Obama worship

Page 2 of 4 First 1234 Last

  1. I actually don't mind him at all....Its his blind followers and Congress that will be his ball and chain.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.


  2. Clinton lied to everyone over and over and over again..... Ok fine i got a bj.
    I trust him!! lol.
    Obama is changing nothing spending more money he will be the straw the broke the injured bears back.
    •   
       


  3. Obama is so heavily stamped on this stimulus package, yet I feel that when it fails miserably, he won't have to take any punishment. What about Obama is so amazing can do no wrong? That seems to be the mindset of his followers.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    No, see the problem here is your jackal promised a new washington. I dont recall bush saying anything like that. you know, none of the old cronyism, no influence from special interest groups like the ones that hired daschle, no influence of lobbyists like Joe Biden's son, it was going to be different! Already, its just more of the same BS reguritated onto us.
    No, see the real problem is you're a hater but that's ok because you have that right. You still haven't gotten over the fact that your candidate didn't have the goods and was further sabotaged by the man who was sitting in the White house.

    :bruce3:

  5. Quote Originally Posted by EasyEJL View Post
    No, see the problem here is your jackal promised a new washington. I dont recall bush saying anything like that. you know, none of the old cronyism, no influence from special interest groups like the ones that hired daschle, no influence of lobbyists like Joe Biden's son, it was going to be different! Already, its just more of the same BS reguritated onto us.
    you just a hater yo...





    Bush bashers at least had "Bush Derangement Syndrome".......now we've refined that down to "hater".


    The term "hater" is now in the political discussion ladies and gentlemen. We've come a long way.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    Now their teaching the children to worship!
    Barack Obama spelled backwards is "Antichrist".

    Next he will make everyone take his "mark"

    OK it's an exaggeration, but if he did say take the "mark" his followers would do it in a heartbeat.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Irish Cannon View Post
    Obama is so heavily stamped on this stimulus package, yet I feel that when it fails miserably, he won't have to take any punishment. What about Obama is so amazing can do no wrong? That seems to be the mindset of his followers.
    I actually think the reason he want Republican support was so he could point the finger if need be.

    Now, it's a Democrat baby. No one to blame but them.


    I also see your point on his Obots. They keep saying "give him a chance, he's never done this before"



    Well, shouldn't they have picked someone with experience?
  8. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Fastone View Post
    No, see the real problem is you're a hater but that's ok because you have that right. You still haven't gotten over the fact that your candidate didn't have the goods and was further sabotaged by the man who was sitting in the White house.

    :bruce3:
    Its nice how you can't address that the "change" administration is just full of the same old horse**** as any prior administration (include bush if you'd like).
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  9. Huckabee was on Hannity's show last night, and admitted he was wrong about how he thought Obama was going to introduce far-left policies SLOWLY...Definitely not the case.
    •   
       

  10. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    Quote Originally Posted by Fastone View Post
    No, see the real problem is you're a hater but that's ok because you have that right. You still haven't gotten over the fact that your candidate didn't have the goods and was further sabotaged by the man who was sitting in the White house.

    :bruce3:
    do you have yours on order yet?
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  11. If you listen to Pres Obama's exceptance speech then play it backwards it has secret messages His secret plan is exposed.

  12. Quote Originally Posted by bigrobbierob View Post
    I also see your point on his Obots. ...
    Obots...I love that.
    Part of my vocab now.

  13. The worship is a bit ostentatiously fervent at times, I agree. This being said, I would hope even the most stringent NeoCons [cue: Easy] could embrace the benefits of certain achievements, even if they are exclusively symbolic, of this current election and subsequent administration. From a foreigner's perspective, I can confidently assert that the symbolism of Obama's intended negotiation tactics, the termination of Guantanamo Bay, this so-called "hope-based administration" [quite cliche by now] and so forth do impart to the U.S., some sorrily-needed goodwill.

    Bush was unfairly blamed for the combination of failed monetarist supply-side economics in the fiscal/global investment sector combining with Clinton's equally as disastrous easy-credit fiasco; funnily enough, if the economy recovers expediently, Obama will be heralded. The amusing part is that, for all their efforts, true history will regard each of them as entirely insignificant in the course of their respective epoch's economy!
  14. purebred
    purebred's Avatar

    people are too fanatical. i don't think "enthusiasm" and "energy" describes what that kid has...lol

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    The worship is a bit ostentatiously fervent at times, I agree. This being said, I would hope even the most stringent NeoCons [cue: Easy] could embrace the benefits of certain achievements, even if they are exclusively symbolic, of this current election and subsequent administration. From a foreigner's perspective, I can confidently assert that the symbolism of Obama's intended negotiation tactics, the termination of Guantanamo Bay, this so-called "hope-based administration" [quite cliche by now] and so forth do impart to the U.S., some sorrily-needed goodwill.

    Bush was unfairly blamed for the combination of failed monetarist supply-side economics in the fiscal/global investment sector combining with Clinton's equally as disastrous easy-credit fiasco; funnily enough, if the economy recovers expediently, Obama will be heralded. The amusing part is that, for all their efforts, true history will regard each of them as entirely insignificant in the course of their respective epoch's economy!
    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."


    Obama's Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel



    They just did. 800 billion dollars worth.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  16. A 40-Year Wish List
    You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill.



    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

    So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.
    [Review & Outlook] AP

    We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

    In selling the plan, President Obama has said this bill will make "dramatic investments to revive our flagging economy." Well, you be the judge. Some $30 billion, or less than 5% of the spending in the bill, is for fixing bridges or other highway projects. There's another $40 billion for broadband and electric grid development, airports and clean water projects that are arguably worthwhile priorities.


    Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately. As Peter Orszag, the President's new budget director, told Congress a year ago, "even those [public works] that are 'on the shelf' generally cannot be undertaken quickly enough to provide timely stimulus to the economy."
    [Review & Outlook]

    Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to . . . guess which party?

    Here's another lu-lu: Congress wants to spend $600 million more for the federal government to buy new cars. Uncle Sam already spends $3 billion a year on its fleet of 600,000 vehicles. Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator?

    Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.
    In Today's Opinion Journal



    As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. These include the Economic Development Administration, the Small Business Administration, the 10 federal job training programs, and many more.

    Oh, and don't forget education, which would get $66 billion more. That's more than the entire Education Department spent a mere 10 years ago and is on top of the doubling under President Bush. Some $6 billion of this will subsidize university building projects. If you think the intention here is to help kids learn, the House declares on page 257 that "No recipient . . . shall use such funds to provide financial assistance to students to attend private elementary or secondary schools." Horrors: Some money might go to nonunion teachers.

    The larger fiscal issue here is whether this spending bonanza will become part of the annual "budget baseline" that Congress uses as the new floor when calculating how much to increase spending the following year, and into the future. Democrats insist that it will not. But it's hard -- no, impossible -- to believe that Congress will cut spending next year on any of these programs from their new, higher levels. The likelihood is that this allegedly emergency spending will become a permanent addition to federal outlays -- increasing pressure for tax increases in the bargain. Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

    This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

    Obama's Chief of Staff - Rahm Emanuel

    They just did. 800 billion dollars worth.
    No disagreement here. Cataclysmic crises, such as the one we are experiencing now, almost universally present opportunities for restructuring of the global economy via necessitated termination of non-profitable industries, and the insertion of new catalyst industries [see: WWII, as you know]. This being said, I still feel that certain symbolic achievements may be taken from this infant-administration, in regards to regaining the US's moral conscience. The first step in regard to restoring yourselves to that nation, is abandoning the sense of cowboy-nostalgia that so characterized the Bush administration - i.e., the tactic of referring to an America which cannot exist today, or may have never existed!

  18. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    No disagreement here. Cataclysmic crises, such as the one we are experiencing now, almost universally present opportunities for restructuring of the global economy via necessitated termination of non-profitable industries, and the insertion of new catalyst industries [see: WWII, as you know]. This being said, I still feel that certain symbolic achievements may be taken from this infant-administration, in regards to regaining the US's moral conscience. The first step in regard to restoring yourselves to that nation, is abandoning the sense of cowboy-nostalgia that so characterized the Bush administration - i.e., the tactic of referring to an America which cannot exist today, or may have never existed!
    The problem with this symbolism is that is has almost no basis in fact. Did Obama close Gitmo? Yes. Did he extend the the treatment policies of those prisoners enable by Bush? Yes. What he basically stated is that I am restoring the moral high ground by closing this building, "while I continue the treatment policies of said prisoners..just in a different location". A smoke screen...nothing more. A dog and pony show for the media.

    Foreign policy? He'll talk to Iran. Well that's great but we've doing that for the last 2 years. We just don't announce it.

    GO after Bin Laden from inside Pakistan? Great..but we've doing tat since 2001. Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, confirmed this Friday by mistakenly revealing classified information that we've been inside Pakistan and launching strikes for years....a revelation that will most likely create extreme unrest in Pakistan and their new leadership. Great job Senator.


    The problem with such symbolism is that it can have the same negative effects as some renewed sense of heightened nationalism can. We just went through that....how did that work out?

    The only difference is Obama can sell it much better than Bush.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.
  19. Never enough
    EasyEJL's Avatar

    symbolic achievements are great when there are no other achievements left.
    Animis Rep
    facebook.com/xAnimis
    animis.org/forum

  20. Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese

    Talk about a pet project. A tiny mouse with the longtime backing of a political giant may soon reap the benefits of the economic-stimulus package.

    Lawmakers and administration officials divulged Wednesday that the $789 billion economic stimulus bill being finalized behind closed doors in Congress includes $30 million for wetlands restoration that the Obama administration intends to spend in the San Francisco Bay Area to protect, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi represents the city of San Francisco and has previously championed preserving the mouse's habitat in the Bay Area.












    "Change we can believe in"

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  21. im glad the African American community is so thrilled obama is the first half white president =)

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    The problem with this symbolism is that is has almost no basis in fact. Did Obama close Gitmo? Yes. Did he extend the the treatment policies of those prisoners enable by Bush? Yes. What he basically stated is that I am restoring the moral high ground by closing this building, "while I continue the treatment policies of said prisoners..just in a different location". A smoke screen...nothing more. A dog and pony show for the media.
    True in part. The Obama administration has posited the intent to suspend the Bush-wanted indefinite imprisonment measures, as well as the military-commission judiciary style which is/was viewed as undemocratic. In regard to their resettlement, the symbolism of the act has already payed dividends: European countries in a long diplomatic standoff due to Bush's cowboy-policy-programmes have since recanted their hardline position and begun negotiations to resettle some of these prisoners. Also, as you know, the CIA's prison-system has been suspended indefinitely, and, at this point, CIA operatives are no longer capable of interrogating prisoners via rendition, or at all. While, as you also know, this may amount to little in the way of practical results - American intelligence agencies have a way of doing what they please - the symbolism [my original position] is powerful in regards to international diplomacy.

    Foreign policy? He'll talk to Iran. Well that's great but we've doing that for the last 2 years. We just don't announce it.
    I was speaking about working towards a less partisan domestic state [re: negotiation].

    GO after Bin Laden from inside Pakistan? Great..but we've doing tat since 2001. Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, confirmed this Friday by mistakenly revealing classified information that we've been inside Pakistan and launching strikes for years....a revelation that will most likely create extreme unrest in Pakistan and their new leadership. Great job Senator.
    As I understand it, this perceived "gaffe" was an answer in a line of questioning to this article: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...02500_pf.html] and not perceived autonomous drone missile-strikes within Pakistan as a whole. While this is doubtful, the original line of questioning does seem to corroborate with her claim.

    At any rate, Predator air-strikes within Pakistan are of no real revelatory status to anybody whom watches/reads the news - I recall the unrest in Pakistan's populace due to continued Predator air-strikes on the Afghani-Pakistani border [FATA region] some time ago. Feinstein's 'revelation' really only confirmed the level of complicity within the Pakistani government; in my opinion, the dissension will come much more from the Pakistani people than government, but, again, this is equally as detrimental. Also - and an honest question - where did you see her make specific mention to 2001? I merely saw the confirmation of Predators launching from Islamabad, but not an explicit confirmation they have been since the invasion.

    However, with all this being said, she is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and not necessarily apart of Obama's administration and/or plan going forward. While I understand Obama does plan to tentatively continue Pakistani air strikes, his plan to withdraw from Iraq is indicative of an ability to admit mistakes - a problem of arrogance which will continue to characterize the Bush administration throughout history.

    The problem with such symbolism is that it can have the same negative effects as some renewed sense of heightened nationalism can. We just went through that....how did that work out?
    It can but, of course, you cannot definitively say as such at this point; transiently and acutely, at least, the foreign policy implications seem to be indicative of the converse. The fact is, aside from Africa, the international-relations of your country have suffered impingement under George Bush [no need to quote specific successes here, I know them; I am speaking in generalities]. As I said, the symbolism - if only that, just symbolism - of closing Guantanamo, withdrawing from Iraq, suspending military tribunals and so forth may pose to be a very beneficial thing. The apparent truth, though, is this: cowboy diplomacy has severely hindered the US's ability to make substantial progress in foreign affairs in many instances; in my opinion, most should welcome a divergence away from this tactic. If, as you say, only symbolically.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by GotTest View Post
    That's exactly my point Jay.
    I actually think Obama seems like a pretty decent guy with a sense of humor.
    His "disciples" are quite annoying and disturbing though.
    like Fastone?

  24. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    True in part. The Obama administration has posited the intent to suspend the Bush-wanted indefinite imprisonment measures, as well as the military-commission judiciary style which is/was viewed as undemocratic. In regard to their resettlement, the symbolism of the act has already payed dividends: European countries in a long diplomatic standoff due to Bush's cowboy-policy-programmes have since recanted their hardline position and begun negotiations to resettle some of these prisoners. Also, as you know, the CIA's prison-system has been suspended indefinitely, and, at this point, CIA operatives are no longer capable of interrogating prisoners via rendition, or at all. While, as you also know, this may amount to little in the way of practical results - American intelligence agencies have a way of doing what they please - the symbolism [my original position] is powerful in regards to international diplomacy.

    I don't' understand where you are getting this notion that Europeans had some long standoff with the Bush administration. In fact, it was mainly one country...France (pre Sarkozy). Other than some public statements to appease the locals, Europeans were extremely cooperative and vice versa with the Bush administration.

    Every intelligence agency has a way of doing what they please and nothing Obama has done is going to change that. Its pure politics.

    I was speaking about working towards a less partisan domestic state [re: negotiation].
    He isn't the problem nor was it Bush's either. It was Congress in both instances as the current stimulus has proven once again. If anyone expects Obama to change that, they are extremely naive.





    As I understand it, this perceived "gaffe" was an answer in a line of questioning to this article: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...02500_pf.html] and not perceived autonomous drone missile-strikes within Pakistan as a whole. While this is doubtful, the original line of questioning does seem to corroborate with her claim.
    I could care less about the accuracy but the timing and manner in which Feinstein confirms CIA policy is reckless. Validating the Washington Post (which is tough to do) about CIA policy is generally not looked upon as wise nor does the CIA appreciate it.

    Feinstein's 'revelation' really only confirmed the level of complicity within the Pakistani government;
    Which you don't do publicly. His own Secretary of State confirmed that.




    However, with all this being said, she is the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and not necessarily apart of Obama's administration and/or plan going forward.
    Oh they tried that one...she voiced her disapproval during the Clinton nomination about not being informed.

    While I understand Obama does plan to tentatively continue Pakistani air strikes, his plan to withdraw from Iraq is indicative of an ability to admit mistakes - a problem of arrogance which will continue to characterize the Bush administration throughout history.
    Bush has admitted mistakes quit often, something the press doesn't seem to cover or "remember" when making comparisons. In fact he did it twice in his State of the Union speeches..which is rare for any President.

    The media wanted to paint a picture of Bush and they did a good job at it for 8 years. Job well done. History will probably paint a different one.


    It can but, of course, you cannot definitively say as such at this point;
    When it enables an $800 billion dollar plan to go through within 2 weeks, his "symbolism" is working its magic...at the expense of many already.


    If you want historical references in terms of international relations, then Kennedy vs. Krushchev.

    The fact is, aside from Africa, the international-relations of your country have suffered impingement under George Bush [no need to quote specific successes here, I know them; I am speaking in generalities].
    And I think this is overstated as it suggests we had this massive cooperation with such countries. The fact is, we never have even after UN approved operations. Why should we...many of our interests and position in the world is in direct conflict to their interests. The EU, Russia and China looking after the US? Since when?

    The apparent truth, though, is this: cowboy diplomacy has severely hindered the US's ability to make substantial progress in foreign affairs in many instances; in my opinion, most should welcome a divergence away from this tactic. If, as you say, only symbolically.
    This cowboy diplomacy is basically the same policies we've been following since Reagan. Why would it change? Its basically a revolving door of the same people. This idea that Bush made some drastic shift in foreign policy is overstated because of the preemption in Iraq, something the American public and Congress both approved by I believe 84%. The only thing different is Reagan, Clinton and probably Obama didn't make it sound so "cowboy".
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  25. And to further confirm many of my points, Obama is having more of a problem with his own party than Republicans. As Bush did pre 9/11, as did Clinton, Reagen, Kennedy, etc....Obama has moved towards the center which is why you tend to hear Republicans state they don't have much of a problem with him, but his party in Congress.
    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  26. Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    I don't' understand where you are getting this notion that Europeans had some long standoff with the Bush administration. In fact, it was mainly one country...France (pre Sarkozy). Other than some public statements to appease the locals, Europeans were extremely cooperative and vice versa with the Bush administration.
    Yes, France and...Belgium, Russia, Germany, Belarus, essentially the entire EU; the Briton-US relations in Post-Blair Britain even look bleaker than normal. The cooperation you have spoken of has really only manifested itself within the last [~] calendar year due to shared strategic interests [see: an Industrializing China and India]. The Bush Administration was predisposed to unilateral negotiations, and this created a fair amount of global dissent - and not just dissent from politicians choosing to please the populous. I am a bit interested as to how you felt there is not resentment for your country in Europe?

    Every intelligence agency has a way of doing what they please and nothing Obama has done is going to change that. Its pure politics.
    Exactly. As I said: while the CIA may continue business as usual - illegally detaining suspects and transporting them where they may - their formal inability is publicly symbolic. Again, this is the point I have been operating from.

    I could care less about the accuracy but the timing and manner in which Feinstein confirms CIA policy is reckless. Validating the Washington Post (which is tough to do) about CIA policy is generally not looked upon as wise nor does the CIA appreciate it.
    Appreciable or not, her comments still bear little on Obama; again, not entirely sure why that Red Herring was raised. As I said, ostensibly, Obama plans to continue missile strikes in Pakistan for the time being.

    Bush has admitted mistakes quit often, something the press doesn't seem to cover or "remember" when making comparisons. In fact he did it twice in his State of the Union speeches..which is rare for any President.
    Humility is relative Bobo, a realization you are aware of despite your commentary here; a concession or two in an administration plagued by disasters [domestic as many as foreign] does not a humble President make. In one of the cases you are speaking about, George W., admitted that his strategic-philosophies underpinning the Iraqi confrontation were flawed, but, only to gain public support to increase troops in that same conflict. Even these minor concessions, though, came with significant limitations that displayed his marked inability to admit mistakes. To say that he repeated this trend of admittance - as limited and attenuated as it may have been - is stretching the truth, no doubt.

    The media wanted to paint a picture of Bush and they did a good job at it for 8 years. Job well done. History will probably paint a different one.
    Most unlikely that it will be significantly different, but it will be kinder, no doubt. History is almost universally more kind to Presidents than the present, but the fundamental failures of this administration will ring true no matter what perspective they are viewed from. Time has a way of healing wounds, and the American people are notoriously forgetful.

    When it enables an $800 billion dollar plan to go through within 2 weeks, his "symbolism" is working its magic...at the expense of many already.
    Again, speaking about consequences which have not emerged definitively, is highly presumptive at best. Let us reserve judgment until these events have actually occurred.

    If you want historical references in terms of international relations, then Kennedy vs. Krushchev.
    While I appreciate your efforts, I am well-versed in the Cuban missile crisis. You did not elaborate, but I assume you are using this as an example of cold US-World relations. I am unsure if referencing the height of the Cold War best serves your point, particularly because following that point - particularly in the Reagan Administration - US-world [particularly European] relations were quite warm.

    And I think this is overstated as it suggests we had this massive cooperation with such countries. The fact is, we never have even after UN approved operations. Why should we...many of our interests and position in the world is in direct conflict to their interests. The EU, Russia and China looking after the US? Since when?
    but prior to this....

    I don't' understand where you are getting this notion that Europeans had some long standoff with the Bush administration. In fact, it was mainly one country...France (pre Sarkozy). Other than some public statements to appease the locals, Europeans were extremely cooperative and vice versa with the Bush administration.
    I am sure this was merely an error of haste, so I will allow you to correct before responding in full. Briefly, though, it is true that US-World relations [particularly the EU] have historically experienced cold and hot streaks. This being said, they were particularly cold during the Bush Administration. This was no mystery.

    This cowboy diplomacy is basically the same policies we've been following since Reagan. Why would it change? Its basically a revolving door of the same people. This idea that Bush made some drastic shift in foreign policy is overstated because of the preemption in Iraq, something the American public and Congress both approved by I believe 84%. The only thing different is Reagan, Clinton and probably Obama didn't make it sound so "cowboy".
    And, as you mentioned, the delivery may be a key difference. Again, despite the fact it is irrational, symbolism can often play a key role in international diplomacy. Bush's sheer arrogance was off-putting to many world leaders [based on their comments] and such cold inter-personal relations can often stall inter-state relations [see: tariffs and trade-stalls between Canada and U.S., in certain industries]. Also, the fact that an emotional majority who was [and still is] extremely misinformed supported an initiative does absolutely nothing to absolve the Bush Administration of their responsibility; the point of responsible office is to do the right thing, not the popular thing.

    Again, though, there are many specific instances of Bush's failed hard-line stance where a more diplomatic approach could have been taken - claiming the [admitted truth] that U.S., Foreign Policy has not altered since Carter is not a huge illumination. The failures are in the specifics, though.

  27. I must admit, arguing with a NeoCon about the atrophy of US-World relations under the Bush Administration is a bit like arguing that we actually landed on the moon with a conspiracy theorist: despite mounting evidence, first-hand accounts, the sheer presentability of the case and common-sense, "it ain't gon' happen!". This is to mean no offense, but rather, to say we are arguing from fundamentally different viewpoints that are not going to be reconciled.

  28. Quote Originally Posted by Cosmo Kramer View Post
    The problem with this symbolism is that is has almost no basis in fact. Did Obama close Gitmo? Yes. Did he extend the the treatment policies of those prisoners enable by Bush? Yes. What he basically stated is that I am restoring the moral high ground by closing this building, "while I continue the treatment policies of said prisoners..just in a different location". A smoke screen...nothing more. A dog and pony show for the media.

    Foreign policy? He'll talk to Iran. Well that's great but we've doing that for the last 2 years. We just don't announce it.

    GO after Bin Laden from inside Pakistan? Great..but we've doing tat since 2001. Sen. Feinstein, a Democrat, confirmed this Friday by mistakenly revealing classified information that we've been inside Pakistan and launching strikes for years....a revelation that will most likely create extreme unrest in Pakistan and their new leadership. Great job Senator.


    The problem with such symbolism is that it can have the same negative effects as some renewed sense of heightened nationalism can. We just went through that....how did that work out?

    The only difference is Obama can sell it much better than Bush.
    Yup Yup and Yup, i would rep you but im sure ite better to just say, "great post".

  29. The man inherited the biggest deficit in history and he hit the ground trying to make good on his promises. The irony of the matter is that we were patient with everything the previous President did for 8 years. This man has not been off a full month and is already making changes. Some changes not so popular but he is working and listening like he said he would. Obama is not a saviour but he is the breath of fresh air that "WE" as a country needed.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Obama Win!!!
    By Vtaper in forum Politics
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 12:28 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-11-2010, 02:51 PM
  3. Something obama is doing I can get behind
    By EasyEJL in forum Politics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-10-2009, 10:34 PM
  4. Who Is Obama? Where Is the Press?
    By bpmartyr in forum Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-18-2008, 02:30 PM
  5. Obama won...
    By RenegadeRows in forum General Chat
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-06-2008, 01:02 PM
Log in
Log in