Discussion On President Obama

[Roo]

Is it as easy to defend the policies, actions, and presidency of George W. Bush as it is to critisize the first 6 months of the Obama administration?


Now first let me set the record straight. I voted for the guy, and so far, I have been fairly impressed with his foreign policy, public speaking ability, overall intelligence, and regard for America's role on the stage of more cooperative world politics. I have been unimpressed by his domestic agendas, for the most part, in their entirety. I have simply not given him enough time to judge his overall effectiveness in making America a better place. He's only been given one sixteenth the amount of time that Bush robbed us of.

Having said that, and let me state as the original poster that this thread is not for the purpose of defending Obama or starting any ugly arguments, I ask you this: were we better off with a numb-nut who could barely speak an intelligible sentence, who ravaged two very far-away countries and destroyed what semblance of political order that may have existed, one of which posed absolutely zero threat to the United States, and the other of which actually trained and harbored terrorists but has historically proven themselves to be virtually resistant to forceable change; a man who sent thousands of young Americans overseas to come back in bodybags for the good of... Who? And finally, to name but a vey few of his faults, led our economy into its deepest recession and finished with the worst approval rating in the history of the US Presidency?

Is Obama really an easier target? I really don't mind the Obama-bashing at all; as I said, this isn't intended to defednd him. This is Bush bashing. And the reason I post is because I don't remember much Bush bashing going on during my time here when he was president, yet I find him so much more deserving of negative attention given his role in our current situation. Please advise. Thanks.

EDIT: I know it's ill-advised to START a political thread here, but I was bored and have always been curious about the seemingly Republican slant on this forum. From the way it seems, all of us are in fact dissatisfied with US politics in general and most of us probably don't subscribe to either party. I sure don't. Hope we can keep it civil, not trying to rile things up. Thanks for your opinions.

[shikitohno]

I'm largely indifferent to him. Bush wasn't incredibly well done in the PR department. I think Obama has been overdone in the same area. When I was a senior in high school spring '08, the rest of my class seemed to think he was some sort of panacea, that would solve everything the moment he took office.

I wasn't fond of George, and didn't support the war to begin with. But I'm really against Obama's plan to just withdraw ASAP. Anyone remember what happened after WWII in Japan? We stayed there for decades to prevent Japanese society from being dominated by radicals who would ultimately lead the nation to ruin. We still maintain a base in Okinawa. Now when you consider that Iraq was already economically pretty badly off (more due to corruption and mismanagement, than to lack of potential), you can see how badly things will become when the US abandons Iraq. The reasons for the war were bunk, in my opinion, but I think it's a bigger mistake to go, ravage a country, and then abandon them to what will most likely be a bloody civil war. You'll see a government come into power that is more staunchly anti-US than anyone, and create a vital ally in the area for Iran.

Also, I dislike the US government as a rule of thumb for it's continued support of Israel, and Obama's not going to change that. By the term's definition, Israel is a terrorist state. It uses physical and psychological torture, random arrests, and unjustified bombings to repress a group of people they effectively stole land from. Not to defend Hamas, but the Palestinians do have a reason to be quite angry. The end of world war two, the British and the UN basically felt bad for the Jews, after havin gone through the Holocaust, and basically gave them the Mandate of Palestine. There were already some Jewish citizens there, and they constituted minority in the land. When millions left Europe, they basically told the Palestinians, "Hey, that nice piece of land you have, it's ours, get the hell out." The Arab nations in the region are also at fault in this regard, by advising the Palestinians to leave, planning to quickly dominate the Israelis, and then refusing the Palestinians refuge when the plan fell through.

Long story short, unless Obama cut the massive military aid to Israel and actually took a stance worth noting on the settlements, I don't think any peace will come there. The US has a long history of a) ignoring the border recognized by nearly every other nation and member of the UN except Israel and the US, and b) telling Israel they can't take more land, and looking the other way when they do.

On the home front, I think he'll be cut short in his plans by his own constituency. A good deal of what he wants to do is basically socialism, couched in other terms. I'm all for it, but the American public have this irrational idea that once you have socialist anything (corporate bailouts, medicine, university, etc.), it's a matter of months before everyone's off to the gulags. He'll get so far, and then people will keep him from following through on vital parts of the plan.

On top of this, American politics is basically bull. It's become a group of excessively rich individuals who are pretty much out of touch with the people they serve doing whatever they can to increase their own wealth. I'm planning on doing graduate studies in a foreign country and declaring citizenship. I'll probably keep the US one too, but I don't see the country heading anywhere good. I feel we've passed our prime, and are slowly starting to decline.

For what it's worth, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but registered with the US Socialist party. Never going to win, but I can dream. With luck, I'll be in Norway in a few years, happily studying up in Tromso.

[MasterGuns]

I really don't think it's fair to compare the two in terms of bashing. I took up for and defended bush up until the last two years of his presidency, when even I had to say, WTF, George?
With Obama it's been different for me. I was vehemently anti-Obama during the campaign. I saw (and still to some degree see) him as little more than a stuffed shirt, a kind of puppet put in power by lobbyists and hardcore democrats who were not as hardcore as the Hillary crowd.
But now I can give him some credit. He picked a good cabinet, early on he did okay at reaching across the aisle, blahblahblah.
Now I really don't buy it anymore. I think the reason why it's so easy to judge his first six or seven months in office is because the man is charging bullheaded into things he, nor the country, are ready for yet. Take this healthcare reform. I want it, I really do. I don't like taxes, and he says they won't come, but they will, so that discourages me. But I digress.
I want it eventually, I don't want it fast. It's like the difference between a McDonalds cheeseburger and big 16oz. porterhouse steak. If you want something fast, it will do the job but suck in the end. If you take your time, you could have a winner. Well, he doesn't want to take his time, and demonizes any voice that calls out for more time to work the kinks out of the bill. The people like it, though, because today it's all about speed, the faster the better. He'll give them that.
I can't support his foreign policy on one hand because of his continued support of Israel, which is turning rogue in IMHO, and because of how lightly he has been treading around the Iran issue. It's not our fight, I know. But their government already blames us. And unlike France and Britain, who called for an end to the violence or face the consequences, to place the real winner in power and give the people what they want, he says what? "The world is watching." :roll: He hasn't taken any real position here because he's afraid of upsetting Ahmadinejad more than he already is, and since he wants to be buddy buddy with Iran (no matter what he may say) he doesn't want to step on any toes. Which I find despicable. People are dying over there, college kids, and he won't even say that the Ayatollah and his puppet are wrong.
But that's just me, my opinion of the job so far. Presidents change during their terms. I want the best for this country (unlike some far right-wing morons who want it fail to 'teach people a lesson), and if he can do it in the end, then so be it. But I find that judgment is fair always. No man in power should ever get a rain check because "it's his first day, month, year on the job." No, this job is 24/7. Bush faced one of the toughest trials in American History just eight months in. I feel that he performed well in the immediate aftermath, this country was changed. So yes, it's fair to judge the short beginning period of a Presidents term, because day one to to the last each matter.
I know this sounded negative but I'm really usually around 50/50 like/dislike on the man. No, let him take away my snus, and you'll see some ugly s*** go down :twisted:

[Badfish74]

Wow dude! You're how old?! That post reads like it was written by some sage old professor! And I really do mean that as a compliment. So far this has made for some interesting reading,

I really hope this discussion stays civil and educational, so the politically challenged like myself can learn something!

FWIW, I find myself picturing ole W's portrait hanging there along side all of the Presidents that served before him, and I can't help but scratch my head and think, "Really??!!".

[tom502]

I am not an Obama fan. I think he seems personally a decent fellow. But I do think he has taken in many of the negatives aspects of his associations that are radical, racial, and leftist. I would love to hope he can make some "real change", but change does not equal "good". I think his admin is more about totalitarianism, stripping individual rights, and really destroying the economy more. On many issues, he's just like Bush, with sabre rattling, talking trash about N. Korea, and all he did was take troops out of Iraq and put them in Afganistan. He does support Israel, and in many ways, I think he is a tool of the special interest groups.
I hope my views turn out wrong, but they seem to only be verified more and more. I just hope the nation doesn't fully collapse in the next 4 years. I do believe he will be a 1 termer, and will be a failure, because he came across as the new messiah, with all these promises, yet his messiah image is falling fast, and his promises are not coming to be. But hopefully, the Reps will get it together and maybe we need this dip to re-organize and finally get someone good in. Now I think both parties are corrupt, I really liked Ron Paul, but the problem we have in the US is more of the same, regardless of party, if we continue to adhere to this duopoly.

[Ozmodius]

I'm a Libertarian.

I'm all for a Gov run or managed health care. It works in too many countries to call it a failure. With that said, I'm confidant that the corruption in our gov will turn this into a cash cow for big pharma/insurance by taxing us to death. Obama is putting very little effort into directing how this bill is put together and is leaving it up to the lobbiest.. err .. congress/senate.

I'm not wise to foriegn policy, but I believe him to be doing a better job than Bush.

I'm not too keen on the whole, "lets make laws to keep people from hurting themselves" schtick. When you take the personal accountability for foolish actions away from the people, you create a country full of fools.
I belive in educating the people, regulating sales of all substances that could harm someone, and tax each substance according to its impact on the public health. This ofcourse will never happen, the war on drugs, the "new war on tobacco" has made them both a moral failure in the eyes of society.

Rosevelt solved the depression through many steps and policy change, one major factor was ending prohibition and taxing it. It created an entirely new industry. It's my belief that the same needs to be done with weed. It's been proven time and again that it is less harmfull to the public that alcohol, yet it is still demonized. No one in the history of mankind has overdosed on weed. It simply can not be done. It's non-toxic. The effects are, in essence, the same as alcohol, it alters brain chemistry. Without having any of the side effects.

I'll step down from my podium now, but as it stands ... I hold little hope that this country will improve. I see a future of increasing taxation, increasing laws that limit what decisions you can make for yourself, and the fall into one of the worst forms of gov ... Corporate run socialism.

[Roo]

Wow, impressive responses so far. I think we can prove here that a political discussion does not have to get nasty, even when wild disagreements come up. FWIW I agree with almost everything that has been said so far about Obama, except that I found much more of a puppet/mouthpiece in Bush. Please allow me to repeat that I posted this only out of curiousity as to what I perceived to be a huge increase in Presidential critisism on the boards since he took office. Perhaps it's simply that by the time I joined here, people had already tired themselves out on slandering Bush. I really appreciate the thoughtful replies. Thanks guys.

[sundog]

I'm a Libertarian.

I'm all for a Gov run or managed health care. It works in too many countries to call it a failure.

Then how can you call yourself a Libertarian?

[shikitohno]

I do feel like the party lines have disintegrated in most important areas. Republican politicians defend the war on drugs and don't go for abortion. Democrats decry these things in Republicans. For everything else, they dance around the issue, taking vague stances that allow them to back out of their campaign promises.

Regarding Obama wanting to take away our rights, my psych professor put it pretty aptly. Both parties want to take away your rights, the only differences are which rights they have in mind. Republicans don't want you to be able to smoke pot, or get an abortion, and some seem to think that you'd better be a Christian, or else your subhuman. Democrats want to restrict your guns, smoking, and other things. Depends on your priorities.

And to be fair, Bush got his fair share of bashing on Liberal sites. He was hardly eloquent, and walked into many a joke. Obama on the other hand, is a very skilled public speaker, well-educated, and somewhat cautious in his words and actions. He's certainly not without faults, but sometimes it was like W was running through a minefield blindfolded. He just came across as a goofy guy who was kind of surprised he won, like he was saying "Crap, now I owe Jimmy $20. Well, what the hell am I going to do now? Lemme see if I can't start a war, heh heh."

[spirit72]

Regarding Obama wanting to take away our rights, my psych professor put it pretty aptly. Both parties want to take away your rights, the only differences are which rights they have in mind. Republicans don't want you to be able to smoke pot, or get an abortion, and some seem to think that you'd better be a Christian, or else your subhuman. Democrats want to restrict your guns, smoking, and other things. Depends on your priorities.

The way I've put it for years is that the Democrats want a Nanny State, and the Republicans want a Police State.

My goal for the midterm elections next year, and I'm spreading it far and wide to whoever will listen, is '100% Turnover' in Congress. All incumbents out, and hopefully replaced with Independents and 3rd Parties.

A man can dream, yeah?

[MasterGuns]

I with you 100% spirit72. No where else could a legislating body have such a low approval rating, and simultaneously have such a low turnover rate. It is extremely rare for an incumbent to lose in the senate or house, as the only people who usually bother voting in those elections are the ones who either care a WHOLE lot and want that person in, or those morons (who shouldn't be allowed to vote I'm SORRY but really now) who vote for the name they recognize the best, or my favorites, the people who vote on party lines only.
Fun story, I worked the poles during the 2006 elections, and had to help out a blind guy at the polling booth. Wanna know what he said? "Put me down for all the democrats." I wanted to slap him upside the head. He probably couldn't have even named the candidates.
I voted against Tennessee's incumbents to no avail this year :cry:
Kick 'em out.

[spirit72]

I with you 100% spirit72. No where else could a legislating body have such a low approval rating, and simultaneously have such a low turnover rate. It is extremely rare for an incumbent to lose in the senate or house, as the only people who usually bother voting in those elections are the ones who either care a WHOLE lot and want that person in, or those morons (who shouldn't be allowed to vote I'm SORRY but really now) who vote for the name they recognize the best, or my favorites, the people who vote on party lines only.

It comes down to apathy and complacency, simple as that. Democracy only works when the people participate. So in a sense, we've gotten precisely what we deserve.

For myself, I've determined irrevocably that I will never vote for another Republican for the rest of my life--which is unfortunate, because I do consider myself a moral conservative, and something of a fiscal conservative as well, although I don't regard the term 'Government Program' to be a profanity, and I have a firm grasp on the concept of 'Public Good'.

But the Republican Party has gone irrevocably down the road to Fascism, in my opinion. The ones who aren't fascists are theocrats. And the few Eisenhower-style moderates(I Like Ike! But I also love FDR..) that are left just don't have a voice anymore. I really don't think the Republican Party can be saved at this point, and it's going to die just like the Whigs died in the mid-19th.

I mean, seriously--when the faces of the Republican Party are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Newt Gingrich......I just don't see how it recovers from that.

I could be persuaded to vote for a Democrat, but they'd really have to convince me. The problem with the Democratic Party anymore is that it barely has any sense of itself. It has come to represent such a wide-range of interests and views that they spend just as much time fighting each other than they do fighting the Republicans.

[digitalerik]

Without composing a long winded explanation, I would just like to say;

Look at these insane spending habits! I'm sure you've seen the "Putting America to work" road signs. How much was spent in the production of these signs? A lot, even 1 billion in funding for people to trade in their 18mpg vehicles? At what cost I ask you. Anyone who supports the obama administration is a fool. Plain and simple, there you have it.

[Premium Parrots]

I don't want to start a war on this site but I feel the need to express my deep felt opinion...............















I think Little Lulu was freakin hot!!

[Snusdog]

Zaphod Beeblebrox was elected the president of the Imperial Galactic Government. Now the President in particular is very much a figurehead. He wields no real power whatsoever. In fact, the whole government’s real job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it. Very few people realize this and of those very few people, only six know where the ultimate political power truly rests.

Douglas Adams- Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy


There is one political party in the United States and only one. It is the party of major corporations. Just follow the campaign contributions to each political candidate and the money behind the lobbyist in Washington- NPR interview (paraphrased)