NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

*Crickets chirping*

Well, he's scoring well in the popularity contests. He's made up with as many oppressive regimes as will shake his hand. He's signed huge spending bills that have been written by the Congress.

Okay, I'm a couple days early, but that'll give you some time to prepare.

Hey, he's black and he made president, that alone is enough to last him at least 200 days, in fact it should be good for as many days as the US has existed in years.

Obama's overtures to Venezuela and Cuba definitely counts as a positive accomplishment. I disagree with most of what he's done, but opening up to Cuba and Venezuela is a definite plus.

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

Why yes, actually, the majority of the American public seems to feel that Obama exceed their expectations and has accomplished big things.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042503120.html

Six in ten people feel that Obama has kept his campaign promises, which is a pretty major accomplishment for any American politician these days.

Most interestingly, 55% of Americans feel that the country is on the right track right now, which is a higher percentage than has been seen in the last 25 years. Considering that we're at war and facing a massive recession, I'd say that's not shabby.


Meanwhile, only 21% of people will even identify as Republican. Losing sucks, huh?

He's made up with as many oppressive regimes as will shake his hand.

Bush shook Abdullah's hand. And Karimov's. And Musharraf's. And Mubarak's.

Each of them is much more brutal and oppressive than Chavez.

Did you criticize Bush's cordial attitude toward the aforesaid dictators?

Not that you'll read this, or anything in fact, that doesn't correspond to your own broken view of reality, but:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1893277,00.html

Meanwhile, only 21% of people will even identify as Republican. Losing sucks, huh?

21%? That's still too high.

Bush shook Abdullah's hand. And Karimov's. And Musharraf's. And Mubarak's.

Each of them is much more brutal and oppressive than Chavez.

Did you criticize Bush's cordial attitude toward the aforesaid dictators?

Can you imagine what the right wing would do if Obama was photographed kissing an Arab leader and then walking through a garden holding hands with him?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushabdullah.htm

Can you imagine what the right wing would do if Obama was photographed kissing an Arab leader and then walking through a garden holding hands with him?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushabdullah.htm

Glue his buttocks together?

Can you imagine what the right wing would do if Obama was photographed kissing an Arab leader and then walking through a garden holding hands with him?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushabdullah.htm

To Republicans, coddling dictators is only okay if:

A) The dictator is pro-American.
B) It is a Republican doing the coddling.
C) Both A and B.

If any of those are applicable, except minimal criticism, if any.

Obama's overtures to Venezuela and Cuba definitely counts as a positive accomplishment. I disagree with most of what he's done, but opening up to Cuba and Venezuela is a definite plus.
I'd add to that closing Guantanamo (I just hope that the same courtesy is extended to other sites in Europe and elsewhere), banning waterboarding and releasing the CIA documents, formally changing US policy towards climate change, ending the gag rule, talking to Iran (let's hope they listen), action against tax havens, focus on Afghanistan and an exit strategy for Iraq.

Personally.

Yeah, there's a decent amount to criticize Obama for, but lack of action is not one of those things.

I'd add to that closing Guantanamo (I just hope that the same courtesy is extended to other sites in Europe and elsewhere), banning waterboarding and releasing the CIA documents, formally changing US policy towards climate change, ending the gag rule, talking to Iran (let's hope they listen), action against tax havens, focus on Afghanistan and an exit strategy for Iraq.

Personally.

The bolded I agree with. Why not the part on climate change? I know nothing about the subject. If anyone knows any good books on the subject, I'll definitely pick them up.

ending the gag rule


This alone was enough for me. It is going to save the lives and health of tens of thousands of people. I wish this act had received more fanfare.

Guantanamo closing is an achievement worth mentioning, but besides that I don't see any other.
He allegedly opened doors towards Iran and Venezuela, still I think that not much will change.

Yeah, there's a decent amount to criticize Obama for, but lack of action is not one of those things.

Exactly.

If conservatives want to complain about what Obama is doing, or provide reasons why his actions are unwise, or reasons why the don't agree with his program, fine.

But claiming that Obama isn't doing anything is just a short-hand way of advertising that you are a wack-a-doodle.

The bolded I agree with. Why not the part on climate change? I know nothing about the subject. If anyone knows any good books on the subject, I'll definitely pick them up.
I can't claim to be an expert, but perhaps the IPCC report? Saying much more would be threadjacking far too early.:p

This alone was enough for me. It is going to save the lives and health of tens of thousands of people. I wish this act had received more fanfare.
These things tend to be squeezed out by economics, I think. A shame, given that ending the gag rule was important, even though it will be put back in place when the Republicans next get in, and the doom and gloom about the economy is getting repetative and boring.

I can't claim to be an expert, but perhaps the IPCC report? Saying much more would be threadjacking far too early.:p

Haha, good point. :tongue:

Don't forget shutting down the CIA Black Sites where they tortured people overseas.

Not that you'll read this, or anything in fact, that doesn't correspond to your own broken view of reality, but:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1893277,00.html
Very flowery piece, but let's try to figure out what they said...
Foreign Policy...
"Obama has also completely overhauled foreign policy, from Cuba to Afghanistan."
He tweaked the access to Cuba. He sent more troops to Afghanistan. Mostly, he made friends with dictators. Reminds me more of Jimmy Carter than GWB.

Domestic Policy...
Continued the Bush bailouts. Gave me $13 a month to stimulate the economy with. Along with that, the IRS is under withholding and I'll owe more at the end of the year.

Nope, Time spent a bunch of words saying "I like Obama". But that's really it.

Don't forget shutting down the CIA Black Sites where they tortured people overseas.

Even in Afghanistan?

Very flowery piece, but let's try to figure out what they said...
Foreign Policy...
"Obama has also completely overhauled foreign policy, from Cuba to Afghanistan."
He tweaked the access to Cuba. He sent more troops to Afghanistan. Mostly, he made friends with dictators. Reminds me more of Jimmy Carter than GWB.

Domestic Policy...
Continued the Bush bailouts. Gave me $13 a month to stimulate the economy with. Along with that, the IRS is under withholding and I'll owe more at the end of the year.

Nope, Time spent a bunch of words saying "I like Obama". But that's really it.

Trying to improve relations between two countries doesn't necessarily mean he's "making friends" with the leaders of those countries. Plus, better to be their friend than their enemy.

I'm surprised that no one jumped on the stem cell research bandwagon.

Very flowery piece, but let's try to figure out what they said...
Foreign Policy...
"Obama has also completely overhauled foreign policy, from Cuba to Afghanistan."
He tweaked the access to Cuba. He sent more troops to Afghanistan. Mostly, he made friends with dictators. Reminds me more of Jimmy Carter than GWB.

Domestic Policy...
Continued the Bush bailouts. Gave me $13 a month to stimulate the economy with. Along with that, the IRS is under withholding and I'll owe more at the end of the year.

Nope, Time spent a bunch of words saying "I like Obama". But that's really it.

Right. Like I said, to expect any sort of intellectual thought out of you would be asking way too much.

I'm surprised that no one jumped on the stem cell research bandwagon.
Wow, only took you two pages to admit that not only has Obama made significant accomplishments, you actually know what they are and were expecting people to post them more promptly.

Your trolling has grown much more efficient.

I'm surprised that no one jumped on the stem cell research bandwagon.

Well stem cell research is a good thing.

But somehow I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.

Myrmi, how would you prefer that Obama dealt with "oppressive governments?"

Myrmi, how would you prefer that Obama dealt with "oppressive governments?"

Send in the troops!

Or carpet bombing.

Foreign policy:
Cuba, Venezuela and such.
Well cant fault him for overtures, but i doubt anything long term will come of it.
Strong foreign policy showing in regards to Pakistan and Canada.
Pakistan nukes and Taliban stuff.
Canada need to discuss our differences about Visa admission and such.
negative going along with the print more money solution of G20.

Over all I would say positive foreign policy.

Domestic policy.
Spend more money solution to economic problems.
Budget deficit that makes Bush look like Clinton.
Print more money solution proposed when China decides not to buy Bonds.

Positives.
Stem cell research
Backed off on assault weapons ban.

Just pulled an all nighter typing a paper. so all I can think of right now.

Myrmi, how would you prefer that Obama dealt with "oppressive governments?"

Build military bases in their countries and give them billions in aid.

See: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan.

Build military bases in their countries and give them billions in aid.

See: Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Pakistan.

We don't have bases in Uzbekistan (anymore) or Turkmenistan.

As for the question, sorry, let me rephrase it: How would you prefer that Obama dealt with anti-American "oppressive governments?"

We don't have bases in Uzbekistan (anymore) or Turkmenistan.

As for the question, sorry, let me rephrase it: How would you prefer that Obama dealt with anti-American "oppressive governments?"

We did, and we discussed it with the oppressive government there, respectively.

Frankly, this is a probably pointless thread in a pointless exercise. The election of the first mixed race, progressive (if not actually Marxist) President in our history is such an anomaly that anything less than an orgy of approval - especially in the mainstream media- would be shocking. His visibility, rhetoric and charm by themselves practically insure a minimum 65% approval.

I suggest we all wait until July 20th to evaluate his first 6 months instead. Personally, I suspect by then that about half of the 65% are going to be saying "...what the $%^ did we do!?"

We did, and we discussed it with the oppressive government there, respectively.

Dude, Turkmenistan is one of the most isolated countries in the world. They even have some monument commemorating their neutrality. Are you sure we have (or had) bases there? :eek:

Frankly, this is a probably pointless thread in a pointless exercise. The election of the first mixed race, progressive (if not actually Marxist) President in our history is such an anomaly that anything less than an orgy of approval - especially in the mainstream media- would be shocking. His visibility, rhetoric and charm by themselves practically insure a minimum 65% approval.

I suggest we all wait until July 20th to evaluate his first 6 months instead. Personally, I suspect by then that about half of the 65% are going to be saying "...what the $%^ did we do!?"

Who gives a damn what his ethnicity is?

As for the Marxist part, that's just...wrong. I'm a fucking anarcho-capitalist, and even I don't see him as a Marxist.

Frankly, this is a probably pointless thread in a pointless exercise. The election of the first mixed race, progressive (if not actually Marxist) President in our history is such an anomaly that anything less than an orgy of approval - especially in the mainstream media- would be shocking. His visibility, rhetoric and charm by themselves practically insure a minimum 65% approval.

I suggest we all wait until July 20th to evaluate his first 6 months instead. Personally, I suspect by then that about half of the 65% are going to be saying "...what the $%^ did we do!?"
Boy, there's going to be some really bummed out conservatives when it turns out that people actually approve of Obama because of his politics.

See you in July!

Boy, there's going to be some really bummed out conservatives when it turns out that people actually approve of Obama because of his politics.

See you in July!

Exactly. People who support Obama do so because they agree with, or at least approve of, his politics. I have yet to meet a single person who supports him because of his skin color or any other non-factor.

Dude, Turkmenistan is one of the most isolated countries in the world. They even have some monument commemorating their neutrality. Are you sure we have (or had) bases there? :eek:

No. We had bases in Uzbekistan. We never built bases in Turkmenistan, but we were in negotiations with Niyazov's government in Turkmenistan (one of the most oppressive governments in the world) to relocate the bases there, once Uzbekistan kicked us out. Turkmenistan eventually turned the US down.

Objectively, President Obama could be doing a lot worse. With large Democrat Party majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, the extreme left of that party is disappointed that more radical things have yet to be attempted and accomplished.

I'm curious as to why some postings consider his accomplishment totally beneficial.

1. Continuing the bailouts of businesses by the previous Administration did stop some business failures, but it prevented other businesses from evolving into the vacuum of failed businesses.

2. Stimulus Packages? Some folk believe they work. IMHO, throwing money at a problem is just like flushing it down the toilet.

3. Gitmo. No country wants the detainees that we've kept there. Before you drain the swamp, think about what you're going to do with all of the alligators.

4. Stopping Torture. Talking about that has been the latest fad, but there hasn't been a document released that says any torture has occured in years. Also, should there be a successful terror attack that later turns out to have been possibly thwarted by harsh interrogation, it will reflect very badly on the President.

5. The investigation and possible prosecution of persons in a previous Administration, who attempted to define what was and what wasn't torture, and then approving harsh interrogation techniques, will send a warning chill to our intelligence agencies and political staffers causing not do their jobs as thoroughly as they could. Also, this opens the doors for successive Administrations to go after their predecessors. President Obama, if something goes horribly wrong during his term, could be prosecuted for his policy decisions.

Gotta go to work! CUL8R

No. We had bases in Uzbekistan. We never built bases in Turkmenistan, but we were in negotiations with Niyazov's government in Turkmenistan (one of the most oppressive governments in the world) to relocate the bases there, once Uzbekistan kicked us out. Turkmenistan eventually turned the US down.

All right, gotcha.

4. Stopping Torture. Talking about that has been the latest fad, but there hasn't been a document released that says any torture has occured in years.

There's been plenty of torture.

Also, should there be a successful terror attack that later turns out to have been possibly thwarted by harsh interrogation, it will reflect very badly on the President.

Torture doesn't work. That is all. And even if it, it would never, ever be justified.

4. Stopping Torture. Talking about that has been the latest fad, but there hasn't been a document released that says any torture has occured in years. Also, should there be a successful terror attack that later turns out to have been possibly thwarted by harsh interrogation, it will reflect very badly on the President.

Yes it did, the torture memos, evidence from places like Gitmo and Abu Grabe, not to mention investigations occurring in other countries to do with aiding and abetting the extraordinary renditions all distinctly point towards the use of torture. Sorry.

Also it doesn't work - not for information. It's great if you want confessions however.

5. The investigation and possible prosecution of persons in a previous Administration, who attempted to define what was and what wasn't torture, and then approving harsh interrogation techniques, will send a warning chill to our intelligence agencies and political staffers causing not do their jobs as thoroughly as they could. Also, this opens the doors for successive Administrations to go after their predecessors. President Obama, if something goes horribly wrong during his term, could be prosecuted for his policy decisions.


Which is probably why he has said, in no uncertain terms, that members of the previous administration or the intelligence services will not be prosecuted.

Talking about that has been the latest fad, but there hasn't been a document released that says any torture has occured in years.
...

How can anybody be this wrong without, like, collapsing into a singularity or something?

There is also the plus that he hasn't done or said anything really, really stupid. One hell of a refreshing change.

There is also the plus that he hasn't done or said anything really, really stupid. One hell of a refreshing change.

Say what you will about Obama's merits (or lack thereof) as a politician, but the man is not an idiot by any means...which certainly makes him the polar opposite of his predecessor. :p

There is also the plus that he hasn't done or said anything really, really stupid. One hell of a refreshing change.
Maybe that's why Republicans are so frustrated right now; their guy set the bar so fucking low that Obama can look like a superstar if he manages to tie his own shoes in the morning.

...

How can anybody be this wrong without, like, collapsing into a singularity or something?

Ignorance provides an impenetrable cocoon of safety (and delusion).

...

How can anybody be this wrong without, like, collapsing into a singularity or something?

It's easy enough - our brain has remarkable self-protective instincts. If we think we know something we will generally seek out information to support that and reject information which counters it. However if the counter-evidence becomes too strong this causes cognitive dissonance. With most people this will lead to reevalution of the original construct and possible modification (see right wing moving from "It's not torture" to "It was torture but for a good reason"!), but for some they can't handle this. So they will simply reject said information as false and continue on with their original beliefs (see creationists).

Maybe that's why Republicans are so frustrated right now; their guy set the bar so fucking low that Obama can look like a superstar if he manages to tie his own shoes in the morning.

Permission to sig? :D

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

*Crickets chirping*

Well, he's scoring well in the popularity contests. He's made up with as many oppressive regimes as will shake his hand. He's signed huge spending bills that have been written by the Congress.

Okay, I'm a couple days early, but that'll give you some time to prepare.

Silly boy. Terry Schiavo wouldn't need preparation to take your arguments and pour them down the sink like the weak sauce they are.






Too soon?

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

I'm surprised that no one jumped on the stem cell research bandwagon.
You seem to be quite effective at answering your own questions.

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

*Crickets chirping*


Are we back to 'he's not doing enough' from, what was it last week, 'he's doing too much?'

Still just throwing out whatever you can think of and hoping one sticks?

i am overall pleased with what he has done so far. i havent agreed with everything but it balances out to the positive.

its too early to tell if his approach to the economy and foreign policy is going to work out but i think it has a good chance and, more to the point, that it has a much better chance of success than anything john mccain would have done.

There is also the plus that he hasn't done or said anything really, really stupid. One hell of a refreshing change.
it is SOOO nice to be able to listen to the president speak without cringing. that alone gets him over the 50% mark in "good job"

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

*Crickets chirping*

Well, he's scoring well in the popularity contests. He's made up with as many oppressive regimes as will shake his hand. He's signed huge spending bills that have been written by the Congress.

Okay, I'm a couple days early, but that'll give you some time to prepare.

Stimulus Bill(s)
Foreign Relations Overhall
Close CIA Black Sites
Close Gitmo
Stem Cell Research


And thats just what comes to mind.

Bush's First 100 Days:
Ignore warnings of terrorist attack within the US.


Myrmi, you make the worst threads/arguements.

EDIT: For lulz - http://www.gallup.com/Home.aspx

See approval rating and view of his efforts to be bipartisan.

Are we back to 'he's not doing enough' from, what was it last week, 'he's doing too much?'

Still just throwing out whatever you can think of and hoping one sticks?
Nah, I'm looking for achievements, not actions. He's definitely doing too much and all in the wrong direction.

Here's where words are important. Achievements have the distinction of being actions that result in successful accomplishments. I'm not willing to grant quadrupled deficits and over-regulation of Wall Street the status of achievements.

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

*Crickets chirping*

Well, he's scoring well in the popularity contests. He's made up with as many oppressive regimes as will shake his hand. He's signed huge spending bills that have been written by the Congress.

Okay, I'm a couple days early, but that'll give you some time to prepare.


Wait, you expected a black man to actually be responsible and work for a living?


/sarcasm

Nah, I'm looking for achievements, not actions... actions that result in successful accomplishments.
Were any policies enacted by Obama guaranteed to give 'successful accomplishments' in 100 days?

That being said, the Obama administration IIRC massively increased science funding, and reversed the policy on stem cell research. I imagine some of that money has reached labs around the US by now... which is an accomplishment.

This alone was enough for me. It is going to save the lives and health of tens of thousands of people. I wish this act had received more fanfare.

Ditto. How exactly that's not an accomplishment is beyond me.

...

How can anybody be this wrong without, like, collapsing into a singularity or something?

On the internet, no less.

Were any policies enacted by Obama guaranteed to give 'successful accomplishments' in 100 days?

That being said, the Obama administration IIRC massively increased science funding, and reversed the policy on stem cell research. I imagine some of that money has reached labs around the US by now... which is an accomplishment.

Given the length and duration of the proposal process, and the fact that most grant proposals tend to be handled in the summer, not really. Still, that money WILL hit labs by the end of the year, and so whether or not they hit in the first 100 days is fucking irrelevant. (I realize you weren't trying to give it any significance, and hope you see my point with this statement.)

Are we back to 'he's not doing enough' from, what was it last week, 'he's doing too much?'

Still just throwing out whatever you can think of and hoping one sticks?

The tried and true "buckshot" method of political commentary.

I realize you weren't trying to give it any significance, and hope you see my point with this statement.
I do, thanks.

Hey, he's black and he made president, that alone is enough to last him at least 200 days, in fact it should be good for as many days as the US has existed in years.
232 days? whoa man. I feel better about him each day that passes without bad change. I don't like it when politicians talk about change cause it could be bad change. I read in an old magazine about a Greek prime minister who talked about change and was a radical leftist.

Permission to sig? :D
Lol, always. If I ever say something interesting I want lots of people to know about it, because it would be very easy for such interesting comments to get lost in the flood of dull things I normally am saying.

There is also the plus that he hasn't done or said anything really, really stupid. One hell of a refreshing change.

Well, there was the whole stint on Leno when he made fun of handicapped children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaCcsp1D1yM

i am overall pleased with what he has done so far. i havent agreed with everything but it balances out to the positive.

its too early to tell if his approach to the economy and foreign policy is going to work out but i think it has a good chance and, more to the point, that it has a much better chance of success than anything john mccain would have done.

Ok, I got a question. Exactly how do you know he would've been better than John Mc.Cain? What, do you have access to a parallel dimension where Mc.Cain won? I want actual proof (and no you can't use Bush Jr. or Sr.) that Obama would've been better than Mc.Cain.

Also, what is this gag order everyone in this thread is talking about?

Nah, I'm looking for achievements, not actions. He's definitely doing too much and all in the wrong direction.

Here's where words are important. Achievements have the distinction of being actions that result in successful accomplishments. I'm not willing to grant quadrupled deficits and over-regulation of Wall Street the status of achievements.

Give it up, dude. You already tipped your hand. You knew all the accomplishments that everyone was going to cite before you even made this thread. You just don't LIKE those accomplishments.

The trouble is, you're still stuck in the pre-Jan 20 mindset wherein America is run by people who want to cater to your loud minority. You still think that your opinion, your "granting" of anything, is relevant.

Unfortunately, Obama was elected because the majority of Americans don't like your ideas and don't want the country run by anybody who shares them.

So really, whether or not you want to admit that you've lost is kinda beside the point.

Can you imagine what the right wing would do if Obama was photographed kissing an Arab leader and then walking through a garden holding hands with him?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushabdullah.htm

"SEE!? We told you Hussein Obama was an Ebil Mozlem!! BIRTH CERTIFICAAAAAAAATE!!"

232 days? whoa man. I feel better about him each day that passes without bad change. I don't like it when politicians talk about change cause it could be bad change. I read in an old magazine about a Greek prime minister who talked about change and was a radical leftist.

http://www.thefivewits.net/headdesk.gif

Ok, I got a question. Exactly how do you know he would've been better than John Mc.Cain? What, do you have access to a parallel dimension where Mc.Cain won? I want actual proof (and no you can't use Bush Jr. or Sr.) that Obama would've been better than Mc.Cain.

Hint: When demanding proof for something, it is best to not simultaneously state that the only proof you would accept is proof that cannot possibly be obtained.

Hint: When demanding proof for something, it is best to not simultaneously state that the only proof you would accept is proof that cannot possibly be obtained.

Which actually proves my point. You don't know that Mccain would've been worse than Obama, you don't because he lost. So, to say that "Well at least he's better than what Mccain would've done/been." is just stupid. Mainly because Mccain didn't win, and I doubt he's going to run in 2012, so it's pointless to speculate.

Nah, I'm looking for achievements, not actions. He's definitely doing too much and all in the wrong direction.

Here's where words are important. Achievements have the distinction of being actions that result in successful accomplishments. I'm not willing to grant quadrupled deficits and over-regulation of Wall Street the status of achievements.

66% of America seems to think what hes done is an 'achievement'.

Regardless, Id call not letting science to be stifled by religious dogma an achievement. Id also call closing Gitmo and black sites achievements.

Which actually proves my point. You don't know that Mccain would've been worse than Obama, you don't because he lost. So, to say that "Well at least he's better than what Mccain would've done/been." is just stupid. Mainly because Mccain didn't win, and I doubt he's going to run in 2012, so it's pointless to speculate.

Well, for him to be better than Obama (in the opinion of many posters here), he would have to have been lying during his campaign, and voting for things that did not reflect his opinions.

I'm not a big fan of Obama but I don't see any reason to complain. I mean its been 100 days and this is the United States political system. The Dems don't even have a majority. If anybody was expecting anything to change this fast they definitly should not believe everything they hear.

Which actually proves my point. You don't know that Mccain would've been worse than Obama, you don't because he lost. So, to say that "Well at least he's better than what Mccain would've done/been." is just stupid. Mainly because Mccain didn't win, and I doubt he's going to run in 2012, so it's pointless to speculate.

No, see, because we can look at what he said he was going to do and base it off that.

The Dems don't even have a majority.

You dont get news where you live, do you?

Well, for him to be better than Obama (in the opinion of many posters here), he would have to have been lying during his campaign, and voting for things that did not reflect his opinions.

Don't most politicians lie during their campaigns though? Honestly though, I thought the Mccain we saw at his concession speech was the real Mccain, not the one that the Neo-con try to make him into during the campaign.

Which actually proves my point. You don't know that Mccain would've been worse than Obama, you don't because he lost.

Ooh, I love this game!

You can't KNOW something unless it happened already! So you can't KNOW that throwing this bowling ball off a rooftop down onto a crowded street is a bad idea, because you haven't tried it yet!


So, to say that "Well at least he's better than what Mccain is just stupid. Mainly because Mccain didn't win, and I doubt he's going to run in 2012, so it's pointless to speculate.
Sure there's a point to such speculations. We can't fall through into an alternate reality to verify that President McCain really did fuck the joint up that badly, but we sure as hell can watch him and his party fail to govern in THIS reality.

No, see, because we can look at what he said he was going to do and base it off that.

Yea, it's not like politicians lie during the campaign to get votes. Heavens no. Why politicians are the most honest folks you will ever meet!

Ooh, I love this game!

You can't KNOW something unless it happened already! So you can't KNOW that throwing this bowling ball off a rooftop down onto a crowded street is a bad idea, because you haven't tried it yet!

Ah I love it when people try to over-simplify human nature.


Yeah, losers often say that.

This, of course assumes that I supported, or even voted for Mccain. Which I did not.

A swing and a miss.

Yea, it's not like politicians lie during the campaign to get votes. Heavens no. Why politicians are the most honest folks you will ever meet!

Well, if McCain was lying about any of his plans to get votes, it clearly didnt work out for him too well, did it? That, and hes a member of a party for a reason. That party has a platform. We can safely assume that he would do something closely related to his parties platform.

Honestly, we can base it off the evidence we have. The fact that it bothers you when people say it doesnt make speculation pointless.


This, of course assumes that I supported, or even voted for Mccain. Which I did not.

A swing and a miss.

Nah, but your guy still lost too.

You dont get news where you live, do you?

Shit I ment supermajority sorry.

Don't most politicians lie during their campaigns though? Honestly though, I thought the Mccain we saw at his concession speech was the real Mccain, not the one that the Neo-con try to make him into during the campaign.
Meanwhile, the Obama being seen since the election appears to square very well with what voters say they saw during the campaign.

But let's not speculate about whether or not the country would be better off having an honest president as opposed to one who lies during his campaign to get elected and then turns around and ignores all his campaign promises.

Shit I ment supermajority sorry.

Ah, ok.;)

Well, if McCain was lying about any of his plans to get votes, it clearly didnt work out for him too well, did it?

Honestly, we can base it off the evidence we have. The fact that it bothers you when people say it doesnt make speculation pointless.

No it didn't and it's pretty obvious he was pandering by his selection of Sarah Palin. I mean comon who in their right mind would pick her for anything?

The evidence doesn't hold much weight though, because once again, politicians are all about votes, and they'll say anything to get votes.

This, of course assumes that I supported, or even voted for Mccain.

No, it doesn't.


A swing and a miss.
This is like meta-fail. You make a false assumption which leads to you concluding (smugly) that somebody else made a false assumption about you.

No it didn't and it's pretty obvious he was pandering by his selection of Sarah Palin. I mean comon who in their right mind would pick her for anything?

The evidence doesn't hold much weight though, because once again, politicians are all about votes, and they'll say anything to get votes.

That, and hes a member of a party for a reason. That party has a platform. We can safely assume that he would do something closely related to his parties platform.


There we go.

Did anyone actually believe that the whole policy of the US government would be changed this fast? That would be difficult for anyone who got elected.

Also, what is this gag order everyone in this thread is talking about?

Gag rule, not gag order. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/EDDS15G5IF.DTL

Gag rule, not gag order. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/EDDS15G5IF.DTL

No no, thats not an achievement because Myrmi doesnt like it.

No it didn't and it's pretty obvious he was pandering by his selection of Sarah Palin. I mean comon who in their right mind would pick her for anything?

And the fact that McCain would put such a clearly incompetent person one heartbeat from the presidency is not something that should lead anybody to speculate about what other grossly incompetent nominations he might make.


The evidence doesn't hold much weight though, because once again, politicians are all about votes, and they'll say anything to get votes.
Yeah, see, that line sounds particularly pathetic given that the people who voted for Obama agree that he's delivering on his promises already.

Meanwhile, the Obama being seen since the election appears to square very well with what voters say they saw during the campaign.


Yup, didn't like him much then, and don't like him much now.

I'll give him credit: he's done a lot. I just don't like a lot of what he's done.

Gag rule, not gag order. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/EDDS15G5IF.DTL

......What.....the.....FUCK?!

Wow.....and people wonder why I fight against the stupid notion that USA is a "Christian" nation.

Yup, didn't like him much then, and don't like him much now.

I'll give him credit: he's done a lot. I just don't like a lot of what he's done.

I, for one, miss the days of superstition dictating policy to science, the law not applying when its inconvienent, and blatant corruption and nepotism within the highest tiers of the government.

Stupid Obama, going and ruining all that.

Don't most politicians lie during their campaigns though? Honestly though, I thought the Mccain we saw at his concession speech was the real Mccain, not the one that the Neo-con try to make him into during the campaign.

Ah, but what of voting records?

I, for one, miss the days of superstition dictating policy to science, the law not applying when its inconvienent, and blatant corruption and nepotism within the highest tiers of the government.

Stupid Obama, going and ruining all that.

OMG! You did not just open the one place we can hit him! You did not!

How many of his new helpers were his old "basket ball friends" or cheated on their taxes (for which you can go to *JAIL* unless you're a politician) or were hired souly for political points, dispite not actually agreeing with his politics at all ::cough:: Mrs. Clinton ::cough::

Are you a counter troll? :)

......What.....the.....FUCK?!

Wow.....and people wonder why I fight against the stupid notion that USA is a "Christian" nation.

Yup. The global gag rule is one of the more nauseating bits of bullshit Republican administrations have produced.

Gag rule, not gag order. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/25/EDDS15G5IF.DTL

That article might be a little biased.

Ah, but what of voting records?

Well, we cant trust those. I mean, there really is no way to guess what policy decision McCain would have made. Nope. None at all.

That article might be a little biased.

That's why it's called an "editorial." Do they not have those in the papers that say the Dems don't have a majority in Congress?

How many of his new helpers were his old "basket ball friends"
I dont know. How many?
or cheated on their taxes (for which you can go to *JAIL* unless you're a politician)
One guy. And he was removed. The other guy made a genuine mistake on his taxes (which the IRS said is a very common mistake) and paid it in full when he was told he owed.
or were hired souly for political points, dispite not actually agreeing with his politics at all ::cough:: Mrs. Clinton ::cough::
What? Clinton agrees with him on almost everything. She is also extremelly qualified. Her hiring has all of jack shit to do with 'political points', especially because he wont have to run against the Democrats in 2012.

Well, we cant trust those. I mean, there really is no way to guess what policy decision McCain would have made. Nope. None at all.

And, like Wil said, you can't trust what a politician says to have any correlation at all with what they will do. That's why when he votes, he just blindfolds himself and picks randomly.

And, like Wil said, you can't trust what a politician says to have any correlation at all with what they will do. That's why when he votes, he just blindfolds himself and picks randomly.

Or votes libertarian. Which is almost as meaningless;)

Well, we cant trust those. I mean, there really is no way to guess what policy decision McCain would have made. Nope. None at all.
:p

Even supposing we could not trust those, would we really want a President who voted against his own beliefs to please the majority? Might he not do the same thing in office to win a second term? The guy would only care about power, and would ruin the life of anyone if doing so got him the votes.

I tolerate fucking-up opponents to win, but I do not tolerate fucking-up the country.

That's why it's called an "editorial." Do they not have those in the papers that say the Dems don't have a majority in Congress?

Well I didn't see that it said it was an editorial. Sorry I'm to lazy to look read all of it.

And I ment to say supermajority.

Still think this sums up my feelings best

Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations)

Still think this sums up my feelings best

Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations)

It is said to see that racism is still prevalent.

It is said to see that racism is still prevalent.

Ummmm

Ummmm

Still working on saracasim ok. forgive my inexperince.please.

One guy. And he was removed. The other guy made a genuine mistake on his taxes (which the IRS said is a very common mistake) and paid it in full when he was told he owed.


For me, one is too many. If I were to *forget* to pay my tuition one year, you can bet my school wouldn't appoint me head of the bursar office.

What I mean is, he knew *no one* so his appointees were old friends (Education? At least, I think) or senators he had met (Though I did like Salazar for Interior.)

As for Clinton: She's qualified for everything up to and including the presidency, but her office needs to be an extension of the Presidency. When I read about what she does it seems a little off from what he's doing. No one specific thing, just a feel. And seeing that makes me feel like he picked her so he could have her out of the way (remember when it took so long for her to pledge her support? Yeah, maybe he made an offer) or just so he could get her (and a woman) in a visible chair so he would be seen as, I don't know, fair? Forgiving?

I'm going to quit beating around the bush and say this. I don't think it is Obama's fault if nothing has happened this country was pretty screwed up to begin with. Based on what I have seen him do so far I commend his efforts though.

For me, one is too many. If I were to *forget* to pay my tuition one year, you can bet my school wouldn't appoint me head of the bursar office.

There is a difference between 'forgetting' and 'making a very common mistake that even the IRS said is excusable because everyone makes that mistake, and paying it back in full when told you owe'

What I mean is, he knew *no one* so his appointees were old friends (Education? At least, I think) or senators he had met (Though I did like Salazar for Interior.)
Or he could have not known them beforehand and simply known their track record. Or he could have met them when he was a senator, or on the campaign. Or when he was a professor at Harvard, or....

Yes it did, the torture memos, evidence from places like Gitmo and Abu Grabe, not to mention investigations occurring in other countries to do with aiding and abetting the extraordinary renditions all distinctly point towards the use of torture. Sorry.

Also it doesn't work - not for information. It's great if you want confessions however.



Which is probably why he has said, in no uncertain terms, that members of the previous administration or the intelligence services will not be prosecuted.

On my lunch break:
The "torture" memos are from 2002. There hasn't been any documentation of harsh interrogation in years. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/04/16/aclu/index.html

The word on the prosecution of Bush era officials isn't closed. The President is waffling on the matter. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-torture27-2009apr27,0,6092738.story

IMHO: 1. the Stimulus Bill will be mis-handled and they'll ask for more. 2. Gitmo will not close on the projected date because they still haven't decided where to put the detainees that no country wants. 3. Stem Cell research was always legal, but now, along with all of the other things that the government is buying that it cannot afford, now the research will be subsidized by the tax-payers.

Or he could have not known them beforehand and simply known their track record. Or he could have met them when he was a senator, or on the campaign. Or when he was a professor at Harvard, or....

Of all the things I said, you choose to argue with that? Because ranchers from Colorado hang around Harvard all day. [/annoying nit picking mode]

Who ever said arguing on the Internet was stupid? This is fun!

All of that doesn't mean a lot, I agree. But combined with the fact that he's a politician from the most corrupt state/city (?) in America, and I take it more seriously. (NOT calling him corrupt. He seems like a good man, but he is also NOT ending the "culture of corruption" like Democrats ran under last 2-year election (or whatever the non-presidential ones are called).)

I guess I just hoped I was wrong. That I had let my political beliefs cloud my vision of this bright and shiny new era the media and all my friends told me about. I really did, I'm embarrassed to say. But nope, just like everyone else, except higher taxes.

There is also the plus that he hasn't done or said anything really, really stupid. One hell of a refreshing change.

He did say he had toured all 57 states, didn't he? That was kinda... yeah.

But combined with the fact that he's a politician from the most corrupt state/city (?) in America,

5th most corrupt, I think.... Fox ran a special on this in the wake of the election.

On my lunch break:
The "torture" memos are from 2002. There hasn't been any documentation of harsh interrogation in years. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/04/16/aclu/index.html
Yet, Bush refused to ban them. Obama didnt refuse. The fact of the matter remains.
The word on the prosecution of Bush era officials isn't closed. The President is waffling on the matter. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-torture27-2009apr27,0,6092738.story
Its not his call.
IMHO: 1. the Stimulus Bill will be mis-handled and they'll ask for more. 2. Gitmo will not close on the projected date because they still haven't decided where to put the detainees that no country wants.
So, youre a sorcerer. Care to divine next weeks lottery numbers for me?

3. Stem Cell research was always legal, but now, along with all of the other things that the government is buying that it cannot afford, now the research will be subsidized by the tax-payers.
I dont think you understand how scientific research works. No funding = no research.

But nope, just like everyone else, except higher taxes.

Unless you make $250,000 or more, no higher taxes.

And they'll still be lower then they were under Reagan.

Originally Posted by You-Gi-Owe
On my lunch break:
The "torture" memos are from 2002. There hasn't been any documentation of harsh interrogation in years. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...clu/index.html

Yet, Bush refused to ban them. Obama didnt refuse. The fact of the matter remains.

Quote:
The word on the prosecution of Bush era officials isn't closed. The President is waffling on the matter. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,6092738.story

Its not his call.

Quote:
IMHO: 1. the Stimulus Bill will be mis-handled and they'll ask for more. 2. Gitmo will not close on the projected date because they still haven't decided where to put the detainees that no country wants.

So, youre a sorcerer. Care to divine next weeks lottery numbers for me?


Quote:
3. Stem Cell research was always legal, but now, along with all of the other things that the government is buying that it cannot afford, now the research will be subsidized by the tax-payers.

I dont think you understand how scientific research works. No funding = no research.
1.B. The "Fact" is that Bush left the option open for harsh interrogation.
2.B. Give me a freakin' break. Obama is the President. It's HIS effing Justice Dept. He's the head of the democrat party so he ought to be able to keep his Congressmen in line.
3.B. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that you don't get out of debt by spending money.
4.B. Gee, I guess the big Pharmacy Companies have it all wrong. They do their research with their own money and expect to make a profit. What was I thinking?

1.B. The "Fact" is that Bush left the option open for harsh interrogation.
Bush tortured people (and there is no evidence that he stopped. In fact, with how strongly his lackies are defending it, and the fact that he started, why should be believe he ever stopped?) and then refused to ban the practice.

Obama never tortured people and banned the practice.
2.B. Give me a freakin' break. Obama is the President. It's HIS effing Justice Dept. He's the head of the democrat party so he ought to be able to keep his Congressmen in line.
You can say it all you want. Its still not his jurisdiction.
3.B. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that you don't get out of debt by spending money.
History says otherwise. Yay!

And what about Gitmo not closing as you say, Mr. Sorcerer? And how about them lottery numbers?
4.B. Gee, I guess the big Pharmacy Companies have it all wrong. They do their research with their own money and expect to make a profit. What was I thinking?
Except stem cell research doesnt sell anything. You dont make a profit while youre still researching. Thats what grants are for.

So, Myrmi, you want US to tell YOU things Obama's done that YOU like?

Find them yourself! I'm an occultist, not a psychic!

Obama never tortured people and banned the practice.


Not true, try again.

Not true, try again.

Who'd he torture?

Not true, try again.

Oh, really? He tortured people?

Oh are you denying that he has deemed the practice unacceptable and laid out specific guidlines about what theyre allowed to do and not allowed to do?

I await your source. Not that I expect one.

Who'd he torture?

Republicans, by winning.

Oh, really? He tortured people?

Oh, you un-ignored me. Excellent. Well, seeing as Guantanamo is still open, and there's that place in Afghanistan, that Afghani prison that the US uses to torture people, I'd say people have been tortured under the Obama regime.

Oh, you un-ignored me. Excellent.
And the below makes me think that was a mistake.
Well, seeing as Guantanamo is still open
That means jack shit. A prison can be open and not torturing people. Source that torture still happens there.
and there's that place in Afghanistan, that Afghani prison that the US uses to torture people,
Once again, we can have prisons without torturing people. Source that torture happens there.
I'd say people have been tortured under the Obama regime.
Youd be wrong. Source any of the claims you made right now (that people have been tortured at Gitmo since Bush left or that we're torturing people in Afghanistan) or stop talking.

Oh, you un-ignored me. Excellent. Well, seeing as Guantanamo is still open, and there's that place in Afghanistan, that Afghani prison that the US uses to torture people, I'd say people have been tortured under the Obama regime.

So, no evidence, then?

You were aware that the Obama administration formally prohibited the former regime's 'enhanced interrogation techniques', I assume?

Oh, you un-ignored me. Excellent. Well, seeing as Guantanamo is still open, and there's that place in Afghanistan, that Afghani prison that the US uses to torture people, I'd say people have been tortured under the Obama regime.

Guantanamo is a military base, not a torture facility. The torture has been ordered stopped.

So you actually have no proof and are still talking out of your ass. Why do you even care? You're a Brit.

So, no evidence, then?

You were aware that the Obama administration formally prohibited the former regime's 'enhanced interrogation techniques', I assume?

Apperantly a prison cannot exist without it being a torture chamber.

Source?

http://www.truthout.org/030509T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Theater_Internment_Facility

And I know people were tortured there under Bush as well, I'm not defending the man.

http://www.truthout.org/030509T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Theater_Internment_Facility

And I know people were tortured there under Bush as well, I'm not defending the man.

Note the dates on the prisoner abuse in your sources.

You. Fucking. Fail.

Seriously, if youre going to try and make claims that Obama is having people tortured, FFS make sure that the cases you cite happen when he has actually taken office. Good God. Biggest fail on NSG Ive seen.

http://www.truthout.org/030509T

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagram_Theater_Internment_Facility

And I know people were tortured there under Bush as well, I'm not defending the man.

All those articles state is that people were tortured under Bush.

All those articles state is that people were tortured under Bush.

Like I said, he appears to believe that we cannot have a military base where we hold POWs without it doubling as a torture chamber.

All those articles state is that people were tortured under Bush.

The first one, if you read the whole lot, suggests that Obama may transfer prisoners to Bagram.

The first one, if you read the whole lot, suggests that Obama may transfer prisoners to Bagram.

Which proves nothing other then that he might transfer prisoners to Bagram. Not that hes torturing people there.


Please tell me this is just bored Devil's advocacy gone horribly wrong.

The first one, if you read the whole lot, suggests that Obama may transfer prisoners to Bagram.

So he has tortured because an article speculates that he may move prisoners around?

Yeah...

Please tell me this is just bored Devil's advocacy gone horribly wrong.

This would sum up his entire posting history.

Which proves nothing other then that he might transfer prisoners to Bagram. Not that hes torturing people there.

I saw a BBC news report, which obviously I can't source, so just take my word for it, saying that people are being waterboarded there.

Please tell me this is just bored Devil's advocacy gone horribly wrong.

Nope. I just want both sides to be heard. Obama isn't as bad as Bush, but he's not exactly Jesus.

This would sum up his entire posting history.

So all of my posts are about how I don't think Obama is God? Riiight.

I saw a BBC news report, which obviously I can't source, so just take my word for it, saying that people are being waterboarded there. Trust is nice, verification is better.



Nope. I just want both sides to be heard. Obama isn't as bad as Bush, but he's not exactly Jesus. Has anyone said that he is?

I saw a BBC news report, which obviously I can't source, so just take my word for it, saying that people are being waterboarded there.


Ah, well. If I chose to believe you that you actually saw this, it would also require me to believe that it really said what you think it said. Its quite possible you did see this report. And its quite possible it said people were being waterboarded there. Under Bush. Which would be true.

If it was happening, itd be everywhere. Not just on some BBC report that you apperantly were the only one to see.

*Wonders why he took NNLD off ignore*

Trust is nice, verification is better.

I know. But I can't really link to a tv program in the past, can I?

Has anyone said that he is?

Oh, FFS, you know what I mean.

Not just on some BBC report that you apperantly were the only one to see.

Oh, sorry, I didn't see the hordes of English people telling me this didn't happen. Oh wait, that's because I'm the only English person in this thread, therefore the only one who is likely to have seen it.

*Wonders why he took NNLD off ignore*

Because you love me really.

I know. But I can't really link to a tv program in the past, can I?

Like I said, if Obama said he banned the practice, and then was still doing it, itd be everywhere. Not just this one BBC program that just you (apperantly) happened to catch.

So, I can safely conclude your original statement was crap.

The first one, if you read the whole lot, suggests that Obama may transfer prisoners to Bagram.

Which is irrelevant.

read this: "January 22, 2009: New President Barack Obama bans waterboarding and other harsh techniques, and declares invalid all Bush-era Justice Department opinions on interrogations"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20090422/tpl-uk-security-usa-waterboarding-factbo-81f3b62.html

Whether or not people are being moved, torture is FORMALLY illegal under this administration.

So, Myrmi, you want US to tell YOU things Obama's done that YOU like?
Cause gun sales to sky rocket?:p

I dont think you understand how scientific research works. No funding = no research.
Well, to be fair KoL, I don't think the way you understand it is correct. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% pro-stem cell research and am very happy with Obama funding stem cell research. I am excited for the results we'll get that will revolutionize medicine and science.

But, here's what the reality of the stem cell situation was. No funding =/ no research. Under the Bush administration, public stem cell funding was ridiculously limited because of the worries about the sanctity of life. Thus, the amount of money in federal grants and such for stem cell research was low and only for few research activities that did not engage in any scientific activities that the Bush administration deemed "tampering with the sacntity of human life." However, private stem cell research, done by private companies and private labs (without public money) was was absolutely legal and being conducted, regardless of federal policy, because they didn't [couldn't] use Federal money for it.

Now the "chaaaaaange" that comes from the Obama administration's reversal of policy towards stem cell research means that now the federal AND private forces [and funding] will join forces and social stigmas against working in stem cell research will be dropped. A big deal, though it's still incorrect to say that stem cell research didn't exist before. Anyway, now the point is that America, both private and public, is back in the stem cell business and is once again ready to lead the world in scientific development. I, for one, am excited as fuck! :)

Cause gun sales to sky rocket?:p

That was a hilarious little knee jerk reaction.

That was a hilarious little knee jerk reaction.
Hey, the way I look at it . . . it was President Obama helping the economy from day 1! :p

I dont think you understand how scientific research works. No funding = no research.

True, very true. Why does the government have to give these researchers money.

George Clooney is a pretty rich dude, he could pay for some. Or is he still helping Darfur?:p

Can you imagine what the right wing would do if Obama was photographed kissing an Arab leader and then walking through a garden holding hands with him?

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushabdullah.htm

They would say he's gay?

Ah I love it when people try to over-simplify human nature.

That explains why you do it so bloody often.

Well, there was the whole stint on Leno when he made fun of handicapped children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaCcsp1D1yM



Ok, I got a question. Exactly how do you know he would've been better than John Mc.Cain? What, do you have access to a parallel dimension where Mc.Cain won? I want actual proof (and no you can't use Bush Jr. or Sr.) that Obama would've been better than Mc.Cain.

Also, what is this gag order everyone in this thread is talking about?
well i am mostly thinking about the economy which mccain seemed utterly clueless about. which means to me that he would have had no idea who to put into key roles and whose advice to follow.

not that there is any other good plan out there beside the one that obama is following. i didnt like the way the bush guy handled the (essentially) same plan but obama's guy isnt doing things all that differently.

Did anyone actually believe that the whole policy of the US government would be changed this fast? That would be difficult for anyone who got elected.
we are all still americans eh? there isnt much chance that there will ever be a big change in policy. just tweaks here and there (that can still make a huge difference)

Anyone recall any achievements? Anything?

*Crickets chirping*

Well, he's scoring well in the popularity contests.

No kidding.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/report-card.html#poll

Excellent = 6%

Very Good = 50%

Average = 2%

Not Good = 5%

Poor = 38%

Even according to Foxnews, the ongoing 100 days poll gives Obama better than 50-50 ratings.

...

How can anybody be this wrong without, like, collapsing into a singularity or something?

Blame Pandora. She just had to open that jar and let lose all those spites that plague mankind, including the nastiest of spites Delusional Hope.

Don't most politicians lie during their campaigns though? Honestly though, I thought the Mccain we saw at his concession speech was the real Mccain, not the one that the Neo-con try to make him into during the campaign.

And what makes you so certain that the neo-cons would not have continued what you perceive as their manipulation of the poor befuddled innocent McCain after he had won?
Do you really think that these evil nasty neo-cons would have said, "Hey, great! You won John! Awesome! Our work here is done. We'll butt out now. Preside however you feel like, John. We'll support you regardless!"?

Lol, always. If I ever say something interesting I want lots of people to know about it, because it would be very easy for such interesting comments to get lost in the flood of dull things I normally am saying.

Gracias! :)

And what makes you so certain that the neo-cons would not have continued what you perceive as their manipulation of the poor befuddled innocent McCain after he had won?
Do you really think that these evil nasty neo-cons would have said, "Hey, great! You won John! Awesome! Our work here is done. We'll butt out now. Preside however you feel like, John. We'll support you regardless!"?

Seems unlikely. They even attacked him during his presidential run. And he was their candidate.

"SEE!? We told you Hussein Obama was an Ebil Mozlem!! BIRTH CERTIFICAAAAAAAATE!!"

Um...hasn't he already shown his birth certificate? I swear, some conspiracies are too idiotic to die.

Unless you make $250,000 or more, no higher taxes.

And they'll still be lower then they were under Reagan.

Was Reagan a commie!? :eek:

:p

Positives: He signed the SCHIP expansion which a broad bipartisan coalition supproted; lifted funding bans for embryonic stem cell research; signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; improved American diplomacy and international reputation drastically; and made strong moves to show that health care reform will be carried out in his administration.

Flaws: The stimulus bill could have been leaner, and the admnistration could have acted sooner on proposing new solutions for the financial industry.

Overall, for only 100 days, that's a pretty good record.

Positives: He signed the SCHIP expansion which a broad bipartisan coalition supproted; lifted funding bans for embryonic stem cell research; signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act; improved American diplomacy and international reputation drastically; and made strong moves to show that health care reform will be carried out in his administration.

Flaws: The stimulus bill could have been leaner, and the admnistration could have acted sooner on proposing new solutions for the financial industry.

Overall, for only 100 days, that's a pretty good record.

One of the more balanced pro-Obama critiques I've seen.

The SCHIP was supposed to provide healthcare for children. The expansion allowed for persons older than eighteen and up to twenty-five (or more?)

I still don't see why it was so important to expand the number of destroyed embryos and government funding. Some on this topic believe that there's no money in stem cell research... I gotta say, there HAS to be someone like a "Halliburton" in the medical industry that has figured out how they might make a buck on it in the future. Government science grants lead to lazy scientists. I want my researchers to be motivated to get results.

LLFPA? I must admit, I have to read up on that one.

Improved world political relations and image, maybe. I just wish he could be more humble without alienating our allies. I'd like to see him get the Columbian trade agreement that stalled in Congress during the Bush years through, rather than be buddy-buddy with Hugo Chavez and the Castro brothers.

Healthcare... I'm just not seeing it. I took care of my sick mom until she passed away two years ago.

What do I think he's done right?

Well, I liked the fact that he permitted the navy to shoot those pirates.

I liked the way he started off with trying to reconcile both sides of Congress, but his own party is waayyy out of step with him on that.

I have a video of his 2004 Democrat convention speech, I said to myself, "Dang, this guy is good. I wish he was a Republican".

Firstly, You-Gi-Owe, my condolences about your mother.


Secondly, what do you think the Obama Administration's policy toward Venezuela and Cuba should be?

1.B. The "Fact" is that Bush left the option open for harsh interrogation.

And that this option was used, with the full knowledge of the administration. Links posted other places in this thread indicate that it has happened. Even if you say they date back to 2002, that still on Bush's watch!

2.B. Give me a freakin' break. Obama is the President. It's HIS effing Justice Dept. He's the head of the democrat party so he ought to be able to keep his Congressmen in line.

This is why you have serperation of powers - it's one of the fundamentals of your government. Yes, he could politicise it but if that's not illegal (and I'm not certain on this one, Neo Art?) then it's certainly highly unethical because it's not. his. jurisdiction!

4.B. Gee, I guess the big Pharmacy Companies have it all wrong. They do their research with their own money and expect to make a profit. What was I thinking?

As previously mentioned, it does limit funding for research which isn't directly going to make a profit and overall did reduce the amount of research that could have otherwise been done, simply because of how funding works.

More importantly the ban made it downright difficult for independent (as opposed to corporate employed) researchers to do stem cell research - because they had to ensure that any of the federally funded research in no way whatsoever came into contact with the privately funded stem cell research they may have been involved in. The result, research centres had to effectively double on research space and equipment if they wanted any chance of getting federal funding. And since no research centre could ever survived 100% on private funding... in the long run it resulted in a lot of lost research time and a lot of wasted money.

It makes no sense the US having nothing to do with leftist countries when they will do business with some of the most brutal regimes in the world, so long as profit for big business can be made.

Cuba and Venezuela are not responsible for atrocities on anywhere near the same scale as a country such as Burma, and Western States are more than happy to do business with Burma, one of the worlds largest producers of natural gas.

Obama opening up to socialist states shows for me and end to purely capitalist motivated relationships with other nations, which can only be a good thing. Its time to put to bed differences bases upon standing on the political spectrum, and begin to co-operate with world leaders who are not involved in MASS repression and or genocide.

Whether Obama will be the one to show the West the light remains to be seen, but a greater stress for liberty and transparency across the democratic world can only be a good thing

http://first100days.theatlantic.com/2009/04/tag_cloud.php

I like word clouds - here's Obama's for his first 100 days.

So, Myrmi, you want US to tell YOU things Obama's done that YOU like?

Find them yourself! I'm an occultist, not a psychic!
No, I'm just curious what people think.

The way I see it, a lot of one's own bias does enter in to what we consider successful acts. I'm sure the liberals are quite happy that we've increased the size and scope of government with the giant spending programs, just as I'm sure there are those that despair the fact.

No, I'm just curious what people think.

The way I see it, a lot of one's own bias does enter in to what we consider successful acts. I'm sure the liberals are quite happy that we've increased the size and scope of government with the giant spending programs, just as I'm sure there are those that despair the fact.

Oddly the conservatives didn't seem too bothered when they increased the size and scope of government with giant spending programs - in fact, they called liberals un-American for not supporting it.

Of course, both sides indulge in this sort of idiocy, idiocy because people believe in branding more than they do actual events.

People can identify with brands, not so much with the truth it seems.

Oddly the conservatives didn't seem too bothered when they increased the size and scope of government with giant spending programs - in fact, they called liberals un-American for not supporting it.

Of course, both sides indulge in this sort of idiocy, idiocy because people believe in branding more than they do actual events.

People can identify with brands, not so much with the truth it seems.
You are making the mistake of equating Republicans with conservatives. Don't do it again. Unless, of course, you're alright with equating Democrats and liberals.

You are making the mistake of equating Republicans with conservatives. Don't do it again. Unless, of course, you're alright with equating Democrats and liberals.

I said conservatives, although it's highly understandable you made the connection.

http://first100days.theatlantic.com/2009/04/tag_cloud.php

I like word clouds - here's Obama's for his first 100 days.

I wonder how many times he said the word 'testicle'.

I said conservatives, although it's highly understandable you made the connection.
Yes, I do read. But you were wrong. Conservatives were infuriated at the huge spending spree that the Republicans embarked upon.

Yes, I do read. But you were wrong. Conservatives were infuriated at the huge spending spree that the Republicans embarked upon.

The torture, unwarranted war (I'm still waiting for Bush's god to resurrect a SINGLE Iraqi), dickwaving and deregulation that landed America in this sorry state didn't annoy you at all, then?

I wonder how many times he said the word 'testicle'.

113. *Nods*

Yes, I do read. But you were wrong. Conservatives were infuriated at the huge spending spree that the Republicans embarked upon.

Some were. Some weren't. There is no conservative hive mind.

Yes, I do read. But you were wrong. Conservatives were infuriated at the huge spending spree that the Republicans embarked upon.

Odd, where were the anti-spending protests during the Bush years?

Odd, where were the anti-spending protests during the Bush years?

With - might I add - the people comparing themselves to REVOLUTIONARIES while showing racist signs about Kenya, monkeys and other niceties.

You are making the mistake of equating Republicans with conservatives. Don't do it again. Unless, of course, you're alright with equating Democrats and liberals.

Why not? You do it. :p

Meh. I really am bored to tears at the ludicrous degree of media coverage he recieves in the UK; there are more significant, pressing matters than the choice of presidential dog, or the perpetual discussions of why Britain has no equivalent politician, as if it is anything to complain of.

Beyond this, I don't care for his level of spending, or aspirations towards a larger state and state intrusion into affairs and matters that should be private.

Meh. I really am bored to tears at the ludicrous degree of media coverage he recieves in the UK; there are more significant, pressing matters than the choice of presidential dog, or the perpetual discussions of why Britain has no equivalent politician, as if it is anything to complain of.

Beyond this, I don't care for his level of spending, or aspirations towards a larger state and state intrusion into affairs and matters that should be private.

Does he remind you of Blair? Well not so much Blair himself as opposed to the general atmosphere surrounding him on winning the election.

He's beginning to for me, I get the sense that little thought was given to this photo project because it's from 'the White House', and that's not to be questioned.

I remember in the early days of Blair, the phrase 'well Tony says', and 'Tony thinks we should', with this breathless air of earnestness...

One worries that Barack Obama will be undone by the people closest to him.

I kind of get the feeling he's a little less needy in terms of being 'chummy' with people, but hard to tell.

Yes, I do read. But you were wrong. Conservatives were infuriated at the huge spending spree that the Republicans embarked upon.

Where is No True Scotsman when you need him?

Does he remind you of Blair? Well not so much Blair himself as opposed to the general atmosphere surrounding him on winning the election.

He's beginning to for me, I get the sense that little thought was given to this photo project because it's from 'the White House', and that's not to be questioned.

I remember in the early days of Blair, the phrase 'well Tony says', and 'Tony thinks we should', with this breathless air of earnestness...

One worries that Barack Obama will be undone by the people closest to him.

I kind of get the feeling he's a little less needy in terms of being 'chummy' with people, but hard to tell.

I've long felt he's an American Blair; however, having been only 8 when Blair was elected, I can't offer a comparison between the first months of the two.

He does strike me as being equally desperate to be "liked", rather than feared or respected, however, as a Telegraph reader, I do imbibe very right wing waters.

I suspect he'll fail of his own accord in time anyway. Everybody in public life does.

He's made moves to ban torture and empty Guantanamo; agreed to sign up to the next "kyoto", supporting the economy and meeting with G20 regulations; toured Europe, supporting Turkey's bid to get into the EU; talked to Iranian leaders; and I'm betting he has some pretty sore hands from all that shaking. And I won't mention the war (Afghanistan). I've also heard he's trying to limit the gun traffic between Mexico and USA.

Where is No True Scotsman when you need him?
Not needed, not here.

Not needed, not here.

Don't be silly.

Social and religious conservatives are perfectly fine with increased spending and government intervention if it means they get to dictate who gets to marry who.

Many conservatives from different walks of life support more spending and intervention in the name of the War on Drugs or on the War on Terror.

And I will bet that most US conservatives feel that government should play a bigger role in supporting veterans and strengthening the border.

If you really want to know what Obama has done in the past 100 days, you can read about it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PresidentialActions/

And to see where the money has gone, you can read about it here:

http://www.recovery.gov/?q=content/investments-state

This administration has done their best so far to try to make information available for people... and yet most on this thread seem to have no idea what the president has, or has not done.

So all of my posts are about how I don't think Obama is God? Riiight.
I don't think Obama is God. He's handsome, intelligent, speaks well, seems like a good dad, has a sense of humor and people say he's nice, likeable, has a good heart or is cool. He's a good dude, but he's still human.

I still have faith in him. His biggest achievement in 100 days was the defiance of the long-standing saying that there would never be an African president. That is the most important thing that can inspire the people who suffered under conservative policies to rise up against the likes of Brown and actually make change.

And good riddance, Guantanamo Bay.

I wonder how many times he said the word 'testicle'.

They cut out words like that - "a", "the", "and", "testicle" and so on.

Bush shook Abdullah's hand. And Karimov's. And Musharraf's. And Mubarak's.

Each of them is much more brutal and oppressive than Chavez.

Did you criticize Bush's cordial attitude toward the aforesaid dictators?

All people ever do is criticize bush for his actions. But when Obama does it he is praised. It's fine to question the White man but immediately declared "racist" if you do so do the black man.

All people ever do is criticize bush for his actions. But when Obama does it he is praised. It's fine to question the White man but immediately declared "racist" if you do so do the black man.

Point
































Your head.

No one criticized Bush at the time for embracing foreign leaders because that's something that a president is supposed to do. All we're doing is pointing out the rampant hypocrisy of the right criticizing Obama for embracing a world leader when their own man did the exact same thing numerous times.

All people ever do is criticize bush for his actions. But when Obama does it he is praised. It's fine to question the White man but immediately declared "racist" if you do so do the black man.

Even said in jest, things like this are disgustingly ignorant.

With - might I add - the people comparing themselves to REVOLUTIONARIES while showing racist signs about Kenya, monkeys and other niceties.

And? The American revolutionaries were racist.

And? The American revolutionaries were racist.

Eh?

Are we supposed to compare Brits of today with Brits of 230 years ago?

Your point is a stretch at best as Obama could never had been President back then....

Your point is a stretch at best as Obama could never had been President back then....

My point was that some these "teabaggers" (seriously, there must have been at least 1 of them who knew what that meant) are clearly racist, as were American revolutionaries. Look what they did to the Indians and the Blacks.

Yes, I do read. But you were wrong. Conservatives were infuriated at the huge spending spree that the Republicans embarked upon.

Conservatives were all in favor of the 'huge spending spree'.

The problem is - you're making a nonsensical statement. For those conservatives for whom religious or social issues are paramount, for example - everything else was secondary. For those conservatives for whom border security, national security, and sovereignty were the real issues... you might hear the argument that the huge spending spree' wasn't enough. Even among those conservatives that are more interested in the money than the social or religious issues - tax cuts and lesser regulations might trump 'spending'.

It is ironic that you accuse others of massively misrepresenting 'conservatives', and then try to claim them as some kind of consensus.

Conservatives were all in favor of the 'huge spending spree'.

Hey, True Conservatives were definately not in favor of a huge spending spree. He may have been our Son-of-a-Bitch and we defended him a lot, but President Bush wasn't always on the same page as True Conservatives.

Anyway, this is about the first 100 days of the new administration. I'm not happy with the tax bill, the stimulus plan, and the fact that with the swine flu being in full swing down in Mexico that President Obama hasn't closed the border. By all means, send them medical help, but close the border.

Hey, True Conservatives were definately not in favor of a huge spending spree. He may have been our Son-of-a-Bitch and we defended him a lot, but President Bush wasn't always on the same page as True Conservatives.

and no true scotsman ever drinks irish whiskey, right? The fact is, conservatives turned out to vote for Bush, in droves, twice. They could have voted for someone else. They could have voted for someone more "true conservative". They didn't.

If he was your son-of-a-bitch, it's for a reason. You chose him. You voted for him. You elected him, and then you reelected him. Don't act like you rejected his political opinion. If you did, you wouldn't have voted for him.

The White House's Youtube channel has the current Presidential Press Conference broadcasting live, right now. (http://www.youtube.com/whitehouse)

Might help sum up his policies for the next few years, instead of this 100 days mess.

and no true scotsman ever drinks irish whiskey, right? The fact is, conservatives turned out to vote for Bush, in droves, twice. They could have voted for someone else. They could have voted for someone more "true conservative". They didn't.

If he was your son-of-a-bitch, it's for a reason. You chose him. You voted for him. You elected him, and then you reelected him. Don't act like you rejected his political opinion. If you did, you wouldn't have voted for him.

That's sounds like a very well reasoned argument and very incriminating...

until you recall that the alternatives would have been Al Gore and John Kerry. :eek:

That's sounds like a very well reasoned argument and very incriminating...

until you recall that the alternatives would have been Al Gore and John Kerry. :eek:

Or third party. Or not voting.

Hey, True Conservatives were definately not in favor of a huge spending spree. He may have been our Son-of-a-Bitch and we defended him a lot, but President Bush wasn't always on the same page as True Conservatives.

Anyway, this is about the first 100 days of the new administration. I'm not happy with the tax bill, the stimulus plan, and the fact that with the swine flu being in full swing down in Mexico that President Obama hasn't closed the border. By all means, send them medical help, but close the border.

And only conservatives who agree with you, are true conservatives?

Look at my name. Consider it.

And only conservatives who agree with you, are true conservatives?

Look at my name. Consider it.

Which doesn't apply here because conservatism is a political philosophy which is fiscally conservative meaning Bush most certainly wasn't a true conservative.

Which doesn't apply here because conservatism is a political philosophy which is fiscally conservative meaning Bush most certainly wasn't a true conservative.

No True Conservative.

2 Forms of conservatism
2.1 Liberal conservatism
2.2 Conservative liberalism
2.3 Libertarian conservatism
2.4 Fiscal conservatism
2.5 Green conservatism
2.6 Cultural conservatism
2.7 Religious conservatism

No True Conservative.

2 Forms of conservatism
2.1 Liberal conservatism
2.2 Conservative liberalism
2.3 Libertarian conservatism
2.4 Fiscal conservatism
2.5 Green conservatism
2.6 Cultural conservatism
2.7 Religious conservatism
Fiscal conservatism is the economic and political policy that advocates restraint of governmental taxation and expenditures. Fiscal conservatives since the 19th century have argued that debt is a device to corrupt politics; they argue that big spending ruins the morals of the people, and that a national debt creates a dangerous class of speculators. The argument in favor of balanced budgets is often coupled with a belief that government welfare programs should be narrowly tailored and that tax rates should be low, which implies relatively small government institutions.

This belief in small government combines with fiscal conservatism to produce a broader economic liberalism, which wishes to minimize government intervention in the economy. This amounts to support for laissez-faire economics.

Conservatism in the United States is a major American political ideology. In contemporary American politics, it is often associated with the Republican Party. Core conservative principles include a belief in God and country, and many U.S. conservatives support a fiscal policy rooted in small government, laissez faire capitalism, and supply-side economics.

"Fiscal conservatism" is a part of what we consider "conservative" in the US.

"Fiscal conservatism" is a part of what we consider "conservative" in the US.

"...part of...", yes.

Why, this almost makes it sound like the No True Scotsman fallacy was being applied in the suggestion that there were 'true' conservatives that made a liar of my point.

Well, I only caught half the press conference, and I'm not going to read the whole thread because I'm pretty sure I've heard it all before, and I'm already pissed off, and "Make Me A Supermodel" is going to start soon, but --

I'm actually fairly well pleased with Obama's first 100 days. The one big disappointment, and it is a HUGE disappointment, is his weaseling attitude towards the torture issue. I am very displeased with that, but on the other hand, there are so many question marks still hanging over it, that I'm still not sure where he's going with it. So I will reserve judgment a little longer.

Aside from that, he has done a few things I do not like, but they are minor compared to the real issues facing him and us. On the whole, I think he is doing the best he can with things that have no good options -- the wars and the economy. And I think he has done some remarkable, small but important, things very quickly.

I give him moderately good scores and I am not regretting my vote yet.

Well, I only caught half the press conference, and I'm not going to read the whole thread because I'm pretty sure I've heard it all before, and I'm already pissed off, and "Make Me A Supermodel" is going to start soon, but --

I'm actually fairly well pleased with Obama's first 100 days. The one big disappointment, and it is a HUGE disappointment, is his weaseling attitude towards the torture issue. I am very displeased with that, but on the other hand, there are so many question marks still hanging over it, that I'm still not sure where he's going with it. So I will reserve judgment a little longer.

Aside from that, he has done a few things I do not like, but they are minor compared to the real issues facing him and us. On the whole, I think he is doing the best he can with things that have no good options -- the wars and the economy. And I think he has done some remarkable, small but important, things very quickly.

I give him moderately good scores and I am not regretting my vote yet.

I watched it, too. The Fox commentary at the end basically said that Obama screwed up the torture question by invoking Churchill, because the SAS roughs up the IRA. Or something.

Something did occur to me while I was watching - Obama has all these people really hating on him, hoping to bring him down, and he's getting a lot of stuff done.

I know I've been hard on him for promises I don't think he's keeping (well, or at all), but - in fairness to the guy - he's really lived up to the 'being able to do two things at once' rhetoric.

I was also surprised that he didn't get really asked anything about the economy. But then... he practically does fireside chats on the economy, so maybe no one felt there was anything to ask.

Something did occur to me while I was watching - Obama has all these people really hating on him, hoping to bring him down, and he's getting a lot of stuff done.
This.


As to the Fox thing, Fox claimed that talking to Castro was like when we gave Hitler Poland during the appeasement.

Yes. They really said Poland, thats not me remembering wrong.

I dont trust Fox for any sort of history.

This.


As to the Fox thing, Fox claimed that talking to Castro was like when we gave Hitler Poland during the appeasement.

Yes. They really said Poland, thats not me remembering wrong.

I dont trust Fox for any sort of history.
Pfft. I don't trust them for current events, either.

I'm actually fairly well pleased with Obama's first 100 days. The one big disappointment, and it is a HUGE disappointment, is his weaseling attitude towards the torture issue. I am very displeased with that, but on the other hand, there are so many question marks still hanging over it, that I'm still not sure where he's going with it. So I will reserve judgment a little longer.

Aside from that, he has done a few things I do not like, but they are minor compared to the real issues facing him and us. On the whole, I think he is doing the best he can with things that have no good options -- the wars and the economy. And I think he has done some remarkable, small but important, things very quickly.

Agreed almost entirely with this person up there, especially on the issue of torture and the second paragraph as well.

U.S. Pacific Coast Time. The end of the 100th day of the Obama administration is almost over.

Can't say I'm thrilled with everything... but by the same token it could have been much worse.

We have a U.S. President who is stepping into a tough situation. A tough situation that is the result of a mixing of world events, as well as mismanagement between the last President's administration and the Congress. I worry that some new event will confront him and the nation. I pray that he will rise to meet it and overcome it for all Americans. What I worry more is that the nation's enemies will simply allow it to become more muted and uninspiring, and that our tradional freedoms will disappear into a bland sameness of apathy, and that the President and the people will not notice the change.

As I stated before, I am not a fan of the bailouts that began before President Obama took office and I'm not happy with their continuation. The removal of the CEO of GM before the Govt. would continue to help that company (or other companies) has ominous tones for the future. The Budget and Stimulus Packages, IMHO, are generating years and years of debt.

Though I was disappointed that the pirates re-captured the Captain of the Maersk Alabama, I am pleased that the President authorized the use of deadly force to preserve an American life.

Look at my name. Consider it.

Cool move. REAL cool move. That's like Dan Hibiki hitting the opponent with an autograph. REAL cool move. :D

This.


As to the Fox thing, Fox claimed that talking to Castro was like when we gave Hitler Poland during the appeasement.

Yes. They really said Poland, thats not me remembering wrong.

I dont trust Fox for any sort of history.

You giving fox too hard of a time.
They clearly covered the invasion of Poland as well as they did the Million man march.

Obama's First Hundred Days...

I was and remain vehemently opposed to Timothy Geithner's appointment. Aside from that, I like what I see.

which is a pretty major accomplishment for any American politician these days.


Correction, correction: Is a pretty major accomplishment for *any politician* these days. :p

Which doesn't apply here because conservatism is a political philosophy which is fiscally conservative meaning Bush most certainly wasn't a true conservative.
In which case, you guys haven't had a 'true conservative' since the Great Depression, and there are hardly any 'true conservatives' out there. What were all those self-proclaimed conservatives doing when they twice voted for the conservative as opposed to the liberal candidate in general elections?

But then, if playing semantics allows conservatives to sleep at night, kudos to them.

"Fiscal conservatism" is a part of what we consider "conservative" in the US.
Which, you must admit, is profoundly weird given that the self-identified conservatives in the USA haven't been fiscal conservatives in my lifetime.