Change - it is a comin' - Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions

sweetpotato

i am THRILLED that all of these things are planned and i'm sure he will make good on what he has promised.

but honestly, all the man would need to do to be better president than bush is to make sure the bathroom has t.p. in it before sitting down to do his manly business. i can vividly imagine dubya hollering out, for the millionth time, "laura! help, i did it again!"

sweetpotato

prism wrote:

exactly!

*hugs sweetpotato*

right back atcha!

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

VictoryGin wrote:

i'd say respecting women and their right to control their own bodies and make their own medical decisions is pretty fucking fundamental.

and mccain certainly wouldn't have reversed the global gag rule.

the republicans didnt succeed in making abortion illegal. so i guess Obama has only succeeded in stopping change, if that counts.

i didnt realize that by 'change' he meant implementing the same democratic agenda thats been in place for decades, using the same questionable tactics both parties use to maintain power. thats nice and all, but i was kinda hoping (not expecting) for something a little more game-changing than that. but its early.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

Obama...

· Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)

· Pro NATO (will increase members)

· Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)

· Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)

· Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA

· Will keep bases and troops in Iraq

· Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan

· Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)

· Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank

· Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.

· Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney


Wow...nice change from Bush...you got there....

PNAC here we come baby

RolandTD20Kdrummer

So I hear Americans voted for change
By a half black man who speaks rather strange
Compulsory community service, makes us rather nervous
But at least we voted for Change

What kind of change, we knew not
From a candidate who Israel got
Seems like a game, and more of the same
But at least we voted for Change

He'll take away our guns
Start more wars for our sons
Spike up federal tax, bail out Goldman Sachs
But at least we voted for Change

prism

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

So I hear Americans voted for change
By a half black man who speaks rather strange
Compulsory community service, makes us rather nervous
But at least we voted for Change

What kind of change, we knew not
From a candidate who Israel got
Seems like a game, and more of the same
But at least we voted for Change

He'll take away our guns
Start more wars for our sons
Spike up federal tax, bail out Goldman Sachs
But at least we voted for Change

Roland sits inside his tin-foil room making shit up.
Reality has called to say quit inventing conspiracies.
But at least Roland's a Canadian that can't vote.
So it just makes him look like a tool and a fool.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

prism wrote:

Roland sits inside his tin-foil room making shit up.
Reality has called to say quit inventing conspiracies.
But at least Roland's a Canadian that can't vote.
So it just makes him look like a tool and a fool.

haha

deal with this reality and get back to me...

· Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)

· Pro NATO (will increase members)

· Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)

· Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)

· Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA

· Will keep bases and troops in Iraq

· Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan

· Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)

· Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank

· Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.

· Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney

MrBrian

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

haha

deal with this reality and get back to me...

· Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)

· Pro NATO (will increase members)

· Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)

· Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)

· Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA

· Will keep bases and troops in Iraq

· Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan

· Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)

· Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank

· Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.

· Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney

So what if he's pro afghan war? Terrorist are in caves in Afganistan.

Good, increase troops

Russia are the aggressors

Of course, Iraq, Hummus, fund it good..

Excuse me, it was a diet patriot act!

Of course keep bases in Iraq, the fucking oils in Iraq right?

what is that? code?

Iran, syria and Pakistan want to wipe Israel off the map.

Of course he will spend trillions, it's called 'bling bling'


pre emptive? SO? attack first, why wait?

They are just advisors to him, it means nothing.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrBrian wrote:

So what if he's pro afghan war? Terrorist are in caves in Afganistan.

Good, increase troops

Russia are the aggressors

Of course, Iraq, Hummus, fund it good..

Excuse me, it was a diet patriot act!

Of course keep bases in Iraq, the fucking oils in Iraq right?

what is that? code?

Iran, syria and Pakistan want to wipe Israel off the map.

Of course he will spend trillions, it's called 'bling bling'


pre emptive? SO? attack first, why wait?

They are just advisors to him, it means nothing.

And so the excuses will roll...

oblivious and opinionated

MrBrian

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

And so the excuses will roll...

oblivious and opinionated

Sour grapes! Sour grapes!

Why do you even talk about Amercan politics? You are Canadian! Leave our Messiah alone.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MrBrian wrote:

Sour grapes! Sour grapes!

Why do you even talk about Amercan politics? You are Canadian! Leave our Messiah alone.

You're right. If I can't vote in the US, then I have no business deciphering the inner workings of international politics.

What was I thinking?

digster

If these boards are any indication, Obama's harshest critics will not be on the right but on the left. For some reason, guys like MrBrian and Roland, no offense to them of course, seem to believe that Obama, at some point during his campaign, operated and "sold himself" as a far-left candidate a long ways away from what is considered the typical American center. Therefore, due to his policies in Afghanistan, pro-security, seemingly pro-Israel, etc. he is somehow 'selling out.' If so, they're operating under some strange delusion, since Obama never claimed to be a far-left candidate. They're speaking about Obama as if he has moved away from his Nader/Kucinich-esque primary and general election campaign with policies that are, you know....moderate. The problem with that is that Obama never was Nader or Kucinich to begin with, and if voters voted for him under the assumption that his policies would bring the policies of those two candidates to pass, they misjudged the man and his campaign.

As far as I understand it, the change Obama offered are a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington, and several first steps in policy improvements, primarily a bold new energy initiative. When has he ever claimed to be against NATO? When has he ever been against going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? When has been against properly funding troops in Iraq? You're going to accuse Obama of selling out on principles he never had in the first place? And now, as we see in Roland's post two above this one, if someone defends Obama on the basis of him being a moderate, he will be accused of delivering 'excuses' for a lack of change (a charge we're sure to hear countless times in the next few years). Roland, I'm sorry, but if you considered Obama to be something other than a moderate liberal, the mistake is with you, and not with the campaign. They didn't sell themselves to be something like the tenets you seem to hold against them, and it's bizarre to claim otherwise. The other part of this is that since Obama is relatively a moderate (at least in comparison to the spectrum Roland and others are using), the majority of the country, and the majority of those that voted for him, DO agree with him on the issues you disagree with him on. They do approve of NATO. They do believe we need to properly fund and equip the soldiers in Afghanistan. They do endorse funding the troops in Iraq. So I think it's also a little hard to believe that the hundreds of millions that voted for Obama, the majority of whom are moderates, are going to feel 'betrayed' when he acts upon these principles.

DriftingByTheStorm

So i guess that means Obama will be looking to quickly reverse the ominous, dangerous, and unconstitutional National Security Presidential Directive 51?

Or was he planning on needing that one still on the books?
You know, in case he is "tested".
:rolleyes:

RolandTD20Kdrummer

digster wrote:

If these boards are any indication, Obama's harshest critics will not be on the right but on the left. For some reason, guys like MrBrian and Roland, no offense to them of course, seem to believe that Obama, at some point during his campaign, operated and "sold himself" as a far-left candidate a long ways away from what is considered the typical American center. Therefore, due to his policies in Afghanistan, pro-security, seemingly pro-Israel, etc. he is somehow 'selling out.' If so, they're operating under some strange delusion, since Obama never claimed to be a far-left candidate. They're speaking about Obama as if he has moved away from his Nader/Kucinich-esque primary and general election campaign with policies that are, you know....moderate. The problem with that is that Obama never was Nader or Kucinich to begin with, and if voters voted for him under the assumption that his policies would bring the policies of those two candidates to pass, they misjudged the man and his campaign.

As far as I understand it, the change Obama offered are a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington, and several first steps in policy improvements, primarily a bold new energy initiative. When has he ever claimed to be against NATO? When has he ever been against going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan? When has been against properly funding troops in Iraq? You're going to accuse Obama of selling out on principles he never had in the first place? And now, as we see in Roland's post two above this one, if someone defends Obama on the basis of him being a moderate, he will be accused of delivering 'excuses' for a lack of change (a charge we're sure to hear countless times in the next few years). Roland, I'm sorry, but if you considered Obama to be something other than a moderate liberal, the mistake is with you, and not with the campaign. They didn't sell themselves to be something like the tenets you seem to hold against them, and it's bizarre to claim otherwise. The other part of this is that since Obama is relatively a moderate (at least in comparison to the spectrum Roland and others are using), the majority of the country, and the majority of those that voted for him, DO agree with him on the issues you disagree with him on. They do approve of NATO. They do believe we need to properly fund and equip the soldiers in Afghanistan. They do endorse funding the troops in Iraq. So I think it's also a little hard to believe that the hundreds of millions that voted for Obama, the majority of whom are moderates, are going to feel 'betrayed' when he acts upon these principles.

First steps towards change, or the same steps as before?

I think it's a fine line once the precedence has been set. As the present turns into the past, kept laws and ongoing practices become regarded as normal policy, and are much harder to turn around to where normal used to be.

Maybe his critics could spread out their scrutiny into much longer time frames like months and years, instead of days and weeks by automatically assuming hundreds of mini baby steps and mistakes are to be required (and expected) in the upcoming years.

Sorta kick back and go for the ride.

digster

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

First steps towards change, or the same steps as before?

I think it's a fine line once the precedence has been set. As the present turns into the past, kept laws and ongoing practices become regarded as normal policy, and are much harder to turn around to where normal used to be.

Maybe his critics could spread out their scrutiny into much longer time frames like months and years, instead of days and weeks by automatically assuming hundreds of mini baby steps and mistakes are to be required (and expected) in the upcoming years.

Sorta kick back and go for the ride.

My problem isn't with the criticism of Obama, per se. If people think he's the same as the rest, then people think he's the same as the rest. I'm questioning this expectation of him being a politician that espouses some of the views you wrote about earlier in this thread, when it's obvious he never held any such positions. How could he have 'fooled' the public that voted for him when he was this moderate Democrat to begin with? I feel that's why those charges of extreme 'liberalism' lobbed towards him during the general election campaign fell flat.

So the criticism isn't this issue. I'm wondering where this expectation came from that he was going to be far more leftist and radical than he ever claimed to be.

prism

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

haha

deal with this reality and get back to me...

· Pro Afghan war (wants to send more troops)

· Pro NATO (will increase members)

· Backed Georgia's attack (gave them a billion dollars)

· Voted to fund the Iraq war (gave up hundreds of billions)

· Voted to keep the Patriot Act and FISA

· Will keep bases and troops in Iraq

· Threaten Iran, Syria, and Pakistan

· Will keep spending trillions (no plan to pay the debt)

· Will keep the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank

· Will keep the Bush pre-emptive attack ideology as policy.

· Surrounds himself with radical neo-con advisers and mentors that are far worse than Bush and Cheney

have you even read or listened to anything that he's actally said without outright twisting things or taking a sentence here or there out of context based upon the conspriaces that you allow yourself to be deluded into believing in? because what you have are merely your opinions not based on anything to do with logical reason or what his positions really are on these issues.



but then again it's only to be expected for you to spout off beyond the exceptionally absurd. i must keep in mind that your tin-foil hat has cut off your circulation and only directs your blood to your hard-on for your "Obama is everything that is wrong and evil and I Roland still live for making shit up and twisting things around to prove it" obsession. your conspiraces therories are just more of the same ole crap


but just go ahead and waste your time posting more bashing and negative nonsense....

*yawn*

i myself will go back to ignoring you or caring about what you say(as i'm sure many and most ppl do on this board) being as we're fond of logic and reason

DriftingByTheStorm

digster wrote:

How could he have 'fooled' the public that voted for him when he was this moderate Democrat to begin with?

a. because many people don't think rationale, and therefore erroneously interpret deliberately designed buzzwords and promise-all campaign speeches as truth.

b. Obama came on very strong anti-war very early in this campaign.
I think most of those you are saying have been misled by their own naivete were in fact mislead by Obama's false anti-war rhetoric in to somehow thinking this meant he indeed represented some sort of demonstrable and more ubiquitous "change".

aNiMaL

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a. because many people don't think rationale, and therefore erroneously interpret deliberately designed buzzwords and promise-all campaign speeches as truth.

b. Obama came on very strong anti-war very early in this campaign.
I think most of those you are saying have been misled by their own naivete were in fact mislead by Obama's false anti-war rhetoric in to somehow thinking this meant he indeed represented some sort of demonstrable and more ubiquitous "change".

He said he will end the war responsibly. He hasn't had a chance to do that yet, nor do we really know how that will happen. Obviously, we cannot just pull out without a plan and strategy.

I think a better example of people not thinking rationally would be the presidential election 4 years ago. That was people being fooled by fear tactics. At least this time they (we) voted for hope instead of more of the same crap. Obama represents a whole ass load of change more than McCain did.

aNiMaL

And to the people who question "change." It seems as though you thought he meant that he was going to retool how government works in the US.

I took it as a change from the partisan GOP agenda we have been living with for almost 8 years.

I guess I was right.

digster

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

a. because many people don't think rationale, and therefore erroneously interpret deliberately designed buzzwords and promise-all campaign speeches as truth.

b. Obama came on very strong anti-war very early in this campaign.
I think most of those you are saying have been misled by their own naivete were in fact mislead by Obama's false anti-war rhetoric in to somehow thinking this meant he indeed represented some sort of demonstrable and more ubiquitous "change".

I'll take the first point last. Obama has always been against the war in Iraq, believing that we "took our eye off the ball" when trying to apprehend or kill Al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan when we invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. You can go back as far with this as you want, back to before the campaign. He supported Afghanistan and opposed Iraq both as far back as 2002. So I'm not sure where you're getting that information from.

Again, the majority of the country is moderate, which I'd define as broadly when it comes to the wars we are fighting, opposed to the war in Iraq and supportive of the war in Afghanistan and more specifically the hunt to capture Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda. The majority of the American populace, at least as of 2008, fit into this broad definition. The majority of the people who voted for him fit into this definition. I still don't see, therefore, how Obama fooled anyone. You haven't offered any answer to that, especially since the country does not lean quite that left. Criticize him all you want, and Obama may deserve it but I still haven't seen any good proof that the majority of people who voted for Obama under false pretenses or misled expectations. The majority of American voters do not expect (or want) both Iraq and Afghanistan to end immediately (certainly, moreso the latter than the former, and if we have not ended our obligations in Iraq by the end of Obama's first term, that's a mark against him). The country leans further to the right than that on these matters.