Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,356 Year: 3,613/9,624 Month: 484/974 Week: 97/276 Day: 25/23 Hour: 3/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Obama is full of it
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5235 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 8 of 119 (527888)
10-03-2009 5:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by riVeRraT
10-02-2009 8:24 PM


American politics at its finest
I'll admit that Obama going to Copenhagen when he said he wouldn't in order to work on health-care might be bad judgment on his part. But I think this is representative of a bigger issue than a one day trip to support a US bid for the 2016 Olympics.
It seems like nowadays there's a lot of hypocrisy coming from the right in the US. During the Bush Administration, protesters were seen as unpatriotic for not supporting the President and his policies. Now, protesters are seen as patriotic for not supporting the President and his policies.
During the Bush Administration, giving up freedoms was democratic because it kept Americans safe and stopped those terrorists from attacking. Now, a raise of 3% on the income taxes of those making more than $200000 or Universal Healthcare is socialism and sets us down the road to facism.
During the Bush Administration, even though Bush lied about Iraq developing WMDs, it was fine because he was protecting the US and you shouldn't question the decisions the President makes. Now, every little misstep by Obama is overblown to epic proportions and apparently will cause the fall of American civilization as we know it.
By the end of the Bush Administration, the national debt increased by $4 trillion from a national debt $5.5 trillion at the start of his Administration. Most of that money was spent killing people in two wars. The right doesn't complain. Obama wants $1 trillion to provide healthcare for American citizens who need and the right is outraged at the audacity of Obama for trying to help people.
During the eight years of the Bush Administration, Bush's total time spent clearing brush at his ranch amounted to 2 and a half years of his 8 years in office. Obama just took a day to represent Chicago and America in the hopes of bringing the Olympics to the US.
The Democrats are not much better. They have a super-majority in Congress and they can't seem to pass anything. Unfortunately, what is happening is that the Dems are representing both the left and the right and the Repubs are representing a completely different set of individuals. Still, as Bill Maher often says, the Dems need to grow a pair.
Riverrat, Obama is trying to do the best for this country, as I believe Bush tried to do during his eight years. Give Obama a little credit and leeway. If the Olympics had gone to Chicago, that would have been a boon for the US economy. The thing is, tourists would not have just visited Chicago, but also other places of interest in the US. Some could have even traveled to NYC and spent their hard-earned money thus boosting the NYC economy. And even better, if those tourists had had a wonderful time in the US, they might have gone back or told their friends boosting the US tourism trade for years to come. The Olympics can be a boon for any hosting city and country, which is why there is fierce competition to host it.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by riVeRraT, posted 10-02-2009 8:24 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5235 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


(1)
Message 43 of 119 (529130)
10-08-2009 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by riVeRraT
10-08-2009 10:53 AM


The oil companies backing an Olympic bid during Bush's Administration would not have bothered me. The oil companies backing an Olympic bid during Bush's Administration and then receiving kickbacks for it, would.
The fact is, arguing this point is moot as we don't know what would've happened. Obama may have been involved as a state legislature, but as you say, it would've been legitimate for him to do so. Obama did go to Copenhagen to argue for using Chicago as the site of the 2016 Olympics, but you can't prove his reason for arguing for it was not to improve America's image and inject much needed tourist dollars into the economy. We can speculate, certainly, but we cannot determine for a certainty because Chicago did not get the bid.
Just like Bush was so fond of saying, let Obama do his job and let history be the judge. You may disagree with his policies, but at least look to see if he is working to improve the country because while we will not always agree with what works, at least we can agree on working for the improvement of America.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by riVeRraT, posted 10-08-2009 10:53 AM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by onifre, posted 10-08-2009 1:49 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5235 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 104 of 119 (531315)
10-17-2009 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by dronestar
10-16-2009 4:35 PM


Re: Cutting aid to Israel
It could very well be worse.
In order for cutting aid to work, Obama would need to accomplish in two years what no President in the last 30 years has been able to accomplish in that region - a lasting peace between the Palestinians and Israelis. If he isn't able to do it, then what happens is in 2012, Sarah Palin wins the election and her Presidency, I am willing to bet, would make us long for the days of George W. Bush.
Think of the women and children then should Sarah Palin win the Presidency.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by dronestar, posted 10-16-2009 4:35 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5235 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 114 of 119 (532370)
10-23-2009 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by riVeRraT
10-22-2009 11:32 PM


Re: Open Letter to Obama
In all reality, this is what I waited to see, and I am still waiting to see. I had always felt that Bush turned into a babbling idiot, as far as his ability to speak in public forums, but I did tend to think that he was acting on the best interest of our country, and not some silly selfish self serving biased opinion of his.
You'd be hard-pressed to argue for any President not acting in the best interests of the country because every President believes that they are even if others do not agree. It's the better Presidents that realize that their beliefs should never stand in the way of what is best for the country. Jefferson is a good example of this. Jefferson believed in limited powers of Government. He believed that to prevent tyranny of Government, the Government should not be accorded more powers than those enumerated in the Constitution. Essentially, Jefferson was a Constitutional literalist. However, an opportunity to purchase land from France came before Jefferson and he knew that the best interests of the United States was to purchase the land even though the Constitution contained no provisions for it. So Jefferson put his pride and ego aside and did what was best for the country - he made the Louisiana Purchase. How many Presidents could do that?
Keep in mind that this doesn't mean everything thing they do as President, but most things. so far it's status quo, so that leads me to believe that Bush was doing the right thing, according to our best intelligence, the good of the common people, and principals of our nation.
That Obama seems to be following the status quo is not vindication that Bush was doing the right thing - Obama could just be continuing to do the wrong things. What it may mean is that changing policy may not be as simple as a stroke of a pen. Like people have said, it took eight years to get where we are, don't think things will change overnight. Any sort of change will take time and for the moment Obama does have a full plate. The fact that he has been facing some stiff opposition on several issues also does not serve to make changes any easier.
The war is necessary, and Obama would have a hard time coming out and admitting it, cause he would have to explain too many things, that the government feels the common people should just not know.
I believe it has been mentioned often enough that Obama also believes the continuation of the war in Afghanistan is necessary. The question is how does Obama proceed from here. Remember, history has proven that Afghanistan has been a difficult area to subdue. After all, a country full of hidey-holes for the enemy isn't an easy area to be in. Still, any way you put it, Obama did say that he wanted to refocus our efforts in Afghanistan as Bush should have done in the first place.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by riVeRraT, posted 10-22-2009 11:32 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by riVeRraT, posted 10-27-2009 11:10 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5235 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 115 of 119 (532374)
10-23-2009 3:54 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by riVeRraT
10-23-2009 12:09 AM


Re: US supported the Taliban
Either way, it was completely their way of life that lead them to war with us, regardless of where they get their weapons from. If we were truly trying to help them in a human rights violations issue from the Russians, then I do not have a problem with that. If they turn against us for whatever reason, then the problem starts.
Whose way of life?
Saying that ignores recent world history and imperialism. Remember, imperialism only ended after World War II.That was roughly 60 years ago. There are people still alive who remember the when the sun never set on the British Empire.
For many of those places that suffered under imperialism, it was because the imperialists countries went into those regions for the "good of the people" or "humanitarian reasons." What ended happening is the imperialist powers took control and dictating to the people how things should and should not be done. So it makes sense that many states around the world view any incursion into the sovereignty of another state under the same tired excuse with wary distrust.
Also, many of the conflicts in states around the world are because of the arbitrary borders drawn up after World War II. The boundaries that the imperialist powers drew mimicked the borders of territories that those powers controlled and ignored differences in culture and ideologies between the various people within those borders. You eventually end up with a tribal kingdom spread out across multiple states and several tribes under one national government. This isn't a problem unless some tribes are unfriendly with any others, which you will find in many areas.
That's why Obama made no comments with regards to the recent elections in Iran. Given what happened in the 70s, Obama very well knew that if he were to make any statements, Ahmadenijad would have jumped all over it as more American manipulation in Iranian affairs. It isn't simply that they hate our way of life - there is a natural distrust because of the sordid history of imperialism. That's why engagement is so important and that's why Obama represents a departure from previous American policy.
When you look at the world today, any state with a vibrant middle class is less likely to support a radical government than one without a middle class. I will guarantee you that if the middle class continues to grow in Iran, Iranian foreign policy will be much more moderate.

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by riVeRraT, posted 10-23-2009 12:09 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024