This is topic Obama will tell us the truth in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=054224

Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
That's what an AM Radio show was suggesting last week.

Obama was going to be the first President to trust the people enough to tell them the whole truth---Aliens, Area 52, Elvis, JFK, Hoffa, Hitler Clones, all the truths that the men in black have been keeping from us.

My question to you, "What will the truth be?"

Some are thinking Star-Trek is real.

Others, that there are great big star-gates out there.

Me, I am not into the x-file stuff. I think the truth will be....

Battlestar Galactica-1980 was true.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
to be honest I think Obama would tell us if Aliens existed he has that kind of honesty. The only way he wouldn't is under duress.
 
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Presumably, if you're paranoid to believe in aliens in contact with the US government, Hitler clones, or MIB than you would also believe that the powers that be simply wouldn't tell the president for plausible deniability.
 
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
 
No joke. Even in "Independence Day", Bill Pullman didn't know about aliens or area 51. IIRC, his chief of staff even cited plausible deniability. I could be wrong, as I haven't watched the movie in 10 years.
 
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
You're not wrong. He does indeed say that.
 
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
If former Pres. Jimmy Carter didn't tell us about these things there is no way that Obama would or could. I trust Carter as an honest (that doesn't mean correct) person ten times more than I do Obama who I believe is a very shady individual with seriously questionable legal ties.

To be honest, I think if any thing were said about Aliens, Area 52, Elvis, JFK, Hoffa, Hitler Clones by him then I would be less willing to believe. He has a horrible habit of saying what you want to hear in the smoothest way possible while meaning the exact opposite of his words. Yes, I really do dislike this new president even more than (gasp) former Pres. Clinton that Obama makes look like a moderate. I really want to be wrong about this, but so far he has proven the opposite.
 
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
quote:
Others, that there are great big stargates out there.
This is my personal hope. Come oooooon stargates.
 
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
to be honest I think Obama would tell us if Aliens existed he has that kind of honesty. The only way he wouldn't is under duress.

Oh to be young and naive!!!

NO politician is honest.

It's funny that Obama was pushing "change" over "experience" his entire campaign, yet when it comes time to pick his cabinet, he's picking old Clinton people. Guess he knows that, in reality, outside of a campaign, experience is more important than change.
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
"The truth? You can't handle the truth!!!"

Anyway, who really believed that Obama was for any kind of change other than his mailing address?
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Ok. But what is the "Truth"?

Elvis is alive and well on a space station orbiting Mars, just waiting for the right time to make a stupendous comeback?

Einstein was a human, not an alien. Its the rest of us who are the aliens.

The Men-In-Black suffer from an alien designed genetic Chromatic/Restrictive disease.

Hitler's clones were killed when the hidden jungle village they were living in was burned by South American cattle ranchers seeking new pastures?

Genies are real and have been a help to NASA since discovered in the mid-60's?

A group of ethnically challenged bankers actually do rule the world, but are in turn controlled by a band of juvenile pixies, in the custody of immortal Oxford scholars, who are the play-things of 7 pre-teen witches who worship a large pre-historic plastic idol with a striking resemblance to Leonardo DiCaprio--if he were part Persian Guinea Pig?
 
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
 
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
to be honest I think Obama would tell us if Aliens existed he has that kind of honesty. The only way he wouldn't is under duress.

Oh to be young and naive!!!

NO politician is honest.

It's funny that Obama was pushing "change" over "experience" his entire campaign, yet when it comes time to pick his cabinet, he's picking old Clinton people. Guess he knows that, in reality, outside of a campaign, experience is more important than change.

Change is plenty important, but it takes experience to implement it. That is why the Obama administration is bringing on a whole bunch of experienced hands. Obama will tell the experienced bunch what he wants to see done and the experienced bunch will know -- hopefully -- how to get it done (which is where the experience comes in).

It doesn't matter if he hires a whole bunch of former Clintonites. As long as they are loyal to him (which seems true so far, but only time will tell) and as long as he remains steadfastly at the helm then it's all good [Smile]
 
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alcon:
Change is plenty important, but it takes experience to implement it.

Well, if you want to give the obvious, straightforward, and reasonable answer, then sure.
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I'm kind of hoping that under the next administration we will actually learn the truth about whole listed of things the Bush administration has chosen to obfuscated ranging from who Cheney consulted about the national energy to plan, to what really happened with the Iraq war intelligence to whether or not the unwarranted wiretapping was and is a broad net data mining scheme.

Oh yeah, and then there are those documents from the Reagan and Bush I administrations that Bush II reclassified because they were due to be released under the freedom of information act.

I don't really expected and if it happens I doubt it will more likely be because the truth will be crippling to the republican party than because Obama is inherently more honest than his predecessors.

I do expect the Obama administration to be more open than the Bush administration but that won't be hard considering how secretive the current administration has been about even simple things.
 
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
 
I'm pretty sure every world leader ever has lied to their people on important state matters. That will remain the status quo, and it's for the best.
 
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Why do you think it's for the best?
 
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
 
Because lies keep things running smoothly. With my current, pragmatic, understanding of humanity as deeply flawed, then the prospects of a completely transparent government become obvious. If everyone knew everything that is going on behind their backs, then society could never function. Government is the brain, and part of its roll is keeping the foot from finding out what the hand is doing, because otherwise the body politic isn't getting anywhere. It's not ideal but it's reality.
 
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
to be honest I think Obama would tell us if Aliens existed he has that kind of honesty. The only way he wouldn't is under duress.

Oh to be young and naive!!!

NO politician is honest.

It's funny that Obama was pushing "change" over "experience" his entire campaign, yet when it comes time to pick his cabinet, he's picking old Clinton people. Guess he knows that, in reality, outside of a campaign, experience is more important than change.

Did you miss the part where "change" very clearly meant "change from the policies and governing approach of the Bush Administration"? I don't think Obama at any point claimed that he was going to toss the Clintons out a window (though he may have had to suppress the urge a bit during the primary).

I would also argue that hiring experienced people who have demonstrated that they are smart, qualified, and competent is in itself a huge change from the last eight years. And thank god for that.
 
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
 
Further, Obama never pushed "Change" over "Experience". He pushed Change. Clinton and McCain pushed Experience.

However, both Clinton and McCain said that change was needed. Does that make them hypocrites?

Change VS Experience is a false dichotomy, an either/or choice that doesn't need to be either or.

Still, the Republican Machine talking points are--Obama = Bill Clinton, so there is no change and it was all lies.

The Obama supporters aren't falling for it.

The Republican fighters are touting it.

Give us a month or so and it will have moved on to some "Socialist" "Rock Star" or "Celebrity" bit instead.
 
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
quote:
I would also argue that hiring experienced people who have demonstrated that they are smart, qualified, and competent is in itself a huge change from the last eight years.
Which of the cabinet appointments Bush made wasn't considered smart, qualified, or competent at the time of appointment?

Powell? Rice? O'Neil? Rumsfeld? Ashcroft? Thompson? Leavitt?
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
Didn't Ashcroft lose an election to a dead man in Missouri?
 
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
What are you, a live-ist?
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I have to side with Dagonee here.

I have heard plenty of criticisms of Powell, Rice, O'Neil, Rumsfield, Ashcroft, Thompson and Leavitt -- but those criticisms rarely if ever include that they lacked intelligence or experience. Bush himself is frequently criticized for his lack of intelligence and relevant (or successful) experience but not his appointees.

The problems with the Bush administration haven't been a a result of lack of needed skills, they have been with ideology.
 
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
 
Only problems if you disagree with the ideology...
 
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lobo:
Only problems if you disagree with the ideology...

The way I see it, the only problem is if you disagree with the results.

If you don't like the results, then you need to lay blame on the ideology not the incompetence of those who implemented it. If you like the results, then you must be stark raving mad.

Take for example the Iraq war. Even if you still agree with the ideology that got us there in the first place, how could any rational person still agree with the ideology that guided how we fought the war?

The tactical mistakes made in the Iraq war weren't the results of incompetence or miscalculations -- they were central to Rumsfield's philosophy of how the military should be run and how wars should be fought. I think that philosophy has been pretty throughly proven to be unsound to any rational human being.

I could move on to economic issues, diplomacy, environment and so on. Anyone looking at the results with any kind of objectivity has to admit that they are bad across the board and its really hard to argue that the ideas behind them were fundamentally sound they were just poorly applied.
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
]Oh to be young and naive!!!

NO politician is honest.

Canards in the form of absolute, generalizing statements actually come across as more naive to me.
 
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
 
These phrases just indicate to me that you are a partisan hack...

"If you like the results, then you must be stark raving mad"
"how could any rational person still agree with the ideology"
"that philosophy has been pretty throughly proven to be unsound to any rational human being"
"Anyone looking at the results with any kind of objectivity has to admit that they are bad across the board"

If convince yourself that anyone who disagrees with you is irrational or insane it must make debate pretty easy for you...
 
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
No true scotsman would agree with your post.
 
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Didn't Ashcroft lose an election to a dead man in Missouri?

That's not really fair, Ashcroft suspended his campaign after the accident, and the replacement governor promised to appoint the late governors widow in his place if he won the election. Thus the combination of sympathy, Ashcroft's clear intent to move on, and the presence of an actual candidate simply represented by a dead man, led to Ashcroft losing narrowly.
 
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
I was quoting Robin Williams.
 
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
I was quoting Robin Williams.

Who is still having flashback to the 80's. Funny flashbacks, but still....
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dantesparadigm:
quote:
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Didn't Ashcroft lose an election to a dead man in Missouri?

That's not really fair, Ashcroft suspended his campaign after the accident, and the replacement governor promised to appoint the late governors widow in his place if he won the election. Thus the combination of sympathy, Ashcroft's clear intent to move on, and the presence of an actual candidate simply represented by a dead man, led to Ashcroft losing narrowly.
Sure, he "suspended" his campaign, to rush off to the funeral and "broker" a floral arrangement, and then the family voted it down... a lot of good he did there.
 
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:

Still, the Republican Machine talking points are--Obama = Bill Clinton, so there is no change and it was all lies.

The Obama supporters aren't falling for it.

The Republican fighters are touting it.

Give us a month or so and it will have moved on to some "Socialist" "Rock Star" or "Celebrity" bit instead.

I thought it already had moved on to that, and that people still hadn't bought it anyway... I mean, one of the striking problems with the Republican response to Obama was that seemingly everything they said about him was, on the face of it, so obviously specious and shallow. Obama has very little in common with Bill Clinton when it comes to his political style, or his personality, as far as I can tell. That was the problem- Republicans drew comparisons with BC that were supposed to be an answer to the Bush/McCain correlation, except Republicans made it about character, and Democrats made it about the actual results of the last 8 years of Republican dominance.

It was easy for people to see that Obama isn't like Clinton as a person, so it was no big deal when Obama espoused some of the policies and positions that Clinton was known for- they were just ideas. And that's the way Clinton had been anyway: a good idea is a good idea. So Obama got the best part of the Clinton legacy, and wasn't held responsible for the other stuff that makes BC kind of a scumbag- not something Hillary was ever going to be able to do.

But for the opposite reason, it was easy for Democrats to conflate Bush and McCain because Bush's record on the issues has such a bad reputation, and they are in the same party. Then there were all those videos of McCain praising and supporting Bush in 2000 and 2004, whereas Obama was not on the national stage until after the Clinton years. That very tiring and disaffecting sense of "better of two evils," never really set in with this campaign, because Obama seemed immune to any attempt to tie him to elements of the political arena with bad histories. The best the McCain campaign could come up with was the insultingly lame argument that he was "pals" with Bill Ayers, when any credible source, and Obama and Ayers themselves were just kind of standing around going... "um, I know him, he's not my best friend and he's not my hero..." The leap (and lapse in logic) that would have been required to make that smear stick was vast, and there was really nothing interesting for McCain to fill it with anyway. Even if they had been close colleagues, hell, even if they had been friends, it didn't mean anything that Obama couldn't dismiss with a single clear statement- there was no meat in that burger.
 


Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2