President Obama - How is he doing so far?

musicismylife78 · May 2009

prfctlefts wrote:

Same here, and if Obama fails we all fail. But my point is just because I dont like his policies that doesn't mean I or anyone else should disrespect him he is after all the President Of The United States. As was Bush. As far as what you mentioned about people protesting the war. I think there were and are different types of protesters. You got your peaceful demonstrators and the not so peaceful. I for one have no problem with people protesting as long as its peaceful. But when you got people acting out on pure emotion and not thinking things through,well that's when I think people start to think that as being un american. JMHO

How can you deal with deciding if the war is right or wrong on any other level other than pure emotion?

The facts are these: we have lost thousands of soldiers. And the iraqis have lost millions. The war has bankrupted the country, and the military is at its wits end. Soldiers are being called up to serve for 3 or 4 tours of duty. Those are facts. They are indisputible. How can you not deal with these on a emotional level?

to decide if you agree with the war, you need to process that information, and it needs to be processed in an emotional manner. I dont know of any other way to deal with the war.

Would you really tell a parent who has a kid serving, that they shouldnt deal with the war in terms of pure emotion? They want their son or daughter home, period.

musicismylife78 · May 2009

the whole point is, these are peoples lives we are talking about. Real people are dying and getting killed in iraq. How could this be anything other than emotional?

WaveCameCrashin · May 2009

musicismylife78 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

Same here, and if Obama fails we all fail. But my point is just because I dont like his policies that doesn't mean I or anyone else should disrespect him he is after all the President Of The United States. As was Bush. As far as what you mentioned about people protesting the war. I think there were and are different types of protesters. You got your peaceful demonstrators and the not so peaceful. I for one have no problem with people protesting as long as its peaceful. But when you got people acting out on pure emotion and not thinking things through,well that's when I think people start to think that as being un american. JMHO

i hear you, and when I was an activist, I was the peaceful kind.

that said, whats normal behavior in this world climate? When we are in the middle of two wars, and if one reads the newspaper, and reads about americans and iraqis dying, how do you process this? What is the "normal" reaction?

How about if your son or daughter was a u.s. soldier and died in combat in iraq, whats the "normal" behavior?

ANGER,SADNESS ,A GRIEVING PERIOD. That should be expected.Parents or siblings are going to handel it in their own way

The reason I am no longer an activist is because the information I was recieving, daily death reports from iraq bbecame too overwhelming for me to deal with. I literally was changing into a different person. I was angry, upset, sad. I looked different and felt different. But thats what information like that can do to you.

Say, you know people your age are dying in iraq. That bombs are killing our soldiers and bombs are killing iraqis. That the death toll on both sides is frightening.

What are you supposed to do with that information?

Process it in a way that's healthy and you have to figure out how to turn a negative into a positive.

How about an iraq war veteran who returns home with PTSD and isnt getting the help they need. And then they get called back up. Whats the normal response to all that?

My point is, whats considered normal by millions of americans doesnt make that behavior normal.

And who is to say, how people should deal with the war. Its extremely upsetting. I dont even read the paper or watch the news anymore, but reguardless the effects of the war are still felt by me.

I thik you may of misunderstood me, There's no doubt the troops don't get the care they should and it pisses me off too, but that dosen't mean Im gonna go out and start tearin shit up.

musicismylife78 · May 2009

but i think there is a disconnect. There is no positive. i would never tell a family who lost a loved one in this war, that they need to find a positive out of this negative. I would never dare. to lose someone in this war, especially if it was a parent losing a child, i dont think that parent would ever be the same. this war is wrong, I feel that with every fiber of my being. there is no noble cause here. these soldiers died so that america could exert its military might once again, and line the pockets of politicians both democrat and republican.

I look at the world in a fundementally different way than most people. Thats partly because I have always done so, but also because I am a sociology major. My viewpoint is, people act the way they do, because of political and social systems. Because of society. Because of societal pressure.

And no, I dont advocate for this, but it seems to me, very rational indeed for soldiers to come home and go completely postal, shooting people and killing people. I am not saying I agree with those actions, I AM saying that those actions are completely natural given the climate of society.

I guess what I am saying is, there are a million and one different paths someone could take in response to the war, to societies current chaos, to the environmental crisis, to losing ones job and retirement in this economic crisis, to losing a loved one in Iraq. The list of responses to all this is innumerable. You could take action, legal or illegal. My point and my view is that yes some of those actions are illegal, and whatnot, but in my view its all consistent with the idea that people act in accordance to the political climate. A person could go out and bring a gun to work and murder his coworkers as a result of losing his job, and a parent could refuse to eat and not come out of their room for months after hearing their child died in iraq. One is seen as legal, and the other is illegal. Both however are natural and make sense.

I stated on this board numerous times prior to Iraq, that the war was going to cause society to go berserk. And although I am not proud of this, my predictions came true. School shootings increased, you are seeing more gun violence, people bringing guns to school, work whatever. There have been reports of soldiers in iraq killing other officers and soldiers.

But again, what do I know, I am just a sociology major

WaveCameCrashin · May 2009

Ok just bcos you got laid off or you get fired does not give anyone the right to go postal and kill everyone wtf are you talkin about man. that's not human nature, that's psychotic :?

inmytree · May 2009

evenflow wrote:

inmytree wrote:

um, this country has run on a debt for many years...something the clowns that whine about Obama's budget tend to forget or ignore, your choice, is that he's included the costs of the two wars he has inherited...

Actually the idea of our country running on debt is a relatively new concept. The many years that you are referring to must be the last eight, because Clinton had us as close to debt free as a country can expect to be. And even so, lets say for the sake of your argument that we as a country have always lived off of debt, in his 100 plus days in office, Obama has more than quadrupled the amount of that debt. One of his election points was to curb government spending, and even the most liberal hippy has to agree that he has done completely opposite of that. Is this the big change that we were promised (my f'n question mark button is broken so I have to end this question with a period). And that is NOT including the cost of the 2 wars. This is because every time he gives a speech on TV (which seems like at least once a week) he is asking congress for a couple of hundred billion more. Looking at this from a personal finance perspective, if you owed the bank $100,000, and you knew there was no way you were going to make that much, would you go to another bank and borrow $1,000,000 to make sure you've got it covered, and then some (damn question mark button). If you answer yes than I am really glad that you have nothing to do with my finances. Sure it's a temporary fix, but it's going to come back and completely bury you in the next few years. My goal is to be debt free in ten years, and I have a house, 2 cars, and a kid. Borrowing money right now is the absolute worst thing I could ever do if I want to reach that goal.

It only takes a little common sense to understand this. With so many people not being able to grasp the common sense of financial principles I now understand why our country is having the credit crises we are. And these are the same people who support Obama and his bailouts.

inmytree wrote:

and you mention rhetoric...I find it ironic that you complain of rhetoric when your rant is nothing but....

This is the second or third time you've said this to me. I don't think you understand what rhetoric means, because my posts don't really fall under that category. If my rant is really nothing why don't you dispute the points I made instead of my semantics (still damn you question mark button).

ok...you win...let's shut down the gov't...let's stop paying taxes and have our own version of Survivor...that's what you want, right???? Or are you complaining just to complain...? I love how conservatives are suddenly worried about the "children"....Oh my, my children will be paying this debt...for shame, for shame...we must save the children....
come on, be honest, you just don't care for Obama, in fact, I think you're blinded by your hatred of Obama...

You do have the option of packing up and leaving for a better land...one without debt and socialism...love it or leave it, I say...

I do find it amusing that some many see the Gov't as a "person" and they offer advice as if the way they are choosing to lead there life is best for the entire nation...

musicismylife78 · May 2009

i didnt say it was right or just, all I said was it was acceptable and consistent with living in chaotic times. In 67 jim morrison sang Lost in a Roman Wilderness of Pain, and all the children are insane. The political climate, the riots, the war, the crazy times of the Haight and all that, you would be hard pressed to not come to the same conclusion Jim did. Can anything that happened during that time period, whether its riots, fire bombings, kent state, LSD, hippies, and all that NOT be understood and looked at in terms of the political and world climate at that time?

My answer is a definitive no. Nothing that happened in the sixties can be looked at without looking at the context of the times.

The point is the same here. I dont believe for a minute the Virginia Tech shooter was a goth, or was influenced by violent movies, or did what Marilyn Manson told him to do, or any of that garbage. The kid killed something like 30 people. To kill one person is crazy. To kill 30 plus people is beyond. Its beyond rage. To understand what he did you have to look at the context of the times. The context of violence in america in these troubled times.

Again, Michael Moore is the ultimate in doing this. Bowling For Columbine was the ultimate look at what I just described. He goes beyond the tired debate of "violence in entertainment vs gun control". What I am suggesting is that we do this for all social issues.

cableguy119 · May 2009

Change? What change? Where is the change he was talking about when is it coming?
Apparently change means we now have to all eat Ramen noodles because we are taxed to the hilt so that entitled folks who are too lazy to work for things, live in houses they can't afford, while getting health care and other perks. Wow Change is here, can't wait to embrace the change.

What are we going to do when he lets the Bush tax breaks expire and start getting slammed. Technically that won't be Obama raising taxes, he just won't renew the beaks in place. So our taxes go up he blames someone else and sweet talks his way out of it. Silver tongued devil in the oval office. :evil:

inmytree · May 2009

cableguy119 wrote:

Change? What change? Where is the change he was talking about when is it coming?
Apparently change means we now have to all eat Ramen noodles because we are taxed to the hilt so that entitled folks who are too lazy to work for things, live in houses they can't afford, while getting health care and other perks. Wow Change is here, can't wait to embrace the change.

What are we going to do when he lets the Bush tax breaks expire and start getting slammed. Technically that won't be Obama raising taxes, he just won't renew the beaks in place. So our taxes go up he blames someone else and sweet talks his way out of it. Silver tongued devil in the oval office. :evil:

tell me more about the perks you speak of....

cableguy119 · May 2009

tell me more about the perks you speak of....

Mortgage bailouts... Seriously people getting loans they couldn't afford. Then getting sweetheart mortgage rates while the people who live within their means pay higher rates why should someone with a 600 credit rating pay less than someone with an 800 credit rating because they are in danger of defaulting? Seriously balloon payments, adjustable rates, then complaining that they didn't understand it is crap. Then trying to justify it as it helps other homeowners home value's by not having vacant properties. That is a bit much to stomach. It is the fault of corporations that gave them the loan, the edication system for not providing basic finacial education requirements and the people for not understanding what they were getting themselves into. And then back to president as taxpayer's dollars are used to bail everyone out.

"Yet one of the many signs the end is near, the Barackolypse is bringing down Obamagedon upon us all"

Watch the Escalades pull into the welfare agencies, really you can afford a 40k car yet you have to go pick up food stamps. WTF is that.

inmytree · May 2009

cableguy119 wrote:

tell me more about the perks you speak of....

Mortgage bailouts... Seriously people getting loans they couldn't afford. Then getting sweetheart mortgage rates while the people who live within their means pay higher rates why should someone with a 600 credit rating pay less than someone with an 800 credit rating because they are in danger of defaulting? Seriously balloon payments, adjustable rates, then complaining that they didn't understand it is crap. Then trying to justify it as it helps other homeowners home value's by not having vacant properties. That is a bit much to stomach. It is the fault of corporations that gave them the loan, the edication system for not providing basic finacial education requirements and the people for not understanding what they were getting themselves into. And then back to president as taxpayer's dollars are used to bail everyone out.

are you talking about the ballout under bushy's watch and the mortgage lending practices under bushy's watch...?

cableguy119 wrote:

"Yet one of the many signs the end is near, the Barackolypse is bringing down Obamagedon upon us all"

clever...

cableguy119 wrote:

Watch the Escalades pull into the welfare agencies, really you can afford a 40k car yet you have to go pick up food stamps. WTF is that.

do you hang out a your local welfare agency...? where did you get this assumption...?

cableguy119 · May 2009

The predatory lending practices started during the Clinton Era but that's ok blame Bush he's an easy scapegoat. They became more rampant under Bush read up and you will find out the truth.

I work near a welfare office and it amazes me that the cars are escalades, Mercedes and BMW's come in and out all day long. And this isn't meant as an statement of level of wealth it is a statement about priorities, you have just as many people buying homes they can't afford and then having a boat and jet ski in the garage on top of sports cars, luxury vehicles and so forth. Then losing their shirts as the home value went down and then owing more on their homes then what they are worth.

It comes down to people living above their means and having some priorities. No president single handedly is going to fix that it has to start at home, in schools and in communities.

Obama made alot of promises and he has a lot of work to keep those promises. His first 100 days were decent all things considered but he has to keep pressing to realize the dream of the picture he tried to paint. Close Gitmo and get his plans moving forward. It is what we deserve. And yes he is better than the last guy that had the job by leaps and bounds. Bush was possibly the worst president in our history.

Prince Of Dorkness · May 2009

inmytree wrote:

are you talking about the ballout under bushy's watch and the mortgage lending practices under bushy's watch...?

Sing it, brother.

This was a mess that was created FOR our new president and he's had to come up with some very drastic measures in any hope of getting us out.

I could buy that the tea parties were about government over-spending if they'd happened last year. As it was, they didn't happen until just after a new president (who just happened to be a black liberal) came into power.

Prince Of Dorkness · May 2009

The way I see it, America had become a big pyramid scheme. People were being encouraged to live way beyond their means by people who were planning on getting out while the getting was still good.

We CAN'T go back to the glory Clinton days because they're ultimately what lead to the mess we're in now. We can no longer have an army of those 30-Thousand-Dollar-Millionaires who own a house and a boat and a Hummer all on credit that they can't afford.

President Obama - How is he doing so far?

Comments

Categories