|
Post by reynagade on Apr 17, 2010 5:22:41 GMT -5
Personally, I think he's doing good, not great but good. From what I'm seeing and reading from all new sources, without making a biased opinion, he's doing fine. Some things I may not necessarily agree with, others I do, but seems to me like he's actually putting effort in backing up his promises
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 17, 2010 8:15:57 GMT -5
Now that Sky is banned I can come down and read some mostly honest opinion.
I think he's done okay as far as presidents go, and quite remarkable under the circumstances. What I look in a leader is effort, and even if I don't always agree with the leader's stance, there are some things which are nonpartisan enough that Obama has done well under.
That being said he has a long road ahead of him. There are a lot of things he has to do, whether he promised it during the election or this is an established thing for presidents to do. Even if we don't always agree with him, his supporters have to not make the same mistake the right is making now, and think their opinion represents the country as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 17, 2010 12:40:06 GMT -5
"Even if we don't always agree with him, his supporters have to not make the same mistake the right is making now, and think their opinion represents the country as a whole. "
I don't think the actual politicians think that...I think they fall more along the lines of "It's coming from a democrat, block at all costs" I've heard from day one
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 17, 2010 17:40:35 GMT -5
To be a devil's advocate:
Obama has continued Bush's criminal violation of the constitution. He has failed to yet close down Guantanamo. Worse, he has actually opposed ending the system of arbitrary imprisonment. So even if Obama did close down Guantanamo, it would be a worthless gesture.
He's also backed some other egregious Bush crimes, such as warrantless wiretapping of phones and other forms of exessive executive secrecy. He hasn't just not legislated against them; he's backed them in court and out.
And all this has been topped off by the continuing politicisation of the DOJ: no liberals allowed. Dawn Johnsen, Obama's excellent nominee for that Department, has not been among the many Obama recess appointments. She would doubtless lead an investigation into Bush-era crimes, and therefore Obama's crimes. So she has to stay unconfirmed. She was forced to withdraw her nomination just a few days ago. It's an indication of Obama's zeal to prosecute law-breakers.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Apr 17, 2010 20:22:39 GMT -5
To be a devil's advocate: Obama has continued Bush's criminal violation of the constitution. He has failed to yet close down Guantanamo. Worse, he has actually opposed ending the system of arbitrary imprisonment. So even if Obama did close down Guantanamo, it would be a worthless gesture. He's also backed some other egregious Bush crimes, such as warrantless wiretapping of phones and other forms of exessive executive secrecy. He hasn't just not legislated against them; he's backed them in court and out. And all this has been topped off by the continuing politicisation of the DOJ: no liberals allowed. Dawn Johnsen, Obama's excellent nominee for that Department, has not been among the many Obama recess appointments. She would doubtless lead an investigation into Bush-era crimes, and therefore Obama's crimes. So she has to stay unconfirmed. She was forced to withdraw her nomination just a few days ago. It's an indication of Obama's zeal to prosecute law-breakers. Gee, you think maybe he is trying to not polarize a nation any more than it already is by further demonizing the previous leader? His agenda is polarizing enough, he really doesn't need to throw more fuel on the fire.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 17, 2010 20:55:00 GMT -5
well, remember, this is Fred....he kinda doesn't like the US a whole lot
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Apr 17, 2010 20:56:26 GMT -5
He's the anti Free Conservative.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Apr 17, 2010 21:20:06 GMT -5
To be a devil's advocate: Obama has continued Bush's criminal violation of the constitution. He has failed to yet close down Guantanamo. Worse, he has actually opposed ending the system of arbitrary imprisonment. So even if Obama did close down Guantanamo, it would be a worthless gesture. He's also backed some other egregious Bush crimes, such as warrantless wiretapping of phones and other forms of exessive executive secrecy. He hasn't just not legislated against them; he's backed them in court and out. And all this has been topped off by the continuing politicisation of the DOJ: no liberals allowed. Dawn Johnsen, Obama's excellent nominee for that Department, has not been among the many Obama recess appointments. She would doubtless lead an investigation into Bush-era crimes, and therefore Obama's crimes. So she has to stay unconfirmed. She was forced to withdraw her nomination just a few days ago. It's an indication of Obama's zeal to prosecute law-breakers. Gee, you think maybe he is trying to not polarize a nation any more than it already is by further demonizing the previous leader? His agenda is polarizing enough, he really doesn't need to throw more fuel on the fire. So you're saying we shouldn't bring criminals to justice if such a move would be unpopular?
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 17, 2010 22:16:45 GMT -5
Gee, you think maybe he is trying to not polarize a nation any more than it already is by further demonizing the previous leader? His agenda is polarizing enough, he really doesn't need to throw more fuel on the fire. Therefore, politicians should never be charged with any crime of any kind, regardless of what they do. The constitution can be ripped up. It's too 'polarizing'.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 17, 2010 22:18:31 GMT -5
well, remember, this is Fred....he kinda doesn't like the US a whole lot 'The US' here defined as the policies and practices of the Bush administration, particularly where they relate to the arbitrary imprisonment of known innocents. Most US citizens, for instance, are not 'the US', as most of them ALSO oppose this policy.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 17, 2010 23:44:53 GMT -5
well, remember, this is Fred....he kinda doesn't like the US a whole lot 'The US' here defined as the policies and practices of the Bush administration, particularly where they relate to the arbitrary imprisonment of known innocents. And military action against known and unknown threats, and anyone that says otherwise to your title of calling those military people "Baby killers" and "Murderous thugs". We all know the drill. The US could bring about world peace and end hunger and you'd still bitch about it
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Apr 17, 2010 23:57:58 GMT -5
To be fair it has been quite lacklustre on the international front. On one hand he's done A LOT to defuse the notion of the superior America Bush and his cronies built up since 9/11, but there's still a lot of work to be done. The international community would like America to tone down its military operations around the world, understand that the world can take care of itself, thanks for the help.
Or, if America wants to claim to be the superior military power it is, it must first set a standard for the world's powers in terms of human rights and not just might. Namely, close Guantanamo and either try the prisoners as PoWs or send them back to their native countries where appropriate to be tried.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 18, 2010 1:23:35 GMT -5
And military action against known and unknown threats, and anyone that says otherwise to your title of calling those military people "Baby killers" and "Murderous thugs". We all know the drill. The US could bring about world peace and end hunger and you'd still bitch about it Cite where I used exactly those words- 'Baby Killer' and 'Murderous Thugs'- about US troops. They're in quote marks, they must be a quote. From whence are you quoting me? Try to quote exactly.
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 18, 2010 2:45:14 GMT -5
Ok Fred. You're in charge. Try to find a way for Obama to put a stop to the Bush era policies that totally undermined our rights and freedoms in the name of security. Keeping in mind that Obama probably wants to have a second term in office.
Ironbite-I'm really curious on how you'd play this.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 18, 2010 6:10:54 GMT -5
Ok Fred. You're in charge. Try to find a way for Obama to put a stop to the Bush era policies that totally undermined our rights and freedoms in the name of security. Keeping in mind that Obama probably wants to have a second term in office. Ironbite-I'm really curious on how you'd play this. It's important to note than Obama is not doing nothing. He is doing less than nothing. He is actually undermining the constitution, giving a bipartisan sheen to Bush criminality. A little more than that would have had Dawn Johnsen appointed through recess appointments, secrecy defences abandoned in court and so on. Although the current innocents would be imprisoned without charge forever, no more people would be held in such a way. The various supposedly independent legal arms of the government wouldn't be blocked from charging Bush/Cheney officials. That would be a minimum. A more effective policy would have the Guantanamo detainees either charged in a real court or freed. If found innocent, or when lacking credible or legal evidence, they would also be allowed to go. An even more constitutional policy would have Obama support the prosecution of the John Yoos and Dock Cheney's of the previous administration, and compensation for their innocent victims.
|
|