I don't like getting into political debates on the internet, but I do like to chime in with some facts, links, and opinions when I read something like this. So...
2. Well, first, it's not 20,000 jobs. The company building this pipeline was estimating the jobs on an annual basis, in other words it's actually 10,000 jobs over two years. Further more, studies from the State Department and the Cornell University's Global Labor institute indicates that even this is an overestimate, and more along the lines of 6,000 to as little as 2,500 jobs. These jobs will also only be temporary, meaning once the job is finished in a year or two these people will be looking for work elsewhere anyway. In the end only around 200 permanent jobs are estimated to be created from this project. There are other ways to create 6,000 permanent jobs without worrying about the environmental impact of tar sands extraction, which is the primary concern here and primary reason it's not being fast tracked. It's in Obama's interest to create as many jobs as he can. It's not in his best interest to stop them unless there's good reason.
Sourceshttp://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/news/092811_GLI_study_finds_Keystone_XL_pipeline_will_create_few_jobs.html
3. An unfortunate side effect of reigning in private health insurance price gouging. The whole point of the Affordable Care act is to...make health care more affordable, and in the health insurance industry, that's going to result in job loss. But at the same time, health insurance is now going to be cheaper for the entire US population, meaning more money in their pockets to spend on other things. 100,000 job losses is never good, especially in this economy, but neither is the health insurance industry giving it's executives ridiculous bonuses for profiting more and more at the expense of their customers. This ensures that, while they will have some overhead, they will be forced to spend most of their income on what their supposed to be doing: namely, paying for people's hospital bills. In the long run, this is a good thing.
4. This is just....I don't even....why? The police are already doing that. Obama doesn't need to tell them to "do" anything. They already are. Is this a Fox News talking point or something? I've seen the videos, the police don't need any "commands" from Obama to do anything. If anything the cops need to tone it down. Stop arresting people for taking photos, stop arresting people for tweeting, stop pepper spraying people who aren't doing anything to warrant it (though, by all means, pepper spray anyone acting violently. Movement doesn't need them)
5. Wha...? Fox News talking point again? No, Obama isn't working with Iran. Yes, CIA runs drone missions in Iran. That's how it ended up there.
6. It was George Bush taking down Saddam Hussein that gave Iran power. Anyone who studies in world politics will tell you that. The old Iraq was the primary balancing force that kept Iran in check, and now that we've taken them out as a power in the region, the whole balance of power in the region has been screwy. Furthermore, the plan to pull the troops out of Iraq at this time was originally initiated by Bush. Finally, the primary reason why we are even leaving, is because Iraq refused to grant immunity to our troops beyond this time frame. It would have been irresponsible to not withdraw, regardless of what Iran did. And frankly, we had to. This is an expensive ass war that wasn't needed to begin with, and we had a very small amount of our population participating in it, meaning we had troops going back in again and again for several tours of duty in a row. It was time for it to end.
http://theelectionreview.com/iraq-failed-talks-over-soldiers%E2%80%99-immunity-led-to-u-s-withdrawal/
7. I take it your talking about his friends on Wall Street? Totally agree. Shows how much of a hold they have on politics, I'm afraid. Though I'm not sure that'll be true for too much longer.
8. So you would have us..what? Make war with North Korea? You realize they have the largest standing army on Earth, right? Any kind of war with them would be brutal, long, and one the US would likely ultimately lose, unless they decide to institute the draft, something which would be VERY unpopular. Furthermore, they have nukes, something they successfully tested under the Bush administration. Fact of the matter is, there isn't much we can do about North Korea aside from diplomacy, which can be tricky, as the failure of the Agreed Framework during the Bush administration kind of showed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreed_Framework
9. As I understand it, the F-22 was discontinued because it wasn't being used in any militaristic capacity. Furthermore, it was the Bush administration, not the Obama administration, that initially proposed ending production. They wanted to cap it at 183 planes. The Obama administration would eventually cap it at 187. If they aren't being used, why do we need more? There are better ways to create jobs then making planes we don't really need.
source: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf (you'll have to search for it. type Bush Administration).
10. Right, because Thanksgiving is all about God....oh wait, it's a secular holiday. It's about when the Native Americans helped the Pilgrims survive the harsh New England winter. Thanksgiving has nothing to directly to do with God. He wasn't the one who saved the Pilgrims, it was the Native Americans. Yes, the Pilgrims were seeking religious freedom (well, not really freedom, but I won't get into it), but Thanksgiving itself is not a religious holiday. Furthermore, Obama closed with "God Bless". He's a Christian. He goes to Church. He even had a pastor that he had to throw under the bus because it had become an issue on the campaign. Its hard to have a problem with a pastor without going to Church and being all religious and stuff.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1724383,00.html
This was fun. Considering this thread was supposed to be about "Obama's America", I found myself coming back to Bush's America an awful lot. Weird, huh? Lovely how conservative sources like Fox News and the Daily Caller tend to ignore that stuff.
In any case, I never personally believed in the "change you can believe in" nonsense. It was a campaign slogan and little more. It was always going to be incremental changes that would be criticized and attacked by the Republican party and the conservative media outlets you cited for most of your post. Frankly, I like a lot of what he's done. It aint perfect, but it aint what your complaining about either.
Finnbar said:
So he's Confident, supporting health care, not pushing religion, cares about the environment, and not acting like a douche to the rest of the world. Can this man do anything right?
And jesus why didn't I just say that?
