Thread: GEORGE H W OBAMA or BUSH 3.0

Just how far to the left do you have to be to feel punked by Obama?

Originally Posted by Steerpike

A video clip which compares and contrasts words and actions of the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, and two of his predecessors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUittUgUGRk

The 'president' is irrelevant. The system does does not change (or it changes very slowly, almost imperceptibly over the short term, and it never seems to change in favor of the people). Even if we give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say "but he wanted change" what we have seen is that the system is geared towards preventing change, and its very good at doing that.

In truth it seems Obama was more interested in compromise and being everything to everybody than he was about genuine meaningful change.

Andrew

Originally Posted by dblack

I actually tend to agree with Obama on this particular point. The individual mandate is not a tax. It's something much worse. A tax uses the force of law to compel you to finance your government. The health insurance mandate uses the force of law to compel us to finance the insurance companies. The fact that the press largely glosses over this boils my blood.

What's going on is an attempt to outsource the socialization of health care. They know it's not politically viable to do through legitimate means, so they're forcing all of us to do it under the auspices of the insurance corporations. The difference is that we, nominally, control the government. We have a say in how they use the taxes we pay. The insurance companies, on the other hand, have an overt and legal incentive to skim as much off the top as they can, and their primary responsibility is the welfare their stockholders, not US citizens.

If Mr. Obama had used and stated the stipulative definition that you have when he made the promise, then he would have been right in countering the lexical definition used by Mr. Stephanopoulos.

Barring that, Mr. Obama could have countered that as he hadn't signed any legislation to that effect, the dictionary definition of 'tax' cited by Mr. Stephanopoulos. So he had not broken that promise.

In fairness to Mr. Obama, he does still have three years to make good on the promises cited. He did order the closing of Guantanamo. But it has not happened, and it appears that it won't happen by the original deadline.

Further, there is a section of the clip with Rachel Maddow where she is making a point about Iraq.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

So, what's the point of this thread, exactly? That policians use similar phrases?

Whoopty fucking doo.

The point of the thread is to discuss the contents of the video linked in the OP.

Watch the video. Not all of the criticism of the video is directed at Mr. Obama.

Watch the video. Not all of the criticism of the video is directed at Mr. Obama.

Just the lion's share of the criticism.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The 'president' is irrelevant. The system does does not change (or it changes very slowly, almost imperceptibly over the short term, and it never seems to change in favor of the people). Even if we give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say "but he wanted change" what we have seen is that the system is geared towards preventing change, and its very good at doing that.

Not necessarily.
Think Reagan and Clinton. (and others in the past).
A President who has vision and strong leadership capabilities, and IF he has the popularity of the American public - can be one powerful figure who can create numerous changes.
Obama has vision, but obviously lacks leadership qualities and no longer has popularity, except in small pockets.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

In truth it seems Obama was more interested in compromise and being everything to everybody than he was about genuine meaningful change.

Andrew

Somewhat.
Obama clearly does not understand or have common ground with the majority of America. He does not understand the core of what America is - Personal responsibility and personal freedoms. His vision of America is in stark contrast with this...and for that reason it is highly likely he will be a one term President.

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Not necessarily.
Think Reagan and Clinton. (and others in the past).
A President who has vision and strong leadership capabilities, and IF he has the popularity of the American public - can be one powerful figure who can create numerous changes.
Obama has vision, but obviously lacks leadership qualities and no longer has popularity, except in small pockets.
.

Yes, for his buddies.

Andrew

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Just the lion's share of the criticism.

That's true. Whether it is because he is the sitting President or other reason(s), only the producer of the video would know for sure.

Did you have any thoughts on any of the specifics brought up in the video?

Cherry picked rhetorical comparisons aside, I always thought Bush Sr. was a pretty good president.

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

To me - he is no different than your average politician..using catch phrases, making promises and claims they cannot make - this is the stuff politicians are made of.
Difference is - people believed him...categorically believed him.
The question of the year is - why?

so hes not gonna pay my mortgage?

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Not necessarily.
Think Reagan and Clinton. (and others in the past).
A President who has vision and strong leadership capabilities, and IF he has the popularity of the American public - can be one powerful figure who can create numerous changes.
Obama has vision, but obviously lacks leadership qualities and no longer has popularity, except in small pockets.


Somewhat.
Obama clearly does not understand or have common ground with the majority of America. He does not understand the core of what America is - Personal responsibility and personal freedoms. His vision of America is in stark contrast with this...and for that reason it is highly likely he will be a one term President.

bingo.

Originally Posted by chassisman

Got you thinking cap on? Why would they compalin about Obama contuining something they were OK with in the first place. I don't listen to Rush but another display of your puddle depth thinking is arrival at the premise that Beck is republican. If you actually listened to him you'd know better.

And you're proving to me that your thinking cap isn't on.

They should be commending Obama for continuing those bush atrocities that they were so fond of at the time.

But instead all you hear out of their mouths 24/7 is Obama bashing. Its good for ratings and therefore their wallets so I understand why they do it. Its intellectually immoral and dishonest to do it though.

Yeah beck isn't a republican, just like Korea was a "police action" not a war.