OT: does obama bring change?

[1bad65]

Behold the stupidity of partisan party politics!

Just put that space cadet on ignore and save yourself the time you'll waste trying to debate rationally with him.

Either he is too stupid to see I got those figures from CNN, or he is a loon who believes CNN is a 'Neo Blog'. No matter how you slice it, the guy is a whack job.

[1bad65]

Obama, like McCain, like Bush, like Clinton, like.......... says one thing, and does another.

Reagan was the last one who did exactly what he campaigned on.

All those people who bought into that 'change' garbage Obama promised sure have alot of egg to clean off of their faces.

Notice how NONE of his supporters are willing to bet that the national debt won't be higher in 4 years than it was on Jan 19th, 2009.

[Kymus]

What exactly is the difference between mandatory community service and slavery?

It's a softer, gentler slavery

[David Jamieson]

It's a softer, gentler slavery

like the stop loss solution for screwing guys over at the ends of their tours?
what kind of slavery is that?

[Kymus]

All those people who bought into that 'change' garbage Obama promised sure have alot of egg to clean off of their faces.

Oh boy.. ok, there's a few different ways to look at this.

1) Lesser of two evils.

Personally, that's not good enough for me, but most of my friends were "OMGz we can't let McCain and Palin fsck things up! Obama's gotta be better". I explained to them my POV, that it's Jack Johnson vs John Jackson but of course they didn't want to listen. Obama has a load of charisma and he's not Bush; that's all that matters to them. What they don't realize is that it's that same frame of mind that brought us Bush in 2000: He wasn't Al Gore. Obama may turn out to be marginally better than McCain, and McCain may have turned out marginally better than Obama, but I don't find that acceptable enough to support someone.

2) Lack of staying informed

All the links I dropped earlier were just from what I've read in my daily news RSS feeds (LewRockwell, TruthDig, GNN, Alternet, and maybe 1 or 2 other alternative news sites) and regular websurfing since July of last year. I can only imagine the plethora of information that would have been available had I actually been intentionally digging for dirt. Further, I'd like to point out that a lot of those sites were liberal sites (AntiWar, CommonDreams, TruthDig, HuffingtonPost, etc.) and I find it very telling that these sites even blasted Obama for being a phoney. All this spelled out very clearly the bulleted points I made earlier: no change.

Notice how NONE of his supporters are willing to bet that the national debt won't be higher in 4 years than it was on Jan 19th, 2009.

I still have no clue in hell as to how he plans on not bringing us into more debt within the next 4 years based on the issues I cited.... I'm willing to listen if someone has an idea, but at the present.. yeah, nothin.

[Kymus]

like the stop loss solution for screwing guys over at the ends of their tours?
what kind of slavery is that?

David, I am not entirely sure what you're talking about (could you explain more?) and I'm also not sure what that has to do with anything that I've talked about...

[Kymus]

Either he is too stupid to see I got those figures from CNN, or he is a loon who believes CNN is a 'Neo Blog'. No matter how you slice it, the guy is a whack job.

I'd be a little more questioning if perhaps that was from some neo-con blog for talking points, but it seems to me that the article just says "this is what the Republicans are *****ing about..." and I already commented on what I think of each of those.

It can be argued that many of those are necessary, but even if that's true, they don't belong in a stimulus package that's supposed to help create jobs. I also think that considering our current financial situation, all these "necessities" should be put on hold until it can be afforded.

[David Jamieson]

David, I am not entirely sure what you're talking about (could you explain more?) and I'm also not sure what that has to do with anything that I've talked about...

you guys are calling one thing slavery, but don't see government enforced extensions on enlistment as another form of the same thing?

Let me tell you, I have seen many a neo-con ditto head thread started here for who knows what reason. Maybe it's just all the handbag full of hate that is carried around in that way of thinking.

i'm surprised you don't know what stop loss is though.
read up, it got put back into play by bush as an executive order (which is bitter irony considering his slack ass record of service). It was brought into play following the vietnam war, which has many parallels to the iraq invasion, but that's here nor there, this page will explain it as far as what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

or, if you want to criticize wikipedia, you can get it from a .gov policy site.

in the meantime, i sugesst you guys stop whining about the dude who has only been in office for a little over 2 weeks and at least give him his 100 days.

I'll bet you all that Obama does more good for america in his first 100 days than bush did in his entire 8 years. just an opinion.

the republican party has fallen to pieces thanks to the neo-cons and now it is a splintered group of bickering people running from magazine to website to blog to forum bleating out their distaste in their newly minted presidnet because there are still problems in the world. pretty idiotic from where i stand.

meanwhile, obama is running a non-partisan white house and yet... well here you are going off on the guy.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. " ~ Abe lincoln (a republican who also had a non-partisan cabinet).

suck it up, sit back and see what happens. you doomsayers are a little whack if ya ask me.

[David Jamieson]

also, kymus, i'd like to speak to these points you make up top:

Let's see..

* he's filled his cabinet with war hawks and "bio-tech yes men".
He has/is established/ing a cabinet of people who are not YES men to him.

* Cites WMD bull**** over Iran
Iran is actively pursuing nuclear technology. as a peaceful way of developing nuclear power, this is in principle fine, however, it must be monitored and Iran must play by the same rules as everyone else and be governed by the IAEA in these matters and not be unilateral in their use of nuclear technologies. iran is being problematic in this point

* Talks tough with Russia as if they're bullies when it's already been established that Georgia was the agressor
do you read the news? Russia is a bully and uses energy stoppage in the middle of winter to force the EU to pay higher prices for energy.

* Thinks the Patriot Act gives law enforcement "the tools they need"
portions of it do. how many cops do you know who have been stifled from doing their jobs or courts that have released known criminals because there are no legal measures to contain them? the patriot act will go, but i don't think it has effected too many innocent people at all. we had one or two cases here in canada where one guy was rendition flown to syria, he got 10 million $ in the end and is still on a crusade against it. it will sunset, but it has to have new laws put into play that will protect ports, airports and entry points into your country and mine. I can live with it until they come up with those laws.

* Refuses to impeach Bush & Co. (and Biden predictably flip flopped on the issue himself. What a difference pre and post election makes) why should he do what people tell him to do? he's the president and he'll take things under advisement and who knows, maybe you'll see Bush and Cheney up for war crimes yet!
* Won't keep his word on Iraq presumption on your part
* Favors war with Afghanistan and Pakistan dude, I am canadian, a classical liberal and I favour bringing order to those countries in order to get rid of the taliban and other terrorist organizations. Pakistan is doing a crappy job of taking care of them in their own territory, if they won't do it, the rest of the world will
* Already has blood on his hands in Pakistan a couple of drops comparable to what the former president did and going after the factions that exist in the tribal areas of pakistan is necessary from my point of view
* Gonna "spend us out of debt" (lol) like how bush did? if the government doesn't spend, you won't have a job and your country will collapse into a depression, how do you think that will feel? take the deficit and enjoy your dinner and the home you live in
* Appointed Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State... of all people.. Hillary is powerful, got 18 million votes from her supporters and carries a lot of voices of voting america with her into that position
* HUGE spender favoring bailouts uh, the bailouts were forged by the GOP, I wouldn't cast blame on his senatorial vote in that regard, even if he did vote against, it would have happened and again, enjoy your dinner and the home you live in for it
* Pals around with Zbigniew Brzezinski him and every other former president.

[Kymus]

you guys are calling one thing slavery, but don't see government enforced extensions on enlistment as another form of the same thing?

Maybe you can find for me where I've said that? Or where I've said I support any of the wars we're in??

David, just because I am against Obama doesn't mean that I'm a hard-right neocon blowhard. I'm also against..... McCain, Bush, and both Clintons as well

Let me tell you, I have seen many a neo-con ditto head thread started here for who knows what reason. Maybe it's just all the handbag full of hate that is carried around in that way of thinking.

This thread isn't a neocon knee-jerk thread. The OP stated the obvious: Obama isn't change. I concurred with that statement and added to the reasons why. Within my issues I raised as to why I don't like Obama, you'll notice that none of them say..

• He's a terrorist
• He's a muslim
• He's a socialist
• He's a commie
• He's going to make us lose the war
• He's cutting and running
• He should stay in Iraq
• He wasn't born in America
• He's ultra-liberal

Or any of this chuckle-head tripe.

Instead, you'll see that I mentioned much more legitimate issues:

* he's filled his cabinet with war hawks and "bio-tech yes men".
* Cites WMD bull**** over Iran
* Talks tough with Russia as if they're bullies when it's already been established that Georgia was the agressor
* Thinks the Patriot Act gives law enforcement "the tools they need"
* Refuses to impeach Bush & Co. (and Biden predictably flip flopped on the issue himself. What a difference pre and post election makes)
* Won't keep his word on Iraq
* Favors war with Afghanistan and Pakistan
* Already has blood on his hands in Pakistan
* Gonna "spend us out of debt"
* Appointed Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State... of all people..
* HUGE spender favoring bailouts
* Pals around with Zbigniew Brzezinski

and somehow you came out of this thinking I'm some kind of conservative?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy

David, a close friend of mine is in Baghdad right now. I want to see him come home as soon as possible. I also do not support this. Please stop assuming that I am a conservative just because I don't like Obama for a litany of legitimate reasons.

or, if you want to criticize wikipedia, you can get it from a .gov policy site.

You'll find that I regularly involve myself with research because I think that being factual is a lot more important than feeling right. You won't find me whining about "bias" or credibility like some people do in order to protect their fragile ignorance of any number of issues.

in the meantime, i sugesst you guys stop whining about the dude who has only been in office for a little over 2 weeks and at least give him his 100 days.

I'm sorry, but I have already found a number of problems with Obama that are verifiable and very worthy of criticism. I criticized Bush before he was in office because I knew he was a war monger.... I was right. I think it's absurd for anyone to say that someone should be free of criticism for a period of time. Obama didn't magically ascend into the presidency from nowhere. You'll find that my criticisms of him are 99% based on what he's already done or has said he will do. The 1% is saved for my opinion that he's going to end the US in more debt in 4 years than what he inherited from Bush. If you can explain to me exactly how he is going to not do this while still supporting multiple wars and nearly a trillion (or over... my head is a little dizzy from all the figures that have been tossed around) on top of that of more debt... I've already said I'm willing to listen.

I'll bet you all that Obama does more good for america in his first 100 days than bush did in his entire 8 years. just an opinion.

That's really not that hard to do. That also doesn't make him "change". Obama will be Bush lite, and if he does everything he says he would like to do, he'll prove me right with ease.

the republican party has fallen to pieces thanks to the neo-cons and now it is a splintered group of bickering people running from magazine to website to blog to forum bleating out their distaste in their newly minted presidnet because there are still problems in the world. pretty idiotic from where i stand.

David, maybe I'm misunderstanding you here and if I am, I apologize. But what does this have to do with me, my politics, or anything I've said? If you would bother to take a look at my criticisms instead of ignoring them as conservative anti-Obama tripe, you would notice that a good number of the sources I cited earlier are actually from left-wing websites. Ok, I'm sorry, there was ONE blog that was conservative and I only linked to that because it's attempting to keep track of Obama's campaign promises. Otherwise... dude, I don't listen to conservatives outside Ron Paul and I sure as sh!t don't read conservative blogs, news sites, or forums. The issues I have with Obama have absolutely nothing to do with what you've mentioned. While I dislike Obama, I don't dislike him for any of the idiotic reasons most conservatives dislike him for.

meanwhile, obama is running a non-partisan white house and yet... well here you are going off on the guy.

I really don't give a sh!t how non-partisan Obama's White House is. Likewise, I wouldn't care if he appointed all Democrats. What I do care about is the war hawks, pro-globalists, and lobbyists he's appointed. That bothers me a great deal, actually.

"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. " ~ Abe lincoln (a republican who also had a non-partisan cabinet).

Obama is now being related to Abe Lincoln? Please tell me you're not.....

suck it up, sit back and see what happens. you doomsayers are a little whack if ya ask me.

.............because I don't think there is any way in hell Obama can save the economy all the while funding multiple wars, continuing to give a countless amount of money in foreign aide, making the government bigger, and piling an incredibly hefty "stimulus" bill on top of it? That's not doomsaying, that's common sense.

Oh! Wait, or is it because I don't think Obama is change? Uhm... I already proved that one.... in my first post on this thread.

[Mr Punch]

Obama himself set the high expectations.

Of course within days of being elected he suddenly lowered the bar.

What a very poor memory. Well before the election he was always repeating that he probably wouldn't be able to do much about the mess you're in for a while, probably the first four years.

I mean, I don't know if he's got any answers, but he still hasn't had a fair chance from the likes of you. And even if he's a tosser, the fact that he's in is already a change... Wasn't it you who came out with some quote about cycles and being apprehensive when everyone else is celebrating? Well, now everyone has gone back to being apprehensive as usual so you can start celebrating! If his policies don't work: great - you lot get what you want and it swings back to the far right. If his policies work: great, they work! So it's a win-win situation in the slightly longer run.

And in the short run we're all ****ed anyway, and there was nobody better suited to try and pull you out: not McCain, not that freak Ron Paul, not Clinton, not the other GOP circus types, not Gordon Brown and not the EU. Let's face it, like them or not, the GOP and possibly the whole electoral status quo needed and still need shaking up.

[Mr Punch]

Oh, and welcome back Uki, you nutjob you!

[Kymus]

* he's filled his cabinet with war hawks and "bio-tech yes men".
He has/is established/ing a cabinet of people who are not YES men to him.

They're GMO-loving lobbyists. There is absolutely no reason why they should have any position in his cabinet or anyone else's.

* Cites WMD bull**** over Iran
Iran is actively pursuing nuclear technology.

No, they're not. WMD all over again, just like I said.

* Talks tough with Russia as if they're bullies when it's already been established that Georgia was the agressor
do you read the news? Russia is a bully and uses energy stoppage in the middle of winter to force the EU to pay higher prices for energy.

I read multiple news sources every day, thank you. In the conflict between Russia and Georgia, Georgia was the aggressor.

* Thinks the Patriot Act gives law enforcement "the tools they need"
portions of it do. how many cops do you know who have been stifled from doing their jobs or courts that have released known criminals because there are no legal measures to contain them? the patriot act will go,

Obama has said himself that he supports it. Obama's full quote, is that it gives law enforcement the tools they need to keep us safe. Where have I heard that rhetoric before? Have you read either Patriot Act? I have. It's unnecessary and filled to the brim with rights-grabbing bullsh!t. It's being misused, to boot.

Also, from the ACLU's site:

The Patriot Act “updated” surveillance powers – but failed to “update” the checks and balances needed to ensure those surveillance powers include proper judicial oversight.

For example, a roving wiretap follows the target of the surveillance from telephone to telephone. Because there is a greater potential for abuse using roving wiretaps compared to traditional wiretaps, which apply to a single telephone, Congress insisted on important privacy safeguards when, prior to the Patriot Act, it first approved this “updated” surveillance power for criminal investigations.

Section 206 of the Patriot Act created roving wiretaps in Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) investigations. Section 206 erodes the basic constitutional rule of particularization by allow the government to obtain “roving wiretaps” without empowering the court to make sure that the government ascertain that the conversations being intercepted actually involve a target of the investigation. Section 206 also created “John Doe” roving wiretaps – wiretaps that need not specify a target or a device such as a telephone.

The failure to include an ascertainment requirement, and the failure to require naming either a target or a device, is what is controversial about section 206 of the Patriot Act. Congress “updated” the surveillance power, but didn’t update the safeguards.

Another example is the use of “pen registers” and “trap and trace” devices to track detailed information about Internet use. Telephone pen/trap orders, as they are known, permit the government to obtain a list of telephone numbers for incoming or outgoing calls with a court order not based on probable cause. However, Internet addressing information reveals much more detail, such as the specific web pages viewed or search terms entered into a search engine. When Congress expanded the government’s power to get pen/trap orders for Internet communications in the Patriot Act, however, these differences between telephone and Internet communications were ignored. Congress failed to specify rules to ensure that the privacy of ordinary Americans web surfing and e-mail habits were protected.

Again, Congress updated the surveillance powers, but not the safeguards.

You can read more here: http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/facts.html

but i don't think it has effected too many innocent people at all.

http://www.naturalnews.com/News_0006...ir_travel.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/se...minn-s11.shtml
http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2003/.../21596133.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/df5ewl
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/articles.../2244247.shtml
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m...tionprobe.html
http://news.cnet.com/2008-1082_3-5062481.html
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2003/09/60440
http://www.muhajabah.com/islamicblog...ard/006482.php
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Rea...A-EB6E119BE547
http://www.scn.org/ccapa/pa-article.html
....there's more, but I think you get the point.

it will sunset, but it has to have new laws put into play that will protect ports, airports and entry points into your country and mine. I can live with it until they come up with those laws.

Specifically why does it need these "new laws"? 9/11 was highly preventable.

* Refuses to impeach Bush & Co. (and Biden predictably flip flopped on the issue himself. What a difference pre and post election makes) why should he do what people tell him to do?

Because he's a public servant? Because a majority of his voters want Bush impeached? Because no one is above the law? Prior to the election, Biden agreed that it's important to investigate because no one is above the law. Magically his opinion changed afterwards. What a coincidence...

he's the president and he'll take things under advisement

His response on this issue wasn't one of advisement, it's a cop-out.

and who knows, maybe you'll see Bush and Cheney up for war crimes yet!

He won't.

* Won't keep his word on Iraq presumption on your part

Hardly a presumption.

* Favors war with Afghanistan and Pakistan [b] dude, I am canadian, a classical liberal and I favour bringing order to those countries in order to get rid of the taliban and other terrorist organizations.

that won't happen. Let's just end these wars and stop smacking the beehive. We're only making things worse. The Russians tried in their prime, and failed.. The British tried in their prime, and failed....

Obama is wrong on Afghanistan
When Will Obama Give Up The Bin Laden Ghost Hunt?
Why Obama is Wrong
The War on Afghanistan Was Wrong, Too

* Already has blood on his hands in Pakistan[b] a couple of drops comparable to what the former president did

Please don't give me a pathetic excuse as a rebuttal. It was wrong then and it is still wrong now. There's no excuse for this.

* Gonna "spend us out of debt" (lol)[b] like how bush did?

David, listen, I really don't want to be snarky enemies; I'd much rather polite, informed conversation. But I must say...... please stop injecting this "but Bush" bullsh!t. I don't like Bush any and I criticized him from day one, and 8 years of "But Clinton" really should of been enough for you to know better, man...

I am not talking about big spending, that's a separate issue. My issue here, is that Obama has said he plans on spending us out of debt, which I think is a load of garbage. He's feeding the fire instead of putting it out.

* Appointed Hillary Clinton to Secretary of State... of all people.. Hillary is powerful, got 18 million votes from her supporters and carries a lot of voices of voting america with her into that position

She's also a war hawk

What the Clinton Appointment Means

* HUGE spender favoring bailouts uh, the bailouts were forged by the GOP, I wouldn't cast blame on his senatorial vote in that regard, even if he did vote against, it would have happened and again, enjoy your dinner and the home you live in for it

I'm sorry, that's a red herring David. I am fully aware of the fact that it would have gone through without Obama. My criticism, is his support for it. It's bullsh!t and just about everyone except for maybe the most die-hard fan of Bush knows that.

* Pals around with Zbigniew Brzezinski him and every other former president.

Exactly how is that a rebuttal of my criticism? Aren't we a little old for accepting "everyone else does it"?

[BoulderDawg]

I think the future of the democratic party in Washington is pretty bright.

After all look at the power in the GOP: Rush Limbuagh, Joe The Plumber and Sarah Palin.........

[uki]

Oh, and welcome back Uki, you nutjob you!

i never really left... i just lurk sometimes. you should follow lucas and david to my other forum for one heck of a ride... although david is not telling who he is at the moment it seems.