Thread: I admire the USA for having such a great leader

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Obama is incredibly similar to Bush, but for some reason folks like Danny would stand in line to throw themselves off a cliff to please him.

He is amazingly good at telling certain groups of folks exactly what they want to hear in a manner that makes them think he's different from every other politician.

Then, when the teleprompter gets turned off, he goes and does something completely different from what he just said - and his throngs of adoring fans get all misty eyed and post threads about how happy they are to be alive while he's President. Even when he's President of a different country.

Meanwhile:

- Secret detentions continue
- Habeas Corpus is still unlawfully suspended
- The deficit skyrockets, bringing the country to the edge of financial ruin
- We're still involved in two wars, plus we've exponentially increased bombing Pakistan

Just a few of the things Obama sold his lemming-like followers a big line of crap on. And yet they're so blinded by this idol-worship shit that they can't even bring themselves to condemn his outright deceit when it is clearly proven.

It's really kind of scary. Think Jim Jones, writ large.

Matt

I'm sorry but it's Reagan that Obama is most like, Matt.

The paradox within both men, between the public and private personaes of each of them is remarkable and uncanny.

And if you're going to say something about getting misty-eyed, Obama and Reagan can do that to a group while Bush hardly ever did that, and post 9/11 speeches just don't count.

Reagan was so good at his public persona that conservatives simply believed that his policies meant that gov't was shrinking, when of course it was expanding.

On Iran-Contra the public persona was of a cowboy who would not negotiate with terrorists when in reality he gave them weapons in exchange for hostages.

Publicly a small gov't crusader, but in reality a near tripling of the debt.

In public it was all about "morning in America....the shining city on top of the hill"; in reality, times got even better if you were already doing okay, and times either stayed the same or got worse if you were already struggling to get by.

With Obama we can list the paradoxes as well. Publicly he championed the public option; behind closed doors, he didn't even give it a chance, didn't fight for it.

He said he'd close Gitmo, but although many people have been shipped outta there, there it is, still open.

Why? Because like Reagan, Obama at his core is a compromiser. They're both milk toasts whose natural personalities are to walk into a room and be the barometer in the room. They both had father issues and then got the top job in the country and their own personal notions of how to lead grew out of how they saw themselves to be as men in the absence of real father figures they could look up to. And the personalities they both share is of the gentle, Santa Clause-like leader who may say this and that, but at the end of the day they will look for the middle ground and get things done so they can move onto something else.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

And it is a "load of crap" because you say so???

It's a load of crap because Obama himself was very clear in identifying what was and is politically important to him in his book "Dreams of My Father"

Obama- "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed necolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy"

That's not terribly centrist in U.S. politics.

Originally Posted by Danny

Anyways the point of the story was just that it was a unanimous feeling that Barack Obama could potentially become one of the USA's greatest presidents ever.

You are aware Obama is The Commander in Chief and you are a foreign outsider?

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

I'm sorry but it's Reagan that Obama is most like, Matt.

That's an interesting point, and I have to agree. They came at the office from different directions - Reagan via duping libertarians and Obama via duping progressives - but their governing style is similar in many ways.

Originally Posted by Sadanie

I guess you guys can demonstrate that those accusations are FACTS, right?

Would you please provide the link?
Thank you

I'll let you add 'em up:

Barack Obama 2008 Election Expenditures

Originally Posted by Dick Martin

How much did Republicans pay to try and put Sarah Palin in office?

Doesn't matter.

First, the point being made concerned Obama.

Second, conservatives here aren't whining about "big money"...

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Steve is the type who thinks the Bush Recovery will finally overtake the Obama Recession pretty soon.

You know, you're as reliable as the sunrise. I know, when I log on here, sooner or later I'll come across something stupid posted by you.

Thank you for not being a disappointment...

Originally Posted by dblack

I haven't. I'm going by how he's governed. He seems perfectly willing to push major changes through along partisan lines, even with quite a bit of public opposition. I didn't see much consensus at all in the health care bill, for example. A decent leader, in my opinion, would have pushed the dominant party to write a bill that would have received broad support - if not from the opposition party, at least from the people. He didn't seem to have that as a goal. He twisted arms, made deals and pushed for that 51%.

The way I see it is most of the stuff people were opposed to were the provisions added/taken out for the blue dogs (lieberman) and the republicans. In other words, the bill became unpopular BECAUSE he tried to find consensus with the republicans who were never going to vote for it anyway.

I agree, he should have just written a bill by the dems that the people would like, and gave the finger to the republicans who were never going to vote for it anyway. His goal to achieve consensus will always backfire when the party of no is going to vote against anything he proposes just on partisan grounds alone.

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

I agree, he should have just written a bill by the dems that the people would like, and gave the finger to the republicans who were never going to vote for it anyway. His goal to achieve consensus will always backfire when the party of no is going to vote against anything he proposes just on partisan grounds alone.

At least that would've put an aburpt end to the bullshit idea that he's willing to reach across te aisle and work with Republicans...

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

It's a load of crap because Obama himself was very clear in identifying what was and is politically important to him in his book "Dreams of My Father"

Obama- "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night, in the dorms, we discussed necolonialism, Franz Fanon, Eurocentrism, and patriarchy"

That's not terribly centrist in U.S. politics.

You are quoting Obama's description of his search for identity, for individuality while HE WAS A FRESHMAN in College IN 1980! (Chapter 5, p. 100).
IF you have gone to college, IF you remember what happens the first year when you go to a dorm, ESPECIALLY for kids who have multi-racial, multi-cultural backgrounds. . .you would not, in good conscience use this HONEST description of his struggle for identity to determine his political stand in ADULTHOOD!

Or maybe you are still in college, and you think that, the person you are today is the person you will be in 30 years?

You are using that quote totally out of context. Have you even read the book? Or have you just pick that quote out of context from another Obama hater site???

Originally Posted by Steve

At least that would've put an aburpt end to the bullshit idea that he's willing to reach across te aisle and work with Republicans...

Yep. It would show that he's smart enough to recognize that the republican party will no longer compromise on issues. It doesn't appear he's smart enough to recognize that, much to his detriment.

Um... Look, I think Obama's better than Bush by a longshot, but he's not going to be one of our best presidents. He won't be one of our worst either.

Policy-wise, Obama isn't as different from Bush as many on the right seem to think. His foreign policy is less "cowboy" than Bush, but that's more a matter of presentation than actual policy differences.

We're still in Iraq and we're still in Afghanistan. We're still bailing out big business, and we've still got the Bush tax cuts.

Overall, Obama is actually more moderate than a lot of people on both sides seem to realize.

Obama is undoubtedly a great speaker and seems to be a good diplomat, but as far as actual policymaking goes, he's average.

Originally Posted by Occam's Razor

Um... Look, I think Obama's better than Bush by a longshot, but he's not going to be one of our best presidents. He won't be one of our worst either.

Policy-wise, Obama isn't as different from Bush as many on the right seem to think. His foreign policy is less "cowboy" than Bush, but that's more a matter of presentation than actual policy differences.

We're still in Iraq and we're still in Afghanistan. We're still bailing out big business, and we've still got the Bush tax cuts.

Overall, Obama is actually more moderate than a lot of people on both sides seem to realize.

Obama is undoubtedly a great speaker and seems to be a good diplomat, but as far as actual policymaking goes, he's average.

I agree. . although the constant hatred and opposition he faces on all his policies or attempts to policy making are far beyond anything any other President has faced.

But he is a centrist. Anyone who read "Audacity of Hope" would have known that prior to the elections.
Although it was a best seller, obviously not enough people have read it!