posted
For the amount of misinformation out there and the early election blitz by the Conservative Right I would say that Obama is holding up pretty well.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's really going to be interesting to see what happens with Obama in the second half. Is this going to be a repeat of Clinton, where his numbers are in the tank following a huge Republican win in the midterms, but then he rallies back to win reelection?
I think a lot will depend on the economy, which is slowly, too slowly for many, getting better. If economic numbers jump in the next year, I think he'll probably have a lot to work with. Actually I think he has a lot to work with anyway, but it'll give the Republicans LESS to work with, let's say.
More and more I'm actually thinking I'd like Republicans to win the House and Senate. If Obama does win reelection, he'll probably take them both back anyway, and it'll give him a temporary chance to govern. I also hope that Democrats fiddle with the rules and make it so a filibuster takes 55 votes to break, and not 60. I'd like to either do away with the rule entirely, or make it a REAL filibuster of old, but I don't see that happening.
Maybe if this is a return of 1994, a Republican Congress and Democratic White House can actually get some work done again, or is that just too much to hope for?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:More and more I'm actually thinking I'd like Republicans to win the House and Senate.
I would have conceptually wanted that without the current obstructionist bent. Use of procedural filibuster and refusal to pass bills and nominations is already approaching a level so high that it's breaking congress and feeding power into the executive. If Congress becomes even more deadlocked due to obstructionism, the filibuster is doomed (in the medium to long term) and the executive gets more powerful still.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figure if things are already intractably stopped in their tracks, it might be nice to watch Republicans attempt to govern for once. I'd love to see their FY2011 budget, the real one, not the BS one they put together for political purposes.
I guess I'm at the point where I've given up on constructive resolution to this problem, short of a Tom Clancy-like cataclysmic event that wipes out all of Congress and allows us to start from scratch. I might as well get my political bread and circuses.
Besides, I think things need to actually start breaking before we stop and fix them. I mean that literally. Bridges have to fall down, pipes need to burst, people need to die. Without that, or without one side taking utter and total control, I don't see any way out of this rabbit hole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Republicans are toxic garbage. The Democrats are toxic garbage. Our political system is toxic garbage. The economy is worse.
Bill Clinton strengthened the Lower and Middle class.
Obama has strengthened the Banks and the Hedge Funds and turned a blind eye while the bad guys have strip mined the middle class.
Posts: 377 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I enjoy the various assorted abstract Capitalization of various Words since in general it seems to have fun comorbidity with other traits.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama could be doing better if he'd stick to his guns. I don't think, despite a lot of wishful, virtriolic rhetoric from some on the right, that he won "just" because he was "the anti-Bush" or "just" because he was black. I think a lot of the issues he ran on- pulling back from the extensive military campaigns in the Middle East, making sure everyone in the wealthiest damn country on Earth could see a doctor, broadening government transparency and accountability- really were things many of the people who elected him were hoping to see.
And then he got into office. He heard a lot of dissent, some from advisors inside, some from talking heads outside. He was told to be more pragmatic and less idealistic. He held onto ideas of bipartisan compromise as opponents of health care reform turned the "discussion" into a toxic sea of fiction and hyperbole. He turned away from closing Guantanamo and allowing photos of prisoner mistreatment to be released. He started making use of the obfuscatory tactics of his predecessor. He slowed down withdrawal from Iraq, and pushed some of that withdrawal back into Afghanistan.
His greatest strength remains his ability to speak clearly, with intelligence, grace, and wit. But rather than use that ability to defend and promote his positions, he's often allowed them to be battered by partisan rhetoric without making reply or compromised without getting any concessions or even any reasonable explanations of the counter-positions in return.
He is still a far better President than G.W. Bush, in as much as a trickle of water going through your basement is far better than having your whole house washed away by a flood. But he needs to find his spine and lead. The people who oppose him aren't going to change their minds because he tries to see things their way or because he makes a rational argument. Powers above, a significant number of those idiots still think he was born in Kenya. Regrettable as it may be, people are often more willing to follow a strong, forceful idiot than a weak, uncertain genius.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Regrettable as it may be, people are often more willing to follow a strong, forceful idiot than a weak, uncertain genius.
People are almost always going to follow the guy who's doing something instead of the guy standing around talking about it. W generally gave me the impression that things were happening. And for all the legislation he's managed to pass, Obama somehow doesn't.
I don't know if it's a personality thing or a confidence thing, but W just had some leadership quality that Obama lacks, in my opinion. Maybe part of it is that I generally agreed with W that the things he tried to do were worthwhile. They didn't always work out, but there was always a sense of forward momentum.
Now, with the healthcare fiasco, the economy, the jobs situation, even the BP spill, it's more a feeling of freefall. I honestly don't feel like anyone's at the wheel guiding us. Even if W took a wrong turn, I felt he was in the car with me. Maybe a bit reliant on his GPS as to how to get there, but at least with his destination firmly in mind.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I disagreed with every turn he took, just about. and ended up in a far worse section of town because of his "leadership".
Afghanistan and Iraq are HIS mess. The economy is HIS administrations messes compounded. Healthcare would have already been addressed except for the mistake HIS party made the last time it was brought up.
He was one of the worst Presidents we have eve3ry had, IMO. And I am hardly alone.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The biggest difference so far as leadership goes is that Bush had a pliable opposition party to give him a blank check on what he wanted to do. It's EASY to be a leader when few of your decisions are seriously challenged.
Obama has been a leader, but he's been stymied at every turn by an opposition that is more interested in seeing him fail than they are at engaging any issue seriously.
The very structure of our government doesn't allow him to lead in the way that Bush did if the opposition party really, really wants to throw a wrench in the machine.
However...I do agree that while 75% of the time I actually appreciate his aloof nature on things, I think let far too many issues fall apart because he wasn't as hands on as he should have been. That's ironic too. Republicans howl that he's overstepping his bounds left and right (and in some cases, maybe he is), but legislatively, he's backed right off of Congress and let them handle issues themselves without much interference at all. What an awful idea that was. And Republicans who usually cry about him interfering in state business howled when he didn't nationalize the entire oil spill situation, then when he DID exact reparations from BP, they all cried that he was overstepping again.
The guy seriously can't win.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GentleGiant: You need Jack Ryan and a suicidal 747 jockey
That's spooky.
I referenced this just yesterday to someone, and pretty much in the same context. Well, not so much the part about Jack Ryan being president, but, about Congress starting from scratch.
I was mostly kidding though. Mostly.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Afghanistan and Iraq are HIS mess.
See, I still think Afghanistan was the right thing to do, just 15 years too late. If his dad had dealt with the Taliban when they first started terrorizing a modern nation and forcing them into poverty and deplorable gender biases, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
Iraq's tougher. Personally, I suspect we'd have been looking at a bigger, nastier war if we hadn't acted. Leaving Saddam in power and the oil embargo in place was a little too Germany-post-WWI for my taste.
quote: The economy is HIS administrations messes compounded.
While I don't hold W blameless, I think the economy was the inevitable result of our poor decisions and lack of accountability for the last few decades. We knew when Enron, WorldCom, and the like collapsed that our big businesses weren't paying attention to what their CEOs were up to. Follow-up reports have shown that they still don't. And 15 years later, Congress still hasn't done anything about it.
We had every reason to think the banks had no idea what they were up to. We just charged ahead and demanded they expand their activities so more people could benefit from them.
I think either neither party wants to deal with the rot underlying modern business or both parties have something to gain from not addressing it. That to me looks more like systematic corruption than individual leadership.
quote: Healthcare would have already been addressed except for the mistake HIS party made the last time it was brought up.
Really? W is a terrible president because Clinton couldn't close the deal? Let's just say, I disagree with the caveat that I do think the GOP has gotten a little crazy on the healthcare front.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, I still think Afghanistan was the right thing to do, just 15 years too late. If his dad had dealt with the Taliban when they first started terrorizing a modern nation and forcing them into poverty and deplorable gender biases, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
Has nothing to do with whether it was right or wrong, the actual prosecution of the war was horribly bungled. Independent analysis and ex-generals alike have noted several key points in the war when massive mistakes were made that only allowed the Taliban to grow stronger, get smarter, and to counterattack with deadlier attacks of their own. There was a point when they were basically beat, but then Bush totally lost focus, and they came back worse than before.
If he wasn't going to go to war seriously, he should have left it alone. I agreed that it was a worthwhile endeavor, but not the way it was done. For that, Bush has to take the blame. He was commander in chief when the war was started, and prosecuted for almost a decade.
quote:Iraq's tougher. Personally, I suspect we'd have been looking at a bigger, nastier war if we hadn't acted. Leaving Saddam in power and the oil embargo in place was a little too Germany-post-WWI for my taste.
The major difference of course being that defeating Iraq's military has, for America, historically been child's play. We usually end up killing more of our own guys due to friendly fire than they do of ours. What exactly is this bigger nastier war?
Again though, going in or not going in, that's one debate, (and I'm on the "don't go in" team, for the record), but the actual prosecution of the war was horribly bungled. Can anyone have possibly forgotten the statements made by Rumsfeld and Cheney that we'd be in and out in a couple of months in a war that will pay for itself from oil money? Every major decision we made for years only made the situation worse, like disbanding the military and police, which sent hundreds of thousands of trained, armed, and angry out-of-work soldiers into the streets, who were instantly gobbled up by militias that formed overnight. We had no idea what we were doing, and hundreds of thousands died while we figured it out through trial and error. And it's not like Iraq is a utopia now. It's six to five and pick 'em whether or not Iraq succeeds as a functioning state, or devolves into lawlessness again. And we have no idea what that successful state will even look like. Will they be a puppet of Iran? Will they descend into civil war with the Kurds? Will they enact even harsher laws promoting strict Islamic law than were had under the generally secular Saddam?
No idea. And that's the point. We entered into that war with no friggin' clue as to what we were doing, what effects our actions would have, and what the long term outcome would be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's instinctively taken the wrong position on almost every issue and occasionally tries to retract. The American people are getting wise to him.
Even during the election he took Russia's side in the invasion of Georgia.
He instinctively supported Manuel Zelaya in Honduras...despite the fact that their supreme court ruled him out for trying to be the next Hugo Chavez.
He instinctively blamed the police and hoped a beer summit would undo it.
He supported the fraudulent elections in Iran.
He's opposed Israel every step of the way.
He supports the mosque in New York.
He passed a health care bill that the vast majority of citizens oppose.
He's going after Arizona for their immigration law that only mirrors federal laws, he will not enforce. A law that the majority of Americans support.
He's done. He is the first and hopefully only, post American president.
Americans want a commander and chief, not an apologizer and chief.
A "gaff" is when a politician accidentally speaks the truth. He's almost as gaff prone as Biden....thank God for that. American's are sick of the teleprompters and the least transparent executive branch....in decades.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We entered into that war with no friggin' clue as to what we were doing, what effects our actions would have, and what the long term outcome would be.
Ok, we do agree there. I'm not sure we've had an answer since WWII, really, but that's an excuse not an explanation.
I think my biggest problem with America is how reactionary we tend to be. We go into these conflicts to stop something, not to do something. I'm a big believer that you have to be working towards something or you'll never get anything done. I would love to see someone step up - Petraeus maybe? - and actually outline what victory in a modern war should look like.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
He's above American....a man of the world. He was touted as the great uniter....a man of the world. (reminds me of the dos equis commercials). Willing to talk to terrorist organizations and rouge regimes...Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. He's sympathetic to our enemies and understands their grievances,....he's a grievance peddler from south side Chicago. He's wise enough to understand that the attacks of 911 were partially our fault. He's tasked NASA to improve relations with the Muslim world.
Post American.....above America. Name another presidential candidate that gave a campaign speech near the Berlin Wall. Name another president that won a Nobel Peace prize two months after entering office. Much of the world loves him... he apologizes for America.
When Iran and North Korea feared America, the world was a much safer place. Have they fueled up that reactor yet? How's the investigation going from that N. Korean Torpedo?
Yes, America has been arrogant in the world. America was the arrogant jock who stood in the way of high school bullies. Not anymore. We have a community organizer with antipathy for American history trying to talk to our enemies.
Is the world safer than it was 2 years ago?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Afghanistan and Iraq are HIS mess.
See, I still think Afghanistan was the right thing to do, just 15 years too late. If his dad had dealt with the Taliban when they first started terrorizing a modern nation and forcing them into poverty and deplorable gender biases, we wouldn't have been in this mess.
Under what pretense, though? I don't think "Regime Change," in and of itself, could sell the war.
posted
malanthrop: I just wanted to know what you meant by it.
Are you really interested in discussing whether Obama is a "post-American" president as you have described it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do believe he is the first president to have allegiances outside of US interests. His upbringing, while well rounded in the worldy sense, is not America focused. He may very well be the first president to have held dual citizenship in multiple other nations. He does have experiences beyond America. He does have understanding of other nations beyond the normal US president. This can be good and bad. He's "post American"....he's a president that is not just an American...he held citizienship in other nations. Perhaps he is above it all due to his capacity to empathize with terrorists. His empathy seems only to make the world a more dangerous place.
Is this good or bad for the nation and the world?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Indonesia and England...via Kenya. He did go to Pakistan when no US passport holder was allowed to enter.
His father was Kenyan....he held British citizenship. His mother later married an Indonesian, where he lived and went to school.
Of course, no one wants to ask, what were the "Dreams of his father"? He named his premature arrogant autobiography, "Dreams of my father".
His father and mother were avid communists. His father hated the British for what they did in Kenya. Not really a suprise, he sent the Churchill bust from the oval office, back to England after entering office.
Obama was British via his Kenyan father and Indonesian via his Indonesian step father.
Under what citizenship did he visit Pakistan, where American passport holders weren't allowed.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Commander "in" chief talks to the generals fighting one of the longest wars in US history. Commanders and Chief,....play politics with war.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Indonesia and England...via Kenya. He did go to Pakistan when no US passport holder was allowed to enter.
His father was Kenyan....he held British citizenship. His mother later married an Indonesian, where he lived and went to school.
Of course, no one wants to ask, what were the "Dreams of his father"? He named his premature arrogant autobiography, "Dreams of my father".
His father and mother were avid communists. His father hated the British for what they did in Kenya. Not really a suprise, he sent the Churchill bust from the oval office, back to England after entering office.
Obama was British via his Kenyan father and Indonesian via his Indonesian step father.
Under what citizenship did he visit Pakistan, where American passport holders weren't allowed.
I was four when I moved to Asia with my family. I was 21 when I finally moved back to the United States. I visited the US to see family once a year, and I have only lived in the US seven years now.
Is my citizenship and affection for the United States suspect?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Of course, no one wants to ask, what were the "Dreams of his father"?
I'd just like to briefly note that this may be because he's spent an entire book answering that question. It would be like asking, "Hey, why does no one ask Rudy Giuliani which terrorist attack had the biggest effect on his worldview?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No it isn't. Your experience would be different than most Americans. Unfortunately for you, most Americans want a president that is purely American. Our current president's history was ignored. Really....the birthers are ridiculed, but without them, Obama's history would be as vapid as he wants it to be. We elected a president with an unknown past. McCain was sued by the DNC for being born in Panama and he released his college records. We have a president that holds a true press conference once per year and has hid his college records.
Americans don't usually react well to his unscripted words (Joe the plumber) and might not like his college thesis or international financial aid.
Americans like to have American presidents....not one's that traveled to banned foreign nations with a different nation's passport. This president couldn't get my security clearance, if he wasn't president. When your own autobiography spells out your affinity for Marxist and socialists....you're screwed come security clearance time.
I had to produce a birth certificate and they investigated my junior high school friends. Palling around with weather underground founders and having an autobiography about communist friends, would undermine that clearance.
He would never be cleared, but for his position. He couldn't even be an average communication's systems technician in the US military. He wouldn't pass the security clearance requirements.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually he probably could, my college teacher had a contract job with the US military and NATO as a systems analyst and his mother was born in the Ukraine, sure they investigated it but he still got his clearance for the 8ish years he worked there until he went to a career as a teacher.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: We entered into that war with no friggin' clue as to what we were doing, what effects our actions would have, and what the long term outcome would be.
Ok, we do agree there. I'm not sure we've had an answer since WWII, really, but that's an excuse not an explanation.
I think my biggest problem with America is how reactionary we tend to be. We go into these conflicts to stop something, not to do something. I'm a big believer that you have to be working towards something or you'll never get anything done. I would love to see someone step up - Petraeus maybe? - and actually outline what victory in a modern war should look like.
That's not really his job. It's the job of the Commander-in-Chief to define victory. It's the job of the general to either achieve it, or to tell the CinC that he can't do it with the tools he has.
The problem was that Bush's ideas of victory were just regime change and exit. He had absolutely no idea what to do once it became obvious that his ideas were overly simplistic in the extreme.
Now that things are a million times more complicated, we have to ask ourselves even harder questions. Can victory in Afghanistan be anything less than a western style liberal democracy? Can we live with making some sort of peace with the Taliban that keeps hostile anti-Americans out? What does this mean for locals that supported us and for that matter, the plight of women in Afghanistan, since we've made it a point to make their equality and education a major plank of the war's aims? Turning to Iraq, is a stable, unified Iraq the only victory, or can victory involve an independent Kurdistan? Are we willing to risk our alliance with the Turks to support them?
Bush never asked, or at least, never satisfactorily answered any of these questions. Obama now has to answer ALL of them.
Victory looks like whatever we want it to look like, or maybe more appropriately, whatever we can stomach it looking like. We could move the goal posts and call it a win today, and come home tomorrow. A win is whatever we say it is. I believe that our capabilities are such that, almost regardless of our objectives, we have the capacity to effect a change that will meet them. The problem thus far has been that we're only halfheartedly supporting grandiose goals that require a great deal more from us than we're willing to invest. So either we increase our investment, or we reduce our goals. It comes down to a political and strategic calculus in the end.
Part of our fundamental problem with these wars has been a reluctance on Bush's part to even recognize that this calculus exists. For him, it was a black and white issue.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It's the job of the Commander-in-Chief to define victory.
Should be. But since he might lose his job four years later for having done so, I kind of doubt we're going to see that. Our current string of presidents has been, in my opinion, pretty mediocre politicians. When was the last time we really had a leader willing to make the hard decisions?
And given the state of politics in the country, I don't think we're likely to get one anytime soon. I don't think he could even get elected.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Unfortunately for you, most Americans want a president that is purely American.
I would say unfortunately for everybody, when it comes to putting the words "pure" and "American" together it's impossible to get a consensus on what that is mal. That's why so many people were frustrated and offended when Palin talked about "real America." That phrase doesn't have any concrete meaning, it's just another way of saying, "enough like me that I am comfortable."
Many of my friends growing up were Americans - I went to an American school. I never once considered myself anything but an American. I've probably spent more time studying American history and politics in school, and during my spare time than most voters.
The President of the United States is also Chief Diplomat. Foreign experience is irreplaceable in this world where Washington and Beijing today are closer than Boston and Philadelphia ever were in 1776. Our economy is a global proposition, and we need Presidents who among other things understand global economy and politics at an intermediate level. Somebody with cultural sensitivity enough to recognize that bowing is to the Japanese what hand shaking is to Americans. That nobody in Japan said, "That's funny he bowed so low, it was as if we were in charge!"
I don't agree with President Obama's policies all the time. I'm puzzled as to why Iran is being permitted to do what it's doing. There's a chance President Obama is privy to information that I do not have, that necessitates this course of action, but perhaps not. But I despise the idea that the United States is supposed to be the biggest bully in the yard, who keeps all the other bullies from doing the more egregiously evil things, but recognizes that boys will be boys.
I'm all for a strong nation, that can smack down anybody who tries to kill us. But I'm also all for a wise nation, where the way we handle ourselves on the stage is worthy of admiration and emulation. There's nothing admirable about stepping on toes and shoving people, saying, "You were in America's way!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When your own autobiography spells out your affinity for Marxist and socialists....you're screwed come security clearance time.
Just for clarity: are you saying that people who are openly socialist are denied security clearances? Really?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So no one else thinks the celebration of the removal of the last combat brigade from Iraq is not "mission accomplished 2.0"?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've already surrendered. Our president spelled out to the world, an exit date. He gave advance notice for his surrender date. He's a loser.
No need to waste lives fighting Americans...they know when we're going to leave. Better to just wait. Iraq isn't going away....the turmoil there will be left to the next president....this one can claim victory for surrendering. If you're going to weed a garden, make sure you get the roots.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So how would you pay for staying in the war longer, and how many casualties are you willing to accept.
IP: Logged |
quote:We've already surrendered. Our president spelled out to the world, an exit date. He gave advance notice for his surrender date. He's a loser.
I've never understood how people who are so "pro-American" are so willing to do the propaganda work for our enemies. This practice of "We'll take something that is a good thing, or at least can definitely be seen as a good thing, and declare it a victory for our enemies." seems bizarre to me. Some of them no one would have considered it a victory and others, yeah, maybe some of the terrorists would try to take credit for it, but I don't think that many people would take them seriously. But now, people, so called loyal Americans, are declaring victory for them.
Why are you needlessly giving aid and comfort to our enemies?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So no one else thinks the celebration of the removal of the last combat brigade from Iraq is not "mission accomplished 2.0"?
Personally, I think the 'combat' brigade part of it is a bit of shell game with the re-labelling of brigades and increase in contractors.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So no one else thinks the celebration of the removal of the last combat brigade from Iraq is not "mission accomplished 2.0"?
Personally, I think the 'combat' brigade part of it is a bit of shell game with the re-labelling of brigades and increase in contractors.
I wouldn't say it's as empty and self serving as the Mission Accomplished thing, but it's definitely not any where near what it is being sold as.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, serious question, JanitorBlade: at what point does malanthrop get in any sort of official difficulty on constant lying, misstatements, and a refusal to stick to the subject when things turn against him? Is that just something the community gets to put up with? I think it's an important question when discussing malanthrop, because it's a given he won't honestly discuss things on his own.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there anything in the TOS about refusing to answer criticisms? If you wish to accuse him of intentionally lying or posting false information I'm amenable to reviewing it. But I can't punish him for having weak arguments that he does not back up if that is what you are complaining about.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't the TOS have a line about treating other posters with respect?
Clogging up the boards with his personal manifesto and refusing to engage other posters in honest debate sounds like a pretty clear sign of disrespect. Not all forms of insult come directly or use overtly disparaging language.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From my perspective, mal is pretty clearly a troll who has displayed no willingness to deal with posters on this board with respect or in good faith. Is it inappropriate to note this?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky: No, but that's not what Rakeesh said. I'm sorry you can't see the post as I edited it. I debate whether to leave problem posts up so people know why I did something, but it could just as easily lead to somebody getting annoyed it remains readable and doing something unfortunate.
-----
If you feel mal isn't discussing in good faith don't speak with him. If you can link me to egregious examples of him being disrespectful to other posters i.e insulting them, railing on them, lying about them, etc, I can work with that. Saying that somebody ignoring posts is disrespectful and therefore worthy of disciplinary action seems a bit too far to me.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even during the election he took Russia's side in the invasion of Georgia.
No, he didn't. "No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks."
He instinctively supported Manuel Zelaya in Honduras...despite the fact that their supreme court ruled him out for trying to be the next Hugo Chavez.
He never openly supported Zelaya. What he supported was the democratic election that put him in office. Not the same thing. Even the people behind the coup that ousted Zelaya admitted later they should not have done so militarily. Obama and the state dept. brokered a negotiation to return Zelaya to office just in time for another election, where the odds were heavy he would not be elected. Zelaya is currently publicly criticizing Obama for supporting his opponent.
He instinctively blamed the police and hoped a beer summit would undo it.
A valid point; Obama commented on the arrest without really knowing anything about it, a stupid move for any politician. The beer summit was intended to be a friendly way to soothe tempers and present a "regular guy" image, with decidedly mixed results.
(Hey, how come Obama drinks beer if he's supposed to be a Muslim? Or is he just a bad Muslim?)
He supported the fraudulent elections in Iran.
Nope. He expressed concerns over them, but said it would be counterproductive for the U.S. to "meddle." And this was true. As stated by the ranking Republican on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Richard G. Lugar, "For us to become heavily involved in the election at this point is to give the clergy an opportunity to have an enemy and to use us, really, to retain their power."
He's opposed Israel every step of the way.
He's opposed several statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the platform of Likud and the continuing occupation of Gaza and the West Bank without negotiation, yes. Does that mean he opposes Israel? Or just what they're trying to do now?
He supports the mosque in New York.
Even he went wishy washy on this one. The most he said was that he supports their right to build there. Since I also support their right, and unlike Obama fully endorse the Park51 center, I have no problem with this.
He passed a health care bill that the vast majority of citizens oppose.
I love this statement, because it includes in that majority the percentage of Americans who opposed it because it didn't go far enough. Seriously, I don't think you get to claim those numbers.
He's going after Arizona for their immigration law that only mirrors federal laws, he will not enforce. A law that the majority of Americans support.
It goes farther than federal laws, which is what the lawsuit is about in the first place. Personally, I'd like to see polls about illegal immigration taken from 2 years ago before the lies of increased immigration-based crime (debunked several ways) flooded the right-wing talking point airwaves.
You want to reduce illegal immigration? Streamline the naturalization process, create stricter laws against businesses that hire illegals and then actually prosecute them over and over until they get the idea, and make marijuana legal. Boom, illegal immigration drops to a trickle and you can monitor the border with three guys and a dog.
Now if you want complaints about Obama, I would agree with these:
He has not closed down Guantanamo Bay as promised.
Taking too long on Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Caved too many times on important aspects of the health care bill as well as many other bills the Republicans insisted on wrecking.
Doesn't do enough press conferences, I agree there.
Continued many of the worst Bush/Cheney security excesses.
He suffers from two main problems, I think. First; he wants to return the government to where the legislative body does the legislating, away from the last eight years of "Bush wants it, we'll sign it" attitudes. A balanced government, the way our Civics textbooks also said it was supposed to work. But right now we need a strong leader to help overcome the last strong leader, and to push past the obstructions heaped in the way by opponents who don't want the United States to succeed nearly as much as they want him to lose. Which is a problem because, secondly, he's far more a negotiator, even a statesman, than a leader.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: MrSquicky: No, but that's not what Rakeesh said. I'm sorry you can't see the post as I edited it. I debate whether to leave problem posts up so people know why I did something, but it could just as easily lead to somebody getting annoyed it remains readable and doing something unfortunate.
-----
If you feel mal isn't discussing in good faith don't speak with him. If you can link me to egregious examples of him being disrespectful to other posters i.e insulting them, railing on them, lying about them, etc, I can work with that. Saying that somebody ignoring posts is disrespectful and therefore worthy of disciplinary action seems a bit too far to me.
Oh no, I agree that mal doesn't do anything that calls for official disciplinary action and that often the people who respond to him seem to lack the self control to not cross clear boundaries and end up both needing official correction themselves and making it so mal is more rather than less likely to post here. The impression I got from what I read here was incorrect.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'd really like to see, that I never expect to in my lifetime?
When a president takes office and the opposing party throws its weight into cooperating with his/her goals to make sure their voice is included. I'd rather not see any bill with solely Dem or Repub input (which means, basically, lobbyist-written). I want some of both viewpoints, and a few more, in my legislation.
But when the opposing party refuses to be a part of it (or plans any "cooperation" in such a way as to be both crippling to the bill and politically dangerous for anyone to object to said crippling) our country is the poorer for it.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
