Obama

because it's not, duh.

 

Well I hold him accountable for his non-action before 9/11 and his failure to catch Osama thereafter, his choice to hire a FEMA head despite him having no credentials whatsoever when it comes to dealing with, say, a natural disaster like Katrina, going to war in Iraq unnecessarily, then bungling the war in Iraq unnecessarily, getting a million civilians killed, wasting over a trillion dollars, and destroying our reputation with things like Abu Ghraib, which he clearly supported.

I hold him accountable for encouraging a policy of deregulation and lowered interest rates that helped cause the banking collapse, his spurning of science in favor of ideology setting back critically important fields, his trampling of civil rights both regarding internal and external affairs, and otherwise dismembering the government and feeding it to his corporate cronies, both with regards to military contracting, environmental issues, giant tax cuts to the rich and powerful that have given us even bigger debt, and overall regulation of corporate actions.

In short, he was a follower in the foot steps of Reagan, who I believe should have been executed for Treason.

 

your last sentence proves it's not all his fault. many people before him were leading this direction, too. you can't just blame bush. things were happening before that, and even if kerry elected, chances are the SAME thing or something like it would happen. also, he's voted in by majority. and people vote for government offices. so, he was brought in by OMFGPOPULARITY, so don't blame him. blame the stupid americans who vote. no one to blame but yourself.

 

Why the **** did my post get deleted again?

Anyway, you cannot blame it on Bush. He is a part of that bloodline and has to basically comply by it's cult. He is merely a puppet for those you don't know about. I believe debating about politicians and stuff serves no purpose, you should find the truth about those who actually pull the strings and the reason they're able to, finishing with the methods, so you can improve your life with counter measures.

 

Just a nifty little thing I found.

It's more or less unbiased I think. Just a good way to keep track.



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/??

 

hes only been on office for 7 days now(give or take) so i still am optimistic. I wanted Ron Paul to win, but the one thing I did like about Obama's campaigne was his enthusiasm for re-newable energy(wind, water, ect). I think if he accomplishes this, Wind to power to states, water to power more.. and rids us of our dependancy on oil.. (atleast outside of cars) it will drasticly change our enviorment and make way for a truely new age. Since right now it wasnt possible since Oil companies put to much pressure for anything like that to happen.

His inauguration speech I must say was spine chillingly good. maybe too good.

 

I totally agree with Kurai.

This president will fail. But according to me he will fail in some peace process and a lot of other domains because he is just badly surrounded by a team which does not want to make progress. The US govt followed a "logic" all the times and it will never be even with Obama that this "logic" will change.

I don't wanna explain this "logic". It's something I dislike anyway and that gives pain ....

Well this president will fail even if I think he is full of good intentions. There will always be people around him who will oblige him to decide things he dislike.

What about abortion he decided to give back? Advertising ! There are far more other important folders which need more attention. This abortion case is just to 'show' to the world that USA changes.


I, living in Europe, am just interested in the US international politic. Well .... I don't even think about any progress in peace process anywhere, or for the environment, etc ....

Ok it's the beginning, but you will see by yourself. Most of the people worldwide will be disappointed. I am already ...

 

He's been in office for a week, and you're already disappointed? I'm not sure how good/bad he'll do, but I bet he'll be liked more than Bush is/was.

 

How so? Picking experienced people from the previous administration of your party is perfectly reasonable, and Clinton's administration was hardly about opposing progress, they were merely blocked by Republicans and to some extent their own disunity. Obama seeks to avoid that disunity again, so that the Democrats can successfully push their policies through without being stopped by the Republicans.

While it is true that both Democrats and Republicans have their fair sheer of corruption and stagnation, the policies under Clinton were fundamentally different from the policies under Bush. The logic between the two was fundamentally different.

 

Obama has only been in office for over a week now so you cannot really judge him. He's already made changes like he promised so it's not like he isn't true to his word. Also, Kurai, I wouldn't really call Bush winning by majority. In 2000, the election was extremely close and Florida was ultimately what decided the election. So half of America didn't vote for Bush.

 

tempL, it was still a majority, so don't tell me it wasn't. over half is still the majority. it's called math.

50+50=100
51>50

they need a -majority- to win. so be it 51 or 100, it's still a majority.

 

Actually, Bush did not have a majority, nor did he have a plurality. Gore won, fair and square. The Republicans deliberately had significant amounts of votes be discarded that were predominantly Democrats. Its pretty easy to pull off skull-duggery like that when the person providing the voting machines is a prominent supporter for the Republicans.

 

Actually you dont need a majority of the votes to win, you just need the most guys that get chosen per state(forgot the name), which means you can win with i thought 40% of the votes(only in extreme cases)

 

i'm not talking about the first, duh. i mean the second time when he ran against kerry.

 

oh yeah, that could be, didnt really watch that election.

also, democracy doesnt always give the right leader
for an example Hitler and Hamas were chosen democratically

 

Before poking fun at DT with derogatory maths try to be specific with what your talking about...i'm pretty sure he said the 2000 election where neither party got a majority of the popular vote (Gore with 48.4% and Bush with 47.9%). So he is correct in saying less than half the country voted for bush (Obviously ignoring the fact that its optional to vote in America which means not even Obama got half the country voting for him ).

@ Lenga
Hitler didn't get in democratically, the nazi's almost split because they realised they couldn't get a majority legally without a coalition which would mean they had no power (Plurarity didn't allow him to become chancellor under the German system). Democracy was foiled by a bunch of arrogant politians working behind the scenes.

 

i would like to keep discussing in this thread about updates from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/??

the last two updates: Obama names a special envoy for climate change.

this one sounds good to me,


and obama broke No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills

and i thought that was a very good promise, such a shame it was broken

 

In his defense so far he has only had one opportunity to fulfill that promise on, honestly that is one of those things I would definetly give him another chance on to see if he was really serious and just had a lapse in judgement.

 

Found it funny that our President could host a superbowl party while Kentucky froze. If this were a Republican there would have been outrage.

I just want to see some consistency. That is all.

 

Unlike the republicans, democrats can not emit giant plumes of flame out of their eyes so Obama can be forgiven for not personally dealing with the matter.