Did anyone here vote for Obama and are now upset with him?

[Geo Patric]

Ideologically, m. Obama is what we are supposed want in a president - a strong individual with strong views who will attempt to do what he got elected to do as opposed to what HE personally wants.

Healthcare is now being criticized for being not enough (it isn't) and for having taken precedent over more "important" matters such as the economy. But, a practical man or women will attempt to get what she can get while the getting is good. HC was a significant factor in his getting elected and it was attainable at the time that he pursued it - it would be less so later.

He is not only a practical man but a practical politician, which is to say, a practical game player. USC will do what it can to front load its season with cupcakes to refine its game before the hard work begins. and it pads their record. Obama has some marks in the win column.

ultimately now, unfortunately, his success is going to be determined by his getting reelected. policy and practice are going to be directed to that end, ideology will have to wait for a second term. so... get people employed and pursue those objectives that support that, such as green energy and tax rate adjustment.

no, i did not get the firebrand i expected but i never really expect to get what i expect. i DID get an honorable, capable , caring and very intelligent man. I am pretty satisfied with that.

geo.

 

[OscarB63]

I would have a problem with hundres of potential criminals of any type turned loose in my neighborhood. However, I see no reason why terrorists would be riskier than any violent crime offender.

the fact that they kill people for no reason other than to spread fear comes to mind.

 

[pbrauer]

really, you would have no problem with hundreds of alleged terrorists being turned loose in your neighborhood? keeping in mind that only the worst of the worst are still left at GITMO.

That's just plain silly, nobody is proposing that terrorists would be turned loose. Have you little faith in our prison system? :roll:

Where are those convicted terrorists that bombed the WTC?

 

[Geo Patric]

really, you would have no problem with hundreds of alleged terrorists being turned loose in your neighborhood? keeping in mind that only the worst of the worst are still left at GITMO.

key word: "alleged". accused with little or no supporting evidence. MOST prisoners at GBNB have been shown to have NO connection to the sons of bitches that bombed the WTC.

a few are certainly guilty and need to be kept away from good people while we investigate, try, convice and sentence them. that is why we have jails. Our system of justice is based on objective value, not merely what serves our purposes as a political/military entity. we are a nation of laws because THAT is the right and just way of doing things. it does not become any less right and just when things get hairy. if our body of law is inadequate we should adress the body of law, not circumvent it for convenience and the opportunity to act unjustly.

geo.

 

[OscarB63]

That's just plain silly, nobody is proposing that terrorists would be turned loose. Have you little faith in our prison system? :roll:

Where are those convicted terrorists that bombed the WTC?

the convicted terrorists that bombed the WTC are in prisons..because they were convicted. the guys at GITMO have never been convicted of anything therefore they can't be sent to US prisons. So if you close GITMO, where are you going to put them?

 

[OscarB63]

key word: "alleged". accused with little or no supporting evidence. MOST prisoners at GBNB have been shown to have NO connection to the sons of bitches that bombed the WTC.

a few are certainly guilty and need to be kept away from good people while we investigate, try, convice and sentence them. that is why we have jails. Our system of justice is based on objective value, not merely what serves our purposes as a political/military entity. we are a nation of laws because THAT is the right and just way of doing things. it does not become any less right and just when things get hairy. if our body of law is inadequate we should adress the body of law, not circumvent it for convenience and the opportunity to act unjustly.

geo.

correct, they haven't been convicted and, in fact, most of them could never be tried in American courts because their "alleged" crimes did not take place on US soil and they are not US citizens. So again I ask the question. Since we can't put them in US prisons/jails, where are you going to put them if we close GITMO?

 

[Geo Patric]

correct, they haven't been convicted and, in fact, most of them could never be tried in American courts because their "alleged" crimes did not take place on US soil and they are not US citizens. So again I ask the question. Since we can't put them in US prisons/jails, where are you going to put them if we close GITMO?

you can ignore the issue of justice and arbirtrary imprisonment in violation of the united states constitution if you like, but it does not change the fact the the Bush Admin deliberately circumnvented the law in imprisoning people without cause. Nor does it change the fact that the Obama adminsitration, in direct opposition to some of the very statements that MADE him president is continuing that policy.

MOST of the prisoners should be released. If we cannot release them into the places from which they were kidnapped and no place where they would choose to go will accept them then, yes, they should be released into the United States and we, as citizens should take the risk that comes as a direct result of our illegal and unethical actions, though the best indicators are that there is little or none. AND.. they should be provided for as we not only robbed them of their freedom but their abilities to provide for themselves.

those for whom evidence can be presented to a grand jury adequate to demonstrate a probable violation of U.S. law should be tried, speedily.

geo.

 

[Slartibartfast]

the fact that they kill people for no reason other than to spread fear comes to mind.

That doesn't make them more dangerous than criminal rapists, murderers, etc.

 

[Josie]

I think he is MUCH farther left than what he has been doing. He cannot do what he wants, however, because he knows most Americans just wouldn't go for it. I think he already has pushed a little too far, thus, the creation of tea parties AND the "tea parties" of the left.

Chris Matthews sounded like a tea party activist last night, for goodness sakes.

 

[Redress]

I think he is MUCH farther left than what he has been doing. He cannot do what he wants, however, because he knows most Americans just wouldn't go for it. I think he already has pushed a little too far, thus, the creation of tea parties AND the "tea parties" of the left.

Chris Matthews sounded like a tea party activist last night, for goodness sakes.

The Tea Parties started forming before he had really done anything.

 

[roughdraft274]

I think he is MUCH farther left than what he has been doing. He cannot do what he wants, however, because he knows most Americans just wouldn't go for it. I think he already has pushed a little too far, thus, the creation of tea parties AND the "tea parties" of the left.

Chris Matthews sounded like a tea party activist last night, for goodness sakes.

Wasn't the tea party formed almost immediately after he was elected? Or atleast right before he was sworn in? I think it was more of a case of "OMG a democrat is going to be president" more so than anything he has actually done.

 

[Donc]

The Tea Parties started forming before he had really done anything.

Republican party, teaparty same coin, different side.

 

[Redress]

Republican party, teaparty same coin, different side.

Even many in the Tea Party no longer dispute that, though it was pretty clear from the beginning.

 

[Josie]

Yes, you're right. Tea parties started because of the Republicans and Democrats screwing us. It wasn't just about Obama.

 

[Deuce]

The Tea Parties started forming before he had really done anything.

These are people who came up with the slogan "Taxed Enough Already" when they were currently paying the lowest taxes they ever had in their lives, so trying to make sense of them is futile.

As for Obama, I've often said "I voted for change and I got Bush III." While every time I vote, I hope things will be different, I got what I expected: another politician. Another set of Democrats with no spine and no leadership. How come every election my choices are between "Completely Inept" and "Total Assholes?"

 

[Vicki]

"Wasn't the tea party formed almost immediately after he was elected? Or atleast right before he was sworn in? I think it was more of a case of "OMG a democrat is going to be president" more so than anything he has actually done."

Tea Party started on April 16th. Tax day. I attended the one in Houston. It had nothing to do with the party he came from but how he was spending money.

 

[Redress]

Yes, you're right. Tea parties started because of the Republicans and Democrats screwing us. It wasn't just about Obama.

Except these same people kept silent when it was their people screwing them.

 

[Donc]

When this boils down, some time after the med-term election,you will more than likely find that the puke brothers( Koch ) funded it.

 

[Coronado]

When this boils down, some time after the med-term election,you will more than likely find that the puke brothers( Koch ) funded it.

They only had to sell off a few of their herd of unicorns to fund it, too.

:roll:

 

[Josie]

Except these same people kept silent when it was their people screwing them.

Agreed. Some people were silent who aren't silent now. Just as people screaming about over-spending during Bush are now happy with it under Obama. Yes, there are people tied to their political party and will follow them off a bridge. That's not new.

 

[Redress]

Agreed. Some people were silent who aren't silent now. Just as people screaming about over-spending during Bush are now happy with it under Obama. Yes, there are people tied to their political party and will follow them off a bridge. That's not new.

I disagree with this. I opposed Bush building up the deficit during good times. My belief is that during good/normal times, you balance the budget. During bad times, you go into debt and pay it off when you get back to good/normal times. These are bad times.

 

[Vicki]

Agreed. Some people were silent who aren't silent now. Just as people screaming about over-spending during Bush are now happy with it under Obama. Yes, there are people tied to their political party and will follow them off a bridge. That's not new.

Obama has both houses backing him and is pushing stuff thru that is destroying the USA. Obama can, is, and no care about our debt. It would be nice if the dems quit blaming someone else for what they are doing. Sure haven't seen Bush at the senate or house lately voting. If it was really Bush's fault then how come so many Dems are distanting themsleves from Obama lately and not passing everything he wants?

 

[Councilman]

I'm reminded of a story about a sailor who by no fault of his own ended up in a Bar in Manila kissing a girl who turned out to be a TV.

I understand this could have happened to anyone because the TV in question looked for all the world like a young lady.

What didn't make sense to me was telling the story to people who were not there. YUCKY

I think Obama votes fit this analogy. I can see people falling for this Amateur's lies and screwing up voting for him in the first place.

But now he's a total failure and lies when ever he opens his mouth, it's hard to understand why anyone would claim voting for him then and now still falling for the Bull Shtuff.

I know a lot of people who will not admit voting for Bush the second time because he made mistakes, but only a couple compared to the Amateur in Chief Obama.

 

[Geo Patric]

YUCKY

i would expect such a critique from a particularly mindless adolescent.


anyone with balls does not use words like liar without showing their view to be true. anyone with brains will accept that their political opponent is not satan no matter how much they disagree with him or her.

geo.

 

[ScottD]

Except these same people kept silent when it was their people screwing them.

The same people in the party now, yes, but the Tea Party itself, not so much. Then again the Tea Party we see now has really been hijacked by NeoCons. It use to be a disorganized Libertarian movement, and now it is something else completely.