If the Republican party has lost much of it's former glory. These days, the young 'uns stick to the Democratic party. I dunno, I think it's incredibly ironic that Obama is Democratic, considering the fact that post-Civil War, it was the Democrats who were largely racist. I wouldn't say that all of our troubles in America was defined through only America becoming more liberal. Our debt to China is largely placed squarely on giant corporations who, in an attempt to curb costs and increase profits, outsourced our laborforce, and in turn, started throwing more and more money in the hands of a Socialist state. In what regards is that the socialist's fault? It's the corporations who sold us out in the first place, otherwise China wouldn't be such a big threat as it is today. What's so wrong with not agreeing fully with you? Does that make me stupid? If I agree with some points with the Republican party, such as the abortion discussion, but against others, such as Guantanamo Bay discussion, does that make me completely anti-conservative? That's what most people in the liberal party is pointing at. You're allowing them a major point to criticize.
And this is why our loyalties need to be to principals, not to parties or to people. Declaring yourself a Democrat, or a Republican in my eyes means you don't know enough about the issues to form your own opinion, so you just agree with whatever is put forward by the party your parents happen to be in. Yes, that's right, the parents. Very, very few people deviate from the political affiliation their parents had, which leads me to believe they haven't actually formed an independent opinion and simply go with whatever they've always gone with. People, on average, are idiots.
On the flipside of that, there's those kids who just do the opposite of whatever their parents do, in an attempt to be rebellious. But it's like being lackadaisal and carefree when you're older, because your parents were strict. You're only proving that you'll do anything to be defiant, even if it means you're not following what's in your best interests. You're still being influenced by an outside force constantly.
Do you know how powerful our military already is? Why do we need to build up even more? Obama is doing what Bush should have done - solve the problems at home first. NATO and UN are taking care of North Korean missile tests, and I'm pretty sure CIA or NSA or some agency is keeping Iran's nuclear program in check. Also, America has allies. We aren't some ugly kid who everyone hates in the playground. We are the popular kid in the playground, meaning we have a lot of friends and are well known, but we have enemies too. It's not like anyone will just attack the USA anyways. The USA's allies will retaliate.
If I told you the sky was blue, you wouldn't ask me to cite my sources now would you? No, you wouldn't, because it is common knowledge. Same applies here. Generally, you trust your president to be on your side seeing as he was elected by the people (don't bring Electoral College into this). The OP started the topic, and took the side that "no, he is not." Since the majority of the American society obviously disagrees, it is common knowledge that Obama is on our side. It is also common knowledge that we spend the most (but Scope already cited that, and there is no need to cite the same info that was previously sited), etc. etc. However, saying Obama supports Muslims, supports Korea's Nukes, and wants us to have non, all of which is not common knowledge, it is up to you to cite (unless previously cited). Really, it doesn't make a difference. The "yes he is against us" side sounds totally ridiculous as it is, and no amount of cited info will change that. Like I said, if you saw a person walking down the street saying "**** **** **** lips government donkey balls!" you would rightfully assume that that person is not in the right state of mind, you don't need me to tell you so.
Yes but people are starting to question. He apologized to ****ing terrorists. He is allowing N. Korea (a country who hates us with a burning desire) to develop nuclear weapons. He's setting us up for another cold war.
For ****'s sake, he was apologizing to MUSLIMS for America's role in invading Iraq; that is a lot different then going to, say, Al-Qaeda, and saying, "We're sorry for the secound Gulf War, and we forgive you guys for 9/11, and let's plot a conspiracy to destroy the US." I didn't even think I'd have to state an obvious fact. Islam is a religion. Muslims are people who follow Islam. Al-Qaeda are terrorists who are Muslim. It is "The majority of Al-Qaeda terrorists are Muslim", not "Every Muslim is a terrorist". And it's not like Al-Qaeda is the only terrorist group either. The Unabomber was white. Aum Shinrikyo was a notorious Japanese terrorist group. A few months ago, awhite guy in Maine was trying to build a dirty bomb, not that anyone noticed. The situation about NK is far too delicate to simply say, "Well, we're America, so let's nuke'm." NK has been allies with China ever since the Korean War, on account of NK being one of the few Communist states left. You go against China, and suddenly the American public will be blaming you when every Walmart closes and the price of iPods, laptops, and basically everything made in China hextuples in price because China raised economic sanctions on us. And say, how come you're not blaming other president's for allowing Iran to develop nuclear technology? Were they trying to start Cold Wars as well? Tell me, how do you even devise such wild conspiracy theories? Put on them tin foil hats, folks.
Sorry I wasn't here sooner... ...I don't know what I expected to come of this, seeing as there have only been flames, no real debate.