the "more than 2"- AA83 and the Stanislav Petrov incident, what are the others?

 

We also have the acident NATO shuting down a russian military plane in Syria

Turkey != NATO, especially in the case of Syria given they're working their own very clear political agenda there. The shoot-down was never a NATO issue, but a direct spat between Turkey and Russia. One that seems to have been largely solved now.

 

where we also still have one of so called proxy wars between USA and Russia.

I would stop short of labelling the current situation in Syria a proxy war between the US and Russia given the lack of committment given to the rebel groups by the US, and the tacit collaboration which has taken place in strikes against IS. More analogous to the level of support offered to Serbia by Russian during the Kosovo crisis.

 

Also I was tallking about Obama pushing the world towords WW3

An assertion you still haven't got close to demonstrating is valid.

 

You can say it´s all just Putins fault, which is only particulary true, because Putin was there long befor Obama, but the level of confrontation never was as high.

This isn't entirely true. Confrontation between the US and Russia has been escalating since early 2008, long before Obama assumed the presidency, in the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict. Tensions with NATO more widely long before that, with the 2007 Estonian cyber attacks and the tit-for-tat confrontations in and around Russian activities in the US and EU and the MI6 fake rock fiasco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rockstar Vienna

12:00PM...

 

It's over. Thanks Obama. Now have fun with Trump America! Seriously... All the best to you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuzzknuckles

Trump's inauguration speech was f*cking horrible. For him to stand there and say that patriotism is going bring unity and solidarity is unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
X S

Can we lock this thread now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voodoo

Let's send it to D&D instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Dildo

You're quoting him so he does have something to do with it.

Anyway according to the bls labor force participation is 62.8%. Some might say that it's so low because of baby boomers retiring but I'd counter that by saying most baby boomers aren't retirement age (which increases anyway) and then advance it further by citing that gen y unemployment is almost 13%.

I never quoted Bill Maher.

I quoted labor statistics. try again.

 

also Participation is not Employment.

there are many factors dealing with participation much of which is voluntary and circumstantial. you're trying to compare information in a way that only reinforces my point while hurting your own.

 

so.

would you like to try again? third time's the charm I'm sure....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Now that this thread is in D&D, I'll make a reply here. I believe President Obama will likely be ranked among the top 20 of US Presidents by historians, perhaps even top 10.

 

James Buchanan tends to be named as the worst US president in history, because he did not see the civil war coming, and when he did, made all the wrong decisions to prevent it. Buchanan's logic was; secession is illegal, but it would also be illegal to enforce that!

 

I think Obama will be unlikely to reach the greatest of Lincoln, Washington and Roosevelt (both), as part of his Presidency was marred by some serious blunders in foreign policy along with some questionable advisers.

 

It's hard to say how Obama will be remembered though. This depends heavily on three things: What Trump does to his legacy, what happens to the Democratic Party and - I suppose most importantly - what happens to the United States.

 

Even if Trump manages to undo Obama's legacy, Obama will not be a footnote president like Ford or Carter. Ford didn't even serve a full term (nor were actually elected!), and Carter wasn't even very popular within his own party, I mean Ted Kennedy tried to steal the nomination from him at the DNC in 1980.

 

In fact, the undoing of Obama's legacy would likely make Obama more memorable. And if Trump does as much damage - as a lot of people fear - to the United States, Obama's juxtaposition with Trump alone will make him memorable anyway.

 

We've talked about this before, but it's clear that Obama was far more progressive than the Democratic Party itself. Hence resulting in a division between Obama and the DNC. This is why they nominated Clinton and shunned Sanders out. This is also why the Democrats lost a lot of state legislatures and governorships during his tenure.

 

Before you use that as a parameter to suggest Obama was a bad President, I should stress that losing state legislatures and governorships is pretty normal for a President. Even if Obama lost somewhat more than average. But I don't think the blame lies with the President in this regard, but rather with the Party.

 

I personally think President Obama was a very good President. And I think he did incredibly well with the cards he was given. Talking about economic growth or other statistics misses the larger point, particularly because statistics can be easily be abused to make some sort of point. The real focus should be; a President is given some cards to make decisions, and given those cards what decisions do the President make?

 

This is why we rank Washington and Lincoln among the greatest US Presidents. And George W. Bush among one of the worst.

 

But - like I said - if nothing else, Obama's juxtaposition to Trump will make him memorable regardless of what happens.

Edited by Svip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darthYENIK

Exactly. Just like Clinton compared to GW Bush. Clinton was mediocre. He did the job, and didn't destroy the world, but the next guy came in and plunged us into a war we couldn't afford and seemed like he was way under qualified. Obama was better than Clinton, and Trump is worse than Bush. So that'll catapult Obama up the list.

 

In my opinion, he did a lot of good. He tried to get healthcare for people who couldn't afford it, he championed LGBT rights, was great for real human rights issues, and allowed the economy to recover. But he did do some crazy sh*t. Condemning whistle blowers, leaving the door open for spying on his own citizens, and his drug policies haven't been the best. Overall, he did good.

 

I've always loved the "right's" insistence that he's terrible. As a Republican myself (a sentence I say way too much nowadays), I've never seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RollsReus1959

Was Obama a good president? No.

 

He gave us Trump. You can interpret that as good or bad but the consensus is that of a bad president.

Edited by RollsReus1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Was Obama a good president? No.

 

He gave us Trump.

Eh? If we're going to start using the quality of the follo wing president as a measure of how good the preceding one is then lots of the "greatest" presidents in history are by default terrible.

 

Surely your beef should be with the American people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RollsReus1959

He's been very divisive in my opinion. The looting and rioting from the BLM terrorist could have been avoided if Obama addressed the issue. Instead he said it could have been his son. This caused riots all across America. He left the nation very divided.

 

He doesn't love America. He wanted to fundamentally change America, his words, with progressive policies that don't fit the American culture.

 

His foreign policy was atrocious. Ransom money to Iran and giving Iran uranium in his last 3 weeks of office. Nobody hears about these things because the media won't report it.

 

His claim to fame is that he is the first Black president even though most people feel MLK

Is the first Black president.

Edited by RollsReus1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.