Upload
Login or register

cysco

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:12/19/2010
Location:Germany
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 5601 total,  6032 ,  431
Comment Thumbs: 10635 total,  11280 ,  645
Content Level Progress: 32% (32/100)
Level 141 Content: Faptastic → Level 142 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 94% (94/100)
Level 291 Comments: Post Master → Level 292 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:1
Content Views:253988
Times Content Favorited:585 times
Total Comments Made:544
FJ Points:13462
Favorite Tags: beethoven (2) | i (2) | like (2) | quote (2)

First2[ 9 ]

latest user's comments

#58 - #answer below 03/04/2016 on I guess he was right 0
#57 - not that bush wouldnt have dont that. but he screws up th…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/04/2016 on I guess he was right +1
#73 - ellojello (03/04/2016) [-]
Aight, here is why you're wrong.

Yes, Obama has used more drone strikes than Bush did, mainly because we've hugely expanded the drone program since it is more efficient and effective than flying standard fighter aircraft for search and destroy and recon missions. But here is the thing, bush made 52 drone strikes, killing 416 people, 167 of which were civilians. That's a civilian kill rate of 40.1%.

Obama has ordered 362 strikes, killing 2438-3942 people, 416-959 of which were civilians. If you assume the maximum civilian casualty rate (i.e. the lowest number of total kills, 2438, but the highest estimate of civilian casualties, 959) you get a civilian kill rate of 39.3%; that's a lower civilian death rate than Bush's strikes, albeit by a statistically insignificant margin. If you use the high end OR low end estimates for both civilian and total deaths you get much lower civilian kill rates between 17.1% and 24.3%; either way it is MUCH lower that Bush. So it is really only reasonable to claim that Obama is using drones as effectively as, if not more effectively, than Bush did. There is nothing to support the claim than Obama is making worse or more reckless use of the drones. ( www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/02/02/almost-2500-killed-covert-us-drone-strikes-obama-inauguration/ ). Some go "oh, but he made so many more!" again, that's because the program expanded. If you counted standard fighter strikes under bush too, you'd probably get similar rates and numbers.

Second, how has Obama screwed up the middle east more than Bush did? The reason the Middle East is fucked right now is because Bush went in and took Saddam out of power (remember "Mission Accomplished?"). Saddam, while a terrible person and a dictator, was a hugely stabilizing factor for the Middle East. Terrorist activity was essentially non existent in his country because he tortured and killed all suspected terrorists since he didn't want there to be any contesting for power between him and AlQueida or HAMAS or the rest of those fucks. The reason ISIS exists is because removing Saddam created a huge power vacuum, an unstable area, and left an excess of weapons and military manpower that was unguided and unused. When we went in every prominent CIA official said the exact same thing about the outcome "it will destabilize the region and lead to a rise in insurgency." ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM here is a speech by Bernie Sanders where he reflects these views of the intelligence community. Not plugging him, just using it to support the claim that this is what the intel community thought and it was right). Despite the warnings, Bush went in anyway. The fucked up middle east is on Bush's head, not Obama's. Obama has been doing what he can to snuff fires that Bush started.

Further, I don't disagree that the national debt has spiked during Obama's presidency, but I do disagree with the exact causes and I disagree that it is entirely "Obama's Fault."

First off, Bush started his presidency with a surplus in 2001 from the Clinton Administration. As soon as Bush entered into office he proposed sweeping tax cuts (total tax income declined 5% of GDP) increased spending by 6.5% of the GDP. Bush also implemented several tax cuts and budget hikes that only took place after Obama took office. Let's also remember that all of Obama's budget plans were rejected due to the republican's who were actively trying to make Obama fail; I quote the senate republican leader at the time "Our top political priority over the next few years should be to deny Obama a second term." He said this halfway through the first term, but the obstructionism was there the whole time. Not to mention that the combat in the middle east has escalated due to it being destabilized; this costs more money and we HAVE to pay it, but this is Bush's fault again for starting the thing.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but no matter what I want accurate and honest rhetoric.
#51 - do you remember 8 years ago they voted for a guy, just because…  [+] (9 new replies) 03/04/2016 on I guess he was right -1
User avatar
#66 - Tyranitar (03/04/2016) [-]
Obama wasn't so great, but he didn't help make the worst economy since the Depression, invade a country for profit, or indirectly create ISIS.

And he was certainly better than McCain or Romney would've been.
#85 - drewjitsu (03/04/2016) [-]
While I'm generally in support of Obama's policies, I have to say that he contributed to ISIS at least marginally. This isn't to say that it is entirely Obama's fault, however. A fiercely anti-American Shiite cleric had essentially threatened war on any remaining American troops and the majority of Iraqis wanted the occupation to end. Negotiations broke down and a viable solution was not attained so America withdrew troops instead of leaving any behind to train with Iraqi military. The Iraqi Prime minister alienated Sunni Muslims to such an extent that when ISIS invaded, Sunni Muslims met them with gifts and offerings. Leaving troops on the ground to train with Iraqi military may have made a world of difference, but it didn't seem like a possibility with the current Iraqi Prime Minister.

In conclusion, pulling out of Iraq was a terrible move, but there weren't any better alternatives as remaining there could have simply started a war with a different group, thus destabilizing the region and still leaving it vulnerable for ISIS takeover. In other words, Obama was in a position where he could not make a good decision because none of the options were very good.
#56 - ellojello (03/04/2016) [-]
In what ways was he worse than Bush? Name specifics.
User avatar
#58 - cysco (03/04/2016) [-]
#answer below
User avatar
#52 - therealfell (03/04/2016) [-]
what horrible things did obama do?
User avatar
#57 - cysco (03/04/2016) [-]
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/
not that bush wouldnt have dont that. but he screws up the near east more than bush could ever do.
oh.. and the fact that he almost double the national debt
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/USDebt.png

#73 - ellojello (03/04/2016) [-]
Aight, here is why you're wrong.

Yes, Obama has used more drone strikes than Bush did, mainly because we've hugely expanded the drone program since it is more efficient and effective than flying standard fighter aircraft for search and destroy and recon missions. But here is the thing, bush made 52 drone strikes, killing 416 people, 167 of which were civilians. That's a civilian kill rate of 40.1%.

Obama has ordered 362 strikes, killing 2438-3942 people, 416-959 of which were civilians. If you assume the maximum civilian casualty rate (i.e. the lowest number of total kills, 2438, but the highest estimate of civilian casualties, 959) you get a civilian kill rate of 39.3%; that's a lower civilian death rate than Bush's strikes, albeit by a statistically insignificant margin. If you use the high end OR low end estimates for both civilian and total deaths you get much lower civilian kill rates between 17.1% and 24.3%; either way it is MUCH lower that Bush. So it is really only reasonable to claim that Obama is using drones as effectively as, if not more effectively, than Bush did. There is nothing to support the claim than Obama is making worse or more reckless use of the drones. ( www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2015/02/02/almost-2500-killed-covert-us-drone-strikes-obama-inauguration/ ). Some go "oh, but he made so many more!" again, that's because the program expanded. If you counted standard fighter strikes under bush too, you'd probably get similar rates and numbers.

Second, how has Obama screwed up the middle east more than Bush did? The reason the Middle East is fucked right now is because Bush went in and took Saddam out of power (remember "Mission Accomplished?"). Saddam, while a terrible person and a dictator, was a hugely stabilizing factor for the Middle East. Terrorist activity was essentially non existent in his country because he tortured and killed all suspected terrorists since he didn't want there to be any contesting for power between him and AlQueida or HAMAS or the rest of those fucks. The reason ISIS exists is because removing Saddam created a huge power vacuum, an unstable area, and left an excess of weapons and military manpower that was unguided and unused. When we went in every prominent CIA official said the exact same thing about the outcome "it will destabilize the region and lead to a rise in insurgency." ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM here is a speech by Bernie Sanders where he reflects these views of the intelligence community. Not plugging him, just using it to support the claim that this is what the intel community thought and it was right). Despite the warnings, Bush went in anyway. The fucked up middle east is on Bush's head, not Obama's. Obama has been doing what he can to snuff fires that Bush started.

Further, I don't disagree that the national debt has spiked during Obama's presidency, but I do disagree with the exact causes and I disagree that it is entirely "Obama's Fault."

First off, Bush started his presidency with a surplus in 2001 from the Clinton Administration. As soon as Bush entered into office he proposed sweeping tax cuts (total tax income declined 5% of GDP) increased spending by 6.5% of the GDP. Bush also implemented several tax cuts and budget hikes that only took place after Obama took office. Let's also remember that all of Obama's budget plans were rejected due to the republican's who were actively trying to make Obama fail; I quote the senate republican leader at the time "Our top political priority over the next few years should be to deny Obama a second term." He said this halfway through the first term, but the obstructionism was there the whole time. Not to mention that the combat in the middle east has escalated due to it being destabilized; this costs more money and we HAVE to pay it, but this is Bush's fault again for starting the thing.

I'm not a huge fan of Obama, but no matter what I want accurate and honest rhetoric.
#54 - sensitive (03/04/2016) [-]
whatever fox news told us he did
User avatar
#68 - therealfell (03/04/2016) [-]
like that time he "maliciously" ruined that poor girl's wedding by playing golf on the course where her wedding happened to be, forcing it to be moved to a different spot on said course
and forget that she was happy, obama is the devil for this seriously, that pissed me off, no matter what he does, it's wrong
#14 - In Video Games you are active. In TV you are a passive con… 02/28/2016 on 'Murica! +15
#19 - not only on new years eve.. this **** happens everywhere … 02/28/2016 on Someone didn't get the memo +3
#177 - Half of arguments can be explained with Centripetal Forces … 02/28/2016 on internet melts your brain +1
#20 - The Ainur created Ea (the world).. Some got back with Illuvata… 02/23/2016 on Lord of the Facts 0
#15 - Maiar were not like angels. Angels are more comparable to the …  [+] (3 new replies) 02/23/2016 on Lord of the Facts -4
User avatar
#36 - brownskin (02/23/2016) [-]
That's why I said they're "comparable" to angels.

All the details of the Tolkien religion is a comp on its own
User avatar
#18 - emiyashirou (02/23/2016) [-]
"In the beginning, Ilúvatar created spirits named the Ainur"

"The fifteen most powerful Ainur are called the Valar, of whom Melkor was the most powerful, but Manwë was the leader."

Getrekt
User avatar
#20 - cysco (02/23/2016) [-]
The Ainur created Ea (the world).. Some got back with Illuvatar and others stayed to care about the Earth and the creatures from Illuvatar (elf and humans). The Ainurs who stayed were named Valar.
Also Melkor was a douche, who had no chance against the other Valar.
#7 - family guy was **** from the beginning  [+] (1 new reply) 02/02/2016 on (untitled) -3
#12 - lwlarcopolio (02/02/2016) [-]
#29 - so, for this time internet wins.. but i dont know ho… 02/02/2016 on Fine Bros +2

user's friends