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

aNiMaL wrote:

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.

Right.
Change to the Partisan Democratic Agenda.


People tend to think of the political system in America as looking something like a ruler with dems on the left and repubs on the right.

Instead, it might be appropriate to view that ruler bent in half, with a little cloister of assholes up top using both ends as legs to march their radically unconstitutional plans on to global glory.

Both parties are simply opposing appendages ... tools used by the real elite to control their own precious establishment.

Of COURSE we didn't think he represented REAL change.
Looks like you didn't really think so either.

:(

MrSmith wrote:

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

i'm not sure if you didn't read the article, my post, or both. i'll try to use the mouthbreather tactic of all caps in order to make it easier for you: GLOBAL GAG RULE.

although actually it should probably look like this: GLOBUL GAG ROOL!!!!1111!!!!!1111

and that's only the specific point, one example, that both were addressing. it must be nice to be what i presume is a white man, or at the very least, a man. you get to make your own medical decisions. the government doesn't legislate your body. maybe you've been too preoccupied with your own dick to notice what the bush admin has done with women's health both here and abroad. well, here's a hint: it's not just about making abortion illegal across the US. oh and if you weren't completely ignorant on what Obama has done, you would know he's a whole lot more than "stopping change."

digster wrote:

The problem with this viewpoint is that Obama's illegitimacy as a candidate would only be applicable if the the majority of the nation shared your opinion on these matters. From what I gather of your posts, your opinion tend to be further to the left in the minority. I don't think this is a bad thing; for all we know it is the correct minority. Nevertheless, how is it that hundreds of millions of voters were shortchanged for a possibility of change when it's clear that the majority of voters don't stand where you stand, and measure change in different ways then you?

I don't even think the majority of American's understand what THEY expect for "change".

It is a stupid buzzword that the campaign latched on to in a stroke of evil brilliance.

It was not MY proposition that America is not getting the change it voted for.
I believe that was YOUR second hand extrapolation of what you THOUGHT "our" (people like Roland and I, and others) opinions were.

I gave you one possible answer to the question you posed.
I said i believed a lot of people latched on to Obama's ant-war stance (which he admittedly had for quite some time) as though it represented some DEEPER change ...

they may not have known what he represented, they didn't even necessarily know what THEY wanted, they just knew Obama said "end the war" and to their relatively small spheres of thought that notion grew to represent some unnamed and unprecedented change in policy.

That being said,
i think most americans got EXACTLY what they wanted.
Someone they can BELIEVE in.
Someone they can go to bed at night thinking, "goddamn. its fucking great to have the democrats back in office. NOW I DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE GREAT UNPLEASANTRIES OF LIFE. Obama and the democrats will DO IT FOR ME."

In short, all they wanted was to make a quick pick on their scratch off card once in this four year cycle, and then they wanted TO BE LEFT ALONE.

And now they can go back to their hum-drum little lives, living in a false bubble where everything is okay, and Lord Obama has rid the world of the evil W.

PS - And for the love of christ, why does everyone insist on labeling me "FAR LEFT" ...
please iterate for me ANY of my positions that castigate me to the category of "far left" !??!?!?!!?

MrSmith wrote:

jesus christ, i say one little thing about this not really being any great change, more like a reversion to Clinton days, and suddenly i'm the most hateful, anti-Obama son of a bitch ever. i think i've been one of the Obama apologists on here thanks to the crazy nader nuts around here, but still...

ah fuck it, i'm staying the hell out of this thread!

Good idea. You and Roland should get a room and just uhm do stuff? Make that lil echo you two seem to have going even louder... C'mon, you know you want to.

and i love the last comment. Yeah right

MrSmith wrote:

did you just put me in the same sentence as Roland? thats offensive. i'm very offended.

Nothing offends me I can't wait until I'm old enough to feel ways about stuff..

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Are you on mixed medication? Which ones aren't true?

√ · 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

as for the afghanistan. yes he wants to go after bin laden and the actual INCREASE of the taliban that has happened recently because of the troops being diverted to iraq. if you think that Taliban should be able to seize control of the country again then stfu and put on your Burka, Roland

so he's okay with more countries to be able to join NATO. it's not like he can say if they do or don't.

he didn't back Russia's attack of Georgia, quite the opposite. he proposed giving Georgia 1 billion in humanitarian assistance http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/russiaandgeorgia/

he voted to keeping funding the troops in Iraq. he wants them out of there in 16 months time. are they (the troops) supposed to not get paid or fed and do without in the mean while?

he didn't vote to keep the patriot act as it was http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.php

he is opposed to keeping bases and troops in Iraq: Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

now wanting to talk with and use diplomatic measures with Iran, Syria and Pakistan governments means threatening them? okay....maybe that's how things work in Rolandworld


he does indeed have plans to pay down the debt http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/


get rid of the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank? even if he could you seem to think it could be done without causing total economic collapses...well good luck then, Roland

he has never stated that he would keep the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes as policy.

as his for his advisers and mentors being far worse than Bush-Cheneys....that is based strickly upon your personal bias and opinion. he's not even in office yet you can't resist bashing what doesn't fit into Roland's p.o.v.








besides the orginal post was about some things that he can accomplish by reversing or implimenting executive orders when he is the acting president


i'm done. but whatever Roland...keep twisting and making shit up....only you get off it

digster wrote:

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.

agreed.



really well-stated, both posts of yours that i've read thus far in this thread.


also why i asked earlier her today what wexpectations people have of the word *change*....b/c i think even if obama keeps his word, follows thru, it won't be the change some want, but that does not mean he hasn't kept his word.


between the OP of this thread, and i've started reading that loooonnnngggg newsweek 7 part series article, along with all else before the election....the happier i am. it's great to feel hopeful once more.

prism wrote:

as for the afghanistan. yes he wants to go after bin laden and the actual INCREASE of the taliban that has happened recently because of the troops being diverted to iraq. if you think that Taliban should be able to seize control of the country again then stfu and put on your Burka, Roland

Don't forget Iran.

prism wrote:

he didn't back Russia's attack of Georgia, quite the opposite. he proposed giving Georgia 1 billion in humanitarian assistance http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/russiaandgeorgia/

I never said he supported Russia. I said the opposite.

prism wrote:

he voted to keeping funding the troops in Iraq. he wants them out of there in 16 months time. are they (the troops) supposed to not get paid or fed and do without in the mean while?

Yes he voted for the continuance of the Iraq war, that's what I said.

prism wrote:

he didn't vote to keep the patriot act as it was http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/05/fact_check_obamas_consistent_p_1.php

as per the above link:
"Reality: Obama Has Consistently Said He Would Support A Patriot Act That Would Strengthen Civil Liberties Without Sacrificing The Tools That Law Enforcement Needs To Keep Us Safe"

What did I miss?

prism wrote:

he is opposed to keeping bases and troops in Iraq: Obama and Biden believe any Status of Forces Agreement, or any strategic framework agreement, should be negotiated in the context of a broader commitment by the U.S. to begin withdrawing its troops and forswearing permanent bases. Obama and Biden also believe that any security accord must be subject to Congressional approval. It is unacceptable that the Iraqi government will present the agreement to the Iraqi parliament for approval—yet the Bush administration will not do the same with the U.S. Congress. The Bush administration must submit the agreement to Congress or allow the next administration to negotiate an agreement that has bipartisan support here at home and makes absolutely clear that the U.S. will not maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

source pls, and has he ever said that withdrawal from Iraq will include dismantling existing bases?

prism wrote:

now wanting to talk with and use diplomatic measures with Iran, Syria and Pakistan governments means threatening them? okay....maybe that's how things work in Rolandworld

He openly said that he's open to strikes on Pakistan like a while ago, and his rhetoric is protect Israel and defeat terrorism no matter what, and wherever it happens to be hiding.

prism wrote:

he does indeed have plans to pay down the debt http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

which is essentially futile without first curbing war spending and getting rid of the immediate debt incurred on every dollar by using the privately owned cartel called the FED.

prism wrote:

get rid of the FED, IMF, Dept of HS, and World Bank? even if he could you seem to think it could be done without causing total economic collapses...well good luck then, Roland

See: Ron Paul...watch ...listen....learn. Investigate.

prism wrote:

he has never stated that he would keep the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes as policy.

Hello...It's built in by default, have you looked at the policy and the task, and at Israel or AIPAC for that matter?

prism wrote:

as his for his advisers and mentors being far worse than Bush-Cheneys....that is based strickly upon your personal bias and opinion. he's not even in office yet you can't resist bashing what doesn't fit into Roland's p.o.v.

Nope. So far it's all pretty clear who his mentors have been, and are. To the point it shows in spades in him choosing Rahm. It is what it is so far....sorry.

prism wrote:

my source for all of that is barackobama.com.

Ron Paul is a total nutjob and it's no wonder he's such a big hit with you the tinfoil hat wearing crowd that engage in constant circle jerks in his honor

once again you are taking things out of context and twisting what is really there to suit your personal opinions and bias. but then you must do these things in order to get in the last word when you've been shown what's real and you can't deal with it....

now go back to your regularly schduled circle jerk

I'm not sure who can't deal with what here exactly, but after referring Ron Paul as you just did despite him dead on with his economic forecast for the past 30 years, I know it definitely isn't me.

I'm not taking anything out of context, just looking at the what is transpiring before my very eyes.

stem cell and climate change is what BO ran on and it was what the people voted him in on. he will deal with corporate crooks and the war later (much later) afterall he cant do everything in one day or term for that matter.