Is obama really a good Pres? US topic
Is Obama a good Pres?
0
WhiteLion wrote...
That's like me saying France has two left wings: the liberals and the really liberals. Of course, the political systems are a bit different. Well, the original quote almost literally applies to France just as well; except that French laicism (and a number of other bulwarks that not even current politicians dare attack) shifts the political centre of gravity a slight bit more towards the much-abused "new middle". But the difference between Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal was just as abysmal as that between Obama and McCain, you're quite right in that.
WhiteLion wrote...
The parliamentary system makes it easier for a handful of third party MPs to get elected(and even sometimes enough for a coalition government), while the US federal system allows politicians to be a bit more independent of their party by making them less reliant on it.This I do not buy at all, but I don't want to lead the topic astray too much. Let us agree to disagree on this point.
WhiteLion wrote...
Still, I've got no problem with private ownership of property,Eh, that was never in question.
WhiteLion wrote...
There definitely are significant policy differences between Obama, Bush, and McCain, even if they all move around in what would pretty much be the right wing in a place like France. To what extent policy goals are realized is always a variable though.I think this depiction is not entirely inaccurate. To me, the differences seem superficial and largely a matter of either presentation or mollification of special interest groups.
WhiteLion wrote...
Also, care to elaborate on your "tactical reasons?"Nothing personal, but I do not. I was about to go back and elide it, but you quoted me before I could edit it.
0
Before he's a president, he is a celebrity, quite frankly..
And as mentioned previously he has only been president for some months so it's hard to tell whether or not he's good.
And as mentioned previously he has only been president for some months so it's hard to tell whether or not he's good.
0
Scion in chains
The Forgotten Faggot
I give less than shit because in the end they are all politicians vying 4 control & fucking me every turn. So far Obamas not an asshole, but its too soon to say. I think the media should get off his balls though. the other day on yahoo I saw something about a way he kills bugs or something. Im just going to wait until I call him a definate asshole. I did actually watch politics a little when Bush was on cause he was a dumbass who NEVER looked like he cared and even cheered on his idiocy til he fucked with my gas. Damn Bush was the funniest pres ever. I hope Obama rocks the world with happiness & all o that shit, but I still wont be watching because he isnt funny at all. P.S. Palin had my sides hurting with laughter. EPIC FAIL on McCains part for choosing her. XD XD XD.
0
Geez... hes just started! Its too early to tell. (Give a brother some time)
In the long run though it depends if hes assassinated or not.
JFK might've been a "bad president" if he wasn't with all the sex scandals and such.
If Obamas assassinated by a piece of white power trash then he'll be a legend, The best president EVER!
In the long run though it depends if hes assassinated or not.
JFK might've been a "bad president" if he wasn't with all the sex scandals and such.
If Obamas assassinated by a piece of white power trash then he'll be a legend, The best president EVER!
0
I can't understand why so many people expected him to have some miracle fix. His popularity is already going down and it is cited for the economy. My God, there is no way it was going to be fixed this quick. Anyone who thought Obama would just come in and fix everything in a few months is delusional.
0
Overall it's too early to call it a success or a failure but, his current actions are taking America down the road to the failed systems of Europe and Canada. At a time when Europe is shifting right as Obama is trying to ahove America to the left.
Bailouts: I have come to the conclusion that Obama bailed out the auto companies solely for political votes. The UAW donates large amounts of money to the Democratic campaign.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000070
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/05/those-disgusting-antiamerican.html
Also on this topic Obama has turned the law on its head when dealing with secured creditors. This put the U.A.W. at the head of the line when dealing with who gets their money. Normally, secured creditors are at the front of the line by legal agreement but, Obama has completely ignored how the law works. This among other things leads me to believe the bail out was less to save America and more for party gains.
Nomination of Sotomayor: To be frank about this. I see her as nothing more than a sexist and a racist. I point toward this quote
She believes that the circuit court is where policy is made instead of where policy is interpreted. I see her nomination as a slap in the face to anybody who believes that justice should be impartial and unbiased. One shouldn't use personal feelings to decide a case.
Blame Game: During the campaign trail he promises more accountability on behalf of politicians in Washington but, since the beginning of his administration he has never accepted responsibility for anything. Not even so much as a "This is the problem, I'll do my best to fix it". All we hear is "I inherited this" or "I inherited the worse..."
Healthcare reform: Current price tag is 600+ billion just for the down payment. A Congressional Budget Office preliminary analysis this week said portions of the Senate HELP committee bill it has reviewed would cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years while reducing the number of the uninsured — currently 46 million — by just 16 million.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/18/senate-committee-starts-revising-comprehensive-health-care-reform-proposal/
He is forcing the U.S. Health care system to mirror the failed systems in France, The U.K. and Canada. Where doctors are told what they will earn, what they can charge, what medicine they can use. All while telling patients which doctor to see. Canada is already the poster child of rationed health care. Apparently, people dying of cancer and other illnesses while waiting to get exams is acceptable as long as it's "free".
Government expansion: He has expanded government and consolidated more power in the hands of the executive branch of the government. He's appointed all these czars who don't answer to congress, only him. He has also forced unpopular bills through overnight. I point to the stimulus as my example. The congressmen who were supposed to vote on the bill were given less than twenty four hours to read nearly 100 pages which were posted late the night before the vote was to take place. This occurred after Obama claimed he would give at least a week for debate.
He doesn't seem to care about the economic impacts of his policies, so long as he gets what he gets what he wants.
Bailouts: I have come to the conclusion that Obama bailed out the auto companies solely for political votes. The UAW donates large amounts of money to the Democratic campaign.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000070
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/05/those-disgusting-antiamerican.html
Also on this topic Obama has turned the law on its head when dealing with secured creditors. This put the U.A.W. at the head of the line when dealing with who gets their money. Normally, secured creditors are at the front of the line by legal agreement but, Obama has completely ignored how the law works. This among other things leads me to believe the bail out was less to save America and more for party gains.
Nomination of Sotomayor: To be frank about this. I see her as nothing more than a sexist and a racist. I point toward this quote
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
She believes that the circuit court is where policy is made instead of where policy is interpreted. I see her nomination as a slap in the face to anybody who believes that justice should be impartial and unbiased. One shouldn't use personal feelings to decide a case.
Blame Game: During the campaign trail he promises more accountability on behalf of politicians in Washington but, since the beginning of his administration he has never accepted responsibility for anything. Not even so much as a "This is the problem, I'll do my best to fix it". All we hear is "I inherited this" or "I inherited the worse..."
Healthcare reform: Current price tag is 600+ billion just for the down payment. A Congressional Budget Office preliminary analysis this week said portions of the Senate HELP committee bill it has reviewed would cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years while reducing the number of the uninsured — currently 46 million — by just 16 million.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/18/senate-committee-starts-revising-comprehensive-health-care-reform-proposal/
He is forcing the U.S. Health care system to mirror the failed systems in France, The U.K. and Canada. Where doctors are told what they will earn, what they can charge, what medicine they can use. All while telling patients which doctor to see. Canada is already the poster child of rationed health care. Apparently, people dying of cancer and other illnesses while waiting to get exams is acceptable as long as it's "free".
Government expansion: He has expanded government and consolidated more power in the hands of the executive branch of the government. He's appointed all these czars who don't answer to congress, only him. He has also forced unpopular bills through overnight. I point to the stimulus as my example. The congressmen who were supposed to vote on the bill were given less than twenty four hours to read nearly 100 pages which were posted late the night before the vote was to take place. This occurred after Obama claimed he would give at least a week for debate.
He doesn't seem to care about the economic impacts of his policies, so long as he gets what he gets what he wants.
0
Bailouts: I have come to the conclusion that Obama bailed out the auto companies solely for political votes. The UAW donates large amounts of money to the Democratic campaign.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000070
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/05/those-disgusting-antiamerican.htm l
Also on this topic Obama has turned the law on its head when dealing with secured creditors. This put the U.A.W. at the head of the line when dealing with who gets their money. Normally, secured creditors are at the front of the line by legal agreement but, Obama has completely ignored how the law works. This among other things leads me to believe the bail out was less to save America and more for party gains.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000000070
http://boortz.com/nealz_nuze/2009/05/those-disgusting-antiamerican.htm l
Also on this topic Obama has turned the law on its head when dealing with secured creditors. This put the U.A.W. at the head of the line when dealing with who gets their money. Normally, secured creditors are at the front of the line by legal agreement but, Obama has completely ignored how the law works. This among other things leads me to believe the bail out was less to save America and more for party gains.
That seems a bit cynical. The line of argument was that it would be bad to lose more jobs during a recession. True, but I didn't think it justified the cost personally, or that GM would succeed post bailout. Still, the UAW has been forced to accept cuts to the ridiculously generous contract GM signed with them back in the good days.
I don't think the UAW is quite that influential anyways. The political component is a bit more simple in my opinion. If Obama/congress lets GM fail, then they come across as not caring about the jobs of working Americans, regardless of how true that actually would be.
Nomination of Sotomayor: To be frank about this. I see her as nothing more than a sexist and a racist. I point toward this quote
She believes that the circuit court is where policy is made instead of where policy is interpreted. I see her nomination as a slap in the face to anybody who believes that justice should be impartial and unbiased. One shouldn't use personal feelings to decide a case.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
She believes that the circuit court is where policy is made instead of where policy is interpreted. I see her nomination as a slap in the face to anybody who believes that justice should be impartial and unbiased. One shouldn't use personal feelings to decide a case.
It gets a little tiring to go through this nonsense every time someone is nominated to the court. A stupid comment, but a judge who believes that his life experience and feelings have no bearing on his rulings is delusional. Likewise, you can bet the people on the courts think their own judgment is better, more correct, or however you want to put it, than that of their detractors. Otherwise they wouldn't support it. Scalia is known for his rants and scathing attacks of those who disagree with him.
Every time someone is nominated the other party brings up all sorts of crap charges.
Robert Bork: Great legal mind, should have been confirmed, was a travesty that he wasn't. I don't agree with most of his interpretations of the law, but he was extremely qualified.
John Roberts: Condemned as a dangerous extremist by the left. Perfectly qualified, good legal thinker, rightfully confirmed.
Sonia Sotomayor: experienced circuit court judge, generally respected by her peers, reasonable choice.
The judicial legislation complaints get a bit ridiculous too, especially in how they are used by conservatives/republicans. Interpreting the law is going to have an effect on what the law is, that's just reality. One could make the argument that the court should never consider anything in a suit outside the explicit claims of the suit, but judges of all alignments routinely choose not to do this. In that respect, Bush v. Gore was major judicial legislation. Other than that, it just comes down to interpretation.
Blame Game: During the campaign trail he promises more accountability on behalf of politicians in Washington but, since the beginning of his administration he has never accepted responsibility for anything. Not even so much as a "This is the problem, I'll do my best to fix it". All we hear is "I inherited this" or "I inherited the worse..."
I think his use of executive privilege has too much mirrored that of Bush when he promised to act differently. This worries me a lot more than the usual political talking point crap that goes on.
Government expansion: He has expanded government and consolidated more power in the hands of the executive branch of the government. He's appointed all these czars who don't answer to congress, only him. He has also forced unpopular bills through overnight. I point to the stimulus as my example. The congressmen who were supposed to vote on the bill were given less than twenty four hours to read nearly 100 pages which were posted late the night before the vote was to take place. This occurred after Obama claimed he would give at least a week for debate.
What do the Czars do? Mainly, they give recommendations to congress and enact already existing regulations. Independent regulatory agencies aren't just willed into existence by the president. He has to at least convince congress to vote for them.
The original stimulus bill failed to pass despite support from the leaders of both parties. Even with the Patriot Act, lawmakers just used the bill being rushed as an excuse to defend themselves against accusations that they didn't read it or debate it. I'd say the real reason was that they were afraid of taking damage from the political environment. One could argue that the president should not have exploited that, but the bailout was different. It was not popular with the masses. That's why the first bill didn't pass, a coalition of ideological opponents and lawmakers who feared for their political hides because their constituents hated it voted it down.
In general, I have been less pleased with Obama's more recent action than with his more promising start several months ago. He has been too hesitant on torture, I thought the GM bailout was not a good idea, and I do not at all like what he has been doing with executive privilege. Still, ultimately he hasn't been in office even a year yet, so we will still have to see.
0
Holy shnikes Batman! This is a very well informed (for the most part) debate. You know, I've tried numerous times to get debates with any half sort of intelligence going at college forever to no avail and where do you find a good one? My local hentai site. -_-
Somehow, that's not surprising. Anyway, i'm mostly conservative in my views (No, i'm not insane and i'm not going to try to eat you with my scary conservative teeth). I don't really agree with pretty much any of Obama's policies. I can respect where the man is coming from, and see that from his point of view, he truly thinks he's doing his country a service. (Or at least, I hope so)
Speaking as someone who is entering medical school next year, I especially disagree with his policies on Nationalized Healthcare. And before I get shot with the $$$ missile, no, that's not the reason why (though it is a factor, i'm going to be paying back around 300,000 dollars in loans when I finish). In the past few months, the U.K. Health Board denied thousands of patients with a rare type of cancer the drugs necessary to prolong their lives because it was "cost ineffective". Over the past few years, in both the U.K. and Canada, there has been a rapid decline in the availability of AIDs countering drugs, anti-cellular breakdown treatments (for cancer), and treatments for those with severe diabetic conditions. It is also a fact that 70% (or so) of the research that goes into things such as AIDs and Cancer and Alzheimer's go on in the United States because of private companies such as Genetech. The elimination of those will be a massive detriment to furthering such research. I cannot condone a system that would condemn people to quicker deaths because it is cost ineffective.
The statistics that have come up, 47 million without healthcare, fail to take into account exactly who makes up that 47 million. About 20 million of those are people who choose not to have healthcare but could have it if they so wished. Why, is beyond me. Another 15 or so million are those who are switching between jobs and policies and so, are temporarily out. That does leave 12 million who do not have healthcare policies (though go to any hospital in the country and asked to be treated and they cannot and will not turn you away) and something does need to be done about that. What, I don't know. I'm a doctor not a businessman.
So that's that. Healthcare. Done.
P.S. Did anyone else hear about the San Juan valley thing? 80,000 people are going to lose their livelihood for a freaking fish? You've got to be kidding me.
Somehow, that's not surprising. Anyway, i'm mostly conservative in my views (No, i'm not insane and i'm not going to try to eat you with my scary conservative teeth). I don't really agree with pretty much any of Obama's policies. I can respect where the man is coming from, and see that from his point of view, he truly thinks he's doing his country a service. (Or at least, I hope so)
Speaking as someone who is entering medical school next year, I especially disagree with his policies on Nationalized Healthcare. And before I get shot with the $$$ missile, no, that's not the reason why (though it is a factor, i'm going to be paying back around 300,000 dollars in loans when I finish). In the past few months, the U.K. Health Board denied thousands of patients with a rare type of cancer the drugs necessary to prolong their lives because it was "cost ineffective". Over the past few years, in both the U.K. and Canada, there has been a rapid decline in the availability of AIDs countering drugs, anti-cellular breakdown treatments (for cancer), and treatments for those with severe diabetic conditions. It is also a fact that 70% (or so) of the research that goes into things such as AIDs and Cancer and Alzheimer's go on in the United States because of private companies such as Genetech. The elimination of those will be a massive detriment to furthering such research. I cannot condone a system that would condemn people to quicker deaths because it is cost ineffective.
The statistics that have come up, 47 million without healthcare, fail to take into account exactly who makes up that 47 million. About 20 million of those are people who choose not to have healthcare but could have it if they so wished. Why, is beyond me. Another 15 or so million are those who are switching between jobs and policies and so, are temporarily out. That does leave 12 million who do not have healthcare policies (though go to any hospital in the country and asked to be treated and they cannot and will not turn you away) and something does need to be done about that. What, I don't know. I'm a doctor not a businessman.
So that's that. Healthcare. Done.
P.S. Did anyone else hear about the San Juan valley thing? 80,000 people are going to lose their livelihood for a freaking fish? You've got to be kidding me.
0
Revan wrote...
That does leave 12 million who do not have healthcare policies (though go to any hospital in the country and asked to be treated and they cannot and will not turn you away) and something does need to be done about that.I think it'd be nice to give these 12 million who can't afford health care this free system. But the problem is, the people who have to pay for their health care through tax are troubled by the recent economy as well. Why should we have to suffer for it? Why don't the people who are crying to get these people health care adopt one of these people themselves? Why use other's money to help these people out? A 25% VAT is not a laughing matter...
This may sound selfish but it's also selfish to try and force a health care system onto many who don't want to pay extra tax, who are going through tough times with the economy as it is.
P.S. Not necessarily saying that you're one of the people who want it that way to help the 12 million.
Revan wrote...
P.S. Did anyone else hear about the San Juan valley thing? 80,000 people are going to lose their livelihood for a freaking fish? You've got to be kidding me.Environmentalists, doing what they do best... :)
0
Revan wrote...
Holy shnikes Batman! This is a very well informed (for the most part) debate.Wow, that is powerful sarcasm right there.
That seems a bit cynical. The line of argument was that it would be bad to lose more jobs during a recession. True, but I didn't think it justified the cost personally, or that GM would succeed post bailout. Still, the UAW has been forced to accept cuts to the ridiculously generous contract GM signed with them back in the good days.
I concur. I think the GM bailout was less inspired by party politics than by the (stupid) belief in the "too big to fail" doctrine. One should never underestimate sheer stupidity as a factor in politics.
I don't think the UAW is quite that influential anyways. The political component is a bit more simple in my opinion. If Obama/congress lets GM fail, then they come across as not caring about the jobs of working Americans, regardless of how true that actually would be.
I agree again. I think the political component was there, but it boils down to the cheap media blitz, as usual. I don't think there was much of a political scheme beyond that. That would be giving them too much credit.
Every time someone is nominated the other party brings up all sorts of crap charges.
Of course, because it's a power struggle. Any nostalgia aside, I do however think that the quality of nominees has declined sharply when you contrast more recent candidates to characters such as W. O. Douglas, W. J. Brennan or H. A. Blackmun, who, personal beliefs aside, were veritable giants of legal scholarship and good judicial practice; not to mention their brilliant, piercing intellect.
0
First of all, the economy hasn't even reach 75% of its peek in the recession. Only American economist are saying that everything will come to normal soon while the rest of the world are basically : ''Eh...no,prepare for worst.''
The outcome, since the economy IS going to get worst, people are going to blame it on Obama, even though there's hardly nothing he can do. You cannot judge a president within a few months.
The outcome, since the economy IS going to get worst, people are going to blame it on Obama, even though there's hardly nothing he can do. You cannot judge a president within a few months.
0
Yushi wrote...
First of all, the economy hasn't even reach 75% of its peek in the recession. Only American economist are saying that everything will come to normal soon while the rest of the world are basically : ''Eh...no,prepare for worst.''The outcome, since the economy IS going to get worst, people are going to blame it on Obama, even though there's hardly nothing he can do. You cannot judge a president within a few months.
Agreed. It upsets me that all of these economists are saying that by the end of 2009 the recession will be over, and 2010 will start to see the upswing back to normal. It doesn't take an economics major to know that simply isn't true. They are just trying to calm the masses in a futile attempt to get people spending again, but no one is falling for it.
0
WhiteLion wrote...
[That seems a bit cynical. The line of argument was that it would be bad to lose more jobs during a recession. True, but I didn't think it justified the cost personally, or that GM would succeed post bailout. Still, the UAW has been forced to accept cuts to the ridiculously generous contract GM signed with them back in the good days.They donate millions dollars a year to the party's coffers. The members vote almost 90%-99.7% Democrat. If they didn't go to their aid not only would it be a slap to the face of the UAW but, as you said it would make them look like they didn't care about American workers.
Call it cynical or whatever you want. I see this as Trojan horse power and vote grab for the party. Party first, people second. Obama threatened Rick Wagoner* in order to get him to step down as Executive of GM. Has replaced at least six members of the board of directors**. Is handing one of the director spots to a Union Rep***. Obama can claim he doesn't want to run GM all he wants. His actions say otherwise and actions speak louder than words, no matter how well they are put.
I love my country, I try to buy American products only but, due to this I refuse to ever buy an American car again. Unless its a classic muscle car but, they don't get the money for that anyways.
*http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123836090755767077.html
**http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123844960840571093.html
***http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2009/06/19/uaw-adds-its-voice-to-new-general-motors-board-of-directors/
0
(THIS IS PRIMARILY DIRECTED TO ALL WHO CURRENTLY LIVE IN THE STATES, ANYONE ELSE OUTSIDE IS WELCOME TO VOICE THEIR SAY)
So after a few years of Obama in presidency, Is he doing better (if any at all) than say...our Previous president, George Bush?
Honestly, I am indifferent to the politics, but with Mitt Romney...I dunno it just feels like he isn't dong enough.....even IF Obama is doing all he can, (implying IF he is at all.)
besides I bet regardless, Ron Paul could probably do better.
If you're wondering why this isn't a poll, it's because I'm curious to see what YOU guys say in regards to this matter.
So after a few years of Obama in presidency, Is he doing better (if any at all) than say...our Previous president, George Bush?
Honestly, I am indifferent to the politics, but with Mitt Romney...I dunno it just feels like he isn't dong enough.....even IF Obama is doing all he can, (implying IF he is at all.)
besides I bet regardless, Ron Paul could probably do better.
If you're wondering why this isn't a poll, it's because I'm curious to see what YOU guys say in regards to this matter.
0
Obama is worse than Bush. He invaded Libya without consulting Congress.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/20/obama-libya_n_838219.html
Plus he signed an extension of the patriot act.
It's one thing to create a monster, and another thing to see how horrible that monster is, and refuse to remove it, even after seeing that monster terrorize those around it.
Although I'm sure Bush would have been just as bad if he was in power today as well. They're two sides of the same coin.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/20/obama-libya_n_838219.html
Plus he signed an extension of the patriot act.
It's one thing to create a monster, and another thing to see how horrible that monster is, and refuse to remove it, even after seeing that monster terrorize those around it.
Although I'm sure Bush would have been just as bad if he was in power today as well. They're two sides of the same coin.
0
Lishy1 wrote...
Obama is worse than Bush. He invaded Libya without consulting Congress.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/20/obama-libya_n_838219.html
Plus he signed an extension of the patriot act.
It's one thing to create a monster, and another thing to see how horrible that monster is, and refuse to remove it, even after seeing that monster terrorize those around it.
Although I'm sure Bush would have been just as bad if he was in power today as well. They're two sides of the same coin.
This. Its funny people would actually believe politicians were different because of the colour of his skin. He is everything like bush and the bush is like the guy before. In sum you will never have anyone truly different.
0
From what I've seen, Obama has good ideas and is a blatant coward and bows to everyone who yells at him.
So no, he's not a good president, just better than the other available options.
So no, he's not a good president, just better than the other available options.
0
> Drug War continues
> Patriot Act renewed
> Is Obama a good president?
> MFW people can't figure out...
I love this necrobumped thread. Thanks FlamehellOtaku1010!
> Patriot Act renewed
> Is Obama a good president?
> MFW people can't figure out...
I love this necrobumped thread. Thanks FlamehellOtaku1010!
0
>My Father did not go to school (Home schooled)
>He started a small business
>He's made almost 2 million dollars
Gtfo our oval office, communist.
0
I personally don't have much of a problem with Obama. I feel like whenever there is a new president people will line up to say how horrible he is and how he is ruining this and that. How great the president is seems to depend on which statistics you read. Many will say he's horrible while only putting up one or two facts to support it while others will defend him with just as many. Personally, I believe until we have a president that shits rainbows we will always have a president that is hated.