Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote: Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?

Hussein wasn't violent?

Before or after "we" sold him all those weapons ?

Are you saying that Pinochet wasn't a violent dictator ?

Pinochet? what does Pinochet have to do with anything?

dogma wrote:

Cairnius wrote:
Just a few examples. You can't judge a President until he is done. It's stupid to do otherwise. I don't give a gak what anyone thinks of Obama personally. I care about whether he leaves the country in better shape than he found it.

Wait, I thought part of living in a democracy was being ever-vigilant; always looking out for your own rights, and ensuring that your representatives understand what you want, or don't want done. That whole business pretty much requires forming an opinion on the current leadership (note that I am referring to the leader as defined by his policy, not his personality).

The original question was "Barack Obama...what do you think?" That question could be taken many ways. I took it as a question about his general worth as a President, which is what I spoke to. They way I took the question, it cannot be answered yet.

And let's just toss out the comment about being vigilant. I believe the days of Americans really being able to effect their democracy are long behind us. Even when you see this "tremendous grass roots movement" behind Obama it doesn't actually reflect his popularity or political capital. He can't even push past Republican obstructionists and make his own party fall into line.

In terms of policy - other than the eternal debate over how much influence the President really has over the economy, what has Obama really done so far that we're seeing concrete results of? We have a little more money in my paycheck, the world doesn't seem to hate us that much, some people are getting money for car trade-ins, he gave out a nice array of Medals of Freedom, and he's putting more troops into Afghanistan whose results we aren't really seeing yet.

I don't give him credit for pulling us back in Iraq, that was going to happen no matter who was in office because the Iraqi government set those terms and timelines, not us.

dogma wrote:
And, on that note.

Cairnius wrote:
Thanks to Bush and the Republican majorities in Congress for six of his eight years that is unfortunately not a very high bar to meet...

Meet...

Cairnius wrote:
3) Someone who doesn't understand how long it takes to get things done in Washington and/or the amount of time between legislation getting passed or policy enacted and actually taking effect enough for anyone to have an intelligent opinion as to whether said legislation/policy was good or not.

Your argument against forming opinions with respect to the current President has roughly the same amount of worth when applied to recent Presidents. It almost seems as if your entire list was constructed as a form of self-critiquing projection.

We've already seen the results of Bush's policies. We're living them. Arguing the point is just mind-boggling in its lack of common sense - therefore, trying to contrast those two statements of mine makes no logical sense whatsoever. Apples and oranges in the extreme.

Perhaps Bush is an anomaly historically due to how immediately his policies had drastic and lasting effects, but then again he would also be a historical anomaly in just how poor a President he was.

Frazzled wrote:Pinochet? what does Pinochet have to do with anything?

Because for every "violent dictator" you've overthrown you've helped install and place in power another one somewhere else just as bad. You're more than happy to shout on and on about all the "good" you've done, yet seem woefully quiet or ignorant when it comes to any harm you've done, to the point where any criticism of the USA is seem as some monstrous and unjust form of attack.

You being used in the general sense here of course, Mr. Frazzled not yet being personally responsible for the foreighn policy of his country. Yet.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Pinochet? what does Pinochet have to do with anything?

Because for every "violent dictator" you've overthrown you've helped install and place in power another one somewhere else just as bad. You're more than happy to shout on and on about all the "good" you've done, yet seem woefully quiet or ignorant when it comes to any harm you've done, to the point where any criticism of the USA is seem as some monstrous and unjust form of attack.

You being used in the general sense here of course, Mr. Frazzled not yet being personally responsible for the foreighn policy of his country. Yet.

Its not the point of "any" criticism, its the nattering nabobs who always inevitably end a thread dragging it into America evil. Nuts. As stated, I am more than willing for the US to go its own way. To mutilate the title of an old Japanese book A US That Can Say No

I haven't read the whole thread so far, but I wanted to add my thoughts anyway. As you can see from the little flag next to my avatar I live in Germany. So I don't get quite as much information about his politics as you guys across the pond nor do I feel the impcat he makes on taxes or the healthcare system and stuff like that.
I guess I kinda got pulled along with the pro-Obama crowd. So far I don't see why he should screw up anything as much as his predecessor did.

Also, I want to sahre this with you.

I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote: Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?

Hussein wasn't violent?

Before or after "we" sold him all those weapons ?

Oh, you mean all of that Russian, Chinese and Frence equipment that the Iraqi army was using? Don't recall any US equipment being used against us.

halonachos wrote:I mean he has said some good things like how education is the key to the future. However that doesn't make up for the fact that Mrs. Obama went to england for fish and chips on the taxpayers expense or how they used air force 1 to get a better look at the fireworks. Couple that with him saying that we all need to cutback expenses makes him look like a deustch.

Uhm.....deustch? German? It makes him look German? Or did you mean to say "douche"? By the way, he is the president after all, and that job does come with a few perks. I mean, that's kinda like why everybody wants to be the president. Are you saying you wouldn't partake if you were the leader of the free world?

generalgrog wrote:[On to the America hate...people seem to forget that the U.S.A. was the only country in 1945 with atomic bombs. If we really wanted to, we could have held the world hostage or bombed our way across every capital city in the world.

Except that we couldn't, because we blew our two working bombs over Japan, and really didn't kill all that many people (we had a couple more in development, but hardly the capability to start mass producing A-bombs). Also, Truman wasn't really that keen on the idea of dropping them in the first place you may recall. They were powerful and shocking, yes, but nothing a wing of b-17's couldn't do with a dedicated carpet bombing raid. Basically, the Japanese folded instead of calling our bluff, because if we would have had to invade Japan, it would have been kinda ugly.

Some perks yes. Freaking out downtown Manhatten for a PR pic that could have been done on photoshop-no (and why does Air Force one need PR again?)

At the end of WWII the US had the largest empire in the history of mankind. To quote some nice LOTR, we had but to reach out our hand and the world would have been ours. But we gave it up. No other nation ever voluntarily did that.

Eh, depends how you define empire. After WW2, America definitely had an empire but it was rivaled by the Soviet Union. We had an empire via several military bases and embassies across the world and more importantly America's has had the world by its balls in terms of economic power. America never really let go and just grew instead.

As for that Air Force One PR stunt; that was a relatively bad idea however speaking as a student pilot myself I sure as hell wouldn't pass up that opportunity. Thats a once in a lifetime chance to fly low in a post 9/11 NYC!

Yes, but we had the nukes before russia did so, a few here, a few there and... OH LOOK IT IS AMERICA THE WORLD'S CONQUEROR!!


Oh, and no I wouldn't use air force 1 to go get fish and chips or to punch jervis in the face, no matter how tempting it would be. To tell the truth, I hate spending money that isn't my own.

Tyras wrote:I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.

This would make a lot more sense if the GOP didn't have a history of reckless spending, as evidenced by the Reagan and Bush II administrations. The GOP stopped being the party of financial sanity a looooooong time ago. The only difference between the GOP and Dems on spending is WHAT they want to spend our taxes on.

If they ever get back being a party of fiscal restraint and stop shoving puritianism down my throat, they might start capturing the vote of this registered independent.

This thread is starting to hurt.

Look, the US is the dominant power in the world. It has exercised that power to do some very good things, contributing to the defeat of Germany, defeating Japan, the Marshall Plan and plenty of others. It has also used the power to do some horrible and or stupid things, engineering the coup that put Pinochet in power, or that whole Iraq thing. It has a history full of good and bad.

Reasoned commentary on US foreign policy needs to recognise both sides.

Zathras wrote:

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

reds8n wrote: Wait, you're now claiming that you helped overthrow a violent dictator ? Bet those Chileans are feeling pretty stupid now eh ?

Hussein wasn't violent?

Before or after "we" sold him all those weapons ?

Oh, you mean all of that Russian, Chinese and Frence equipment that the Iraqi army was using? Don't recall any US equipment being used against us.

We gave Iraq substantial aid back when we considered them the lesser evil compared to the religious fundamentalists (mainly Iran) in the region. IIRC, there's a photo op pic out there from the 1970s with Saddam and (ironically) either Rumsfeld or Cheney (can't remember which). I can't tell you what percentage was weapons, cash, etc., but we absolutely did help fund Iraq's war vs. Iran. (Iran who was our enemy because they hated the Shah, whom the U.S. helped set up.)

We prop up a dictator, dictator turns on us or becomes less useful, we knock him down and prop up a new one, rinse and repeat. You'd think we'd learn eventually.

Damn you for your moderate thinking sebster! We're americans, we don't think rationally.

@gorgon, remember who it was that ended slavery...

But the parties are starting to lose their differences.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorgon, we also gave aircraft to the Iranians and Israelis. It's called playing the field.

He's a dastardly, ghastardly, shnasterdly, schnook,
Trying to brainwash our brains,
With his gobbledy guk.
I know what he's up to pal.
He's trying to shatter our morale.
He's trying to stir up discontent.
And seize the reigns of government.
He's trying to throw sand in our eyes.
He's trying to kill free enterprise.
And raise the cost of figs and dates,
And wreck our compound interest rates.
And shut our schools,
And steal our jewels,
And even change our football rules.
Take away our garden tools,
And lock us up in vestibules...

Tyras wrote:I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.

:sigh:

Stimulus spending in response to economic downturn as per Keynesian theory. It's the most basic macroeconomic theory there is, and very intuitive. Go read about and you'll have a much better understanding of the fiscal policy of your government.

Oh... KEYNESIAN, I thought it was KEYESIAN. No wonder I couldn't find the right thing.

But yes, that's what we do. That's why we have the postal service and fed-ex and UPS.

Although the stimulus could've been better handled.

sebster wrote:

Tyras wrote:I think that Obama is like a kid reaching their hand into the cookie jar. He's trying to get as much spending as he can get before the public catches him and his reckless policies become politically untenable with the 2010 elections coming around. The Democrat Congress/Senate are the kids hanging around at the bottom of the stool Obama's standing on to reach the cookie jar egging him on to grab more cookies. Without the threat of a veto that they faced under a Republican President (not that he didn't have reckless spening of his own) they're trying to get as much as they can while they're not having to face campaign adds pointing out their irresponsible spending.

:sigh:

Stimulus spending in response to economic downturn as per Keynesian theory. It's the most basic macroeconomic theory there is, and very intuitive. Go read about and you'll have a much better understanding of the fiscal policy of your government.

1. Never proven to actually, you know, work or anything.

2. They've spent 10% of the "emergency funds" to date. Most of that money was in tax rebates/abatements (whatever you call it). The actual "spending side of it is materially insignificant. The emergency stimulus was Dem porkbarrel pure and simple.

Looks like yet another thread turned into "America is Da Evil!!!!! RAWR!!"

Seriously, no other country on the face of the earth has ANY room to talk about anything we do or have done, cause in your shoddy past.. you have done things just as bad if not worse.

Maybe we could make the world love us.

We bombed Japan and now they're nice to us so...

Dont tell Frazz, he already is looking for an excuse to press his big red button.

Wait, you mean like this?

I prefer this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKKHSAE1gIs







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

.

I am stealing this image too buahahah

sebster wrote:
Really? I mean, he's said some pretty outrageous stuff over the years. He's also said plenty of reasonable stuff, and is valued because he does speak his own mind and not parrot party position, but I'm surprised you'd have that much time for him. Interesting.

The way I look at is that he's somewhat like me. I've said some pretty whack stuff over time (though I'm 23, this is to be expected), but I've also said some insightful stuff. Ideologically we certainly don't agree, mostly because I strive to be without ideology, but I can appreciate his passion in the same way I appreciate my own.

sebster wrote:
If hypothetical Dogma ran for hypothetical election I would hypothetically vote for him.

And so it begins...



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cairnius wrote:
We've already seen the results of Bush's policies. We're living them. Arguing the point is just mind-boggling in its lack of common sense - therefore, trying to contrast those two statements of mine makes no logical sense whatsoever. Apples and oranges in the extreme.

Wait, what? So we aren't living Obama's policy, but we're living Bush's because some arbitrary period of time (6 months) has passed since he left office. That's absurd, absolutely absurd. You're simply making excuses predicated on your own ideological affiliations.

Cairnius wrote:
Perhaps Bush is an anomaly historically due to how immediately his policies had drastic and lasting effects, but then again he would also be a historical anomaly in just how poor a President he was.

This is all predicated on the notion that he was the single causal force for all of our suffered ills, which doesn't really stand when you consider the various trends established by previous Administrations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
1. Never proven to actually, you know, work or anything.

You forgot about WWII? I didn't think you were that old.

Frazzled wrote:
2. They've spent 10% of the "emergency funds" to date. Most of that money was in tax rebates/abatements (whatever you call it). The actual "spending side of it is materially insignificant. The emergency stimulus was Dem porkbarrel pure and simple.

Only if you refuse to acknowledge tax breaks as a form of spending.

dogma wrote:

Cairnius wrote:
We've already seen the results of Bush's policies. We're living them. Arguing the point is just mind-boggling in its lack of common sense - therefore, trying to contrast those two statements of mine makes no logical sense whatsoever. Apples and oranges in the extreme.

Wait, what? So we aren't living Obama's policy, but we're living Bush's because some arbitrary period of time (6 months) has passed since he left office. That's absurd, absolutely absurd. You're simply making excuses predicated on your own ideological affiliations.

Bush was President for EIGHT YEARS. Obama has been President for six months. We are living Bush's policies because they have been in place for quite some time. Obama has only implemented a few, and several of them have yet to bear any real fruit (stimulus, changed plan of action in the war).

If I am making excuses you are arguing for its own sake. Pick another, more viable argument if you want to intellectually fence with me. This one of yours makes no sense whatsoever. We have had plenty of time to begin making some judgments on Dumbya. Much longer than six months. We're nowhere near even preliminary judgments of Obama along the same lines that make any sense.

dogma wrote:

Cairnius wrote:
Perhaps Bush is an anomaly historically due to how immediately his policies had drastic and lasting effects, but then again he would also be a historical anomaly in just how poor a President he was.

This is all predicated on the notion that he was the single causal force for all of our suffered ills, which doesn't really stand when you consider the various trends established by previous Administrations.

You will usually hear me argue that the President has much less power and influence than most people think he does. Bush does not have to be a single, causal force to be judged. He is the Commander In Chief - Iraq and Afghanistan get laid on his doorstep. I am pretty sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and that the retaliation against the Taliban would have taken a different form.

The tax cuts were more standard Republican ideology than Bush's idea, but he did push the cuts. He takes a large portion of the blame as he was leading a Republican legislative majority.

He did basically let Cheney run the white house and in so doing gave the Neo-Cons unpredecented power.

He did allow Guantanamo to become a clearinghouse for pissing all over our laws. He did champion the Patriot Act. He did give the right-wing religious whackos and extreme right-wingers access to the executive branch.

If Bush's presidency were to be summed up, it would be "Took vacations and let other people run the country for him." He was "the decider," but who gave him the information from which he made his decisions and how much did he inquire, how much leadership did he show?

History can blame Bush for all of this. His lack of leadership allowed the United States to be run by narrow interests for eight years, and that's his fault. He could have manned up and actually been a President any time he wanted, and he chose not to, probably because he knew he was hopelessly over his head.

Cairnius wrote:
Bush was President for EIGHT YEARS. Obama has been President for six months. We are living Bush's policies because they have been in place for quite some time. Obama has only implemented a few, and several of them have yet to bear any real fruit (stimulus, changed plan of action in the war).

OH NO! CAPITALS! Eight years is nothing. For someone who discusses the lesson of history so freely, you seem horribly unable to actually apply them to your own observation.

Cairnius wrote:
If I am making excuses you are arguing for its own sake. Pick another, more viable argument if you want to intellectually fence with me. This one of yours makes no sense whatsoever. We have had plenty of time to begin making some judgments on Dumbya. Much longer than six months. We're nowhere near even preliminary judgments of Obama along the same lines that make any sense.

I like this topic just fine. You're vulnerable here, because your stance is moronic. The deprivation of agency becomes no argument.

Cairnius wrote:
You will usually hear me argue that the President has much less power and influence than most people think he does. Bush does not have to be a single, causal force to be judged. He is the Commander In Chief - Iraq and Afghanistan get laid on his doorstep. I am pretty sure that Gore would not have invaded Iraq, and that the retaliation against the Taliban would have taken a different form.

Wait, the President has little power, but can be blamed for major actions in foreign policy? That's contradictory.

Also, what would the retaliation against the Taliban have looked like under a Gore Administration? How would it have been different?

Cairnius wrote:
The tax cuts were more standard Republican ideology than Bush's idea, but he did push the cuts. He takes a large portion of the blame as he was leading a Republican legislative majority.

More waffling stupidity. If you're going to blame him, blame him. If not, make a case based on intellectual consideration.

Also, when did blame become useful? This looks more like catharsis than argument.

Cairnius wrote:
He did basically let Cheney run the white house and in so doing gave the Neo-Cons unpredecented power.

He makes a coherent point! But a bad one. Cheney may have run the White House, but he was only able to do so as a result of the Neo-Con saturation of the Executive. Cheney had power because the Neo-Cons were everywhere, not because Bush delegated his authority.

Cairnius wrote:
He did allow Guantanamo to become a clearinghouse for pissing all over our laws. He did champion the Patriot Act. He did give the right-wing religious whackos and extreme right-wingers access to the executive branch.

Oh, dear sweet Jesus. Shall I litanize the near comprehensive support for all of these initiatives? Or should I just point out the Realpolitik justification which underpins them?

Cairnius wrote:
If Bush's presidency were to be summed up, it would be "Took vacations and let other people run the country for him." He was "the decider," but who gave him the information from which he made his decisions and how much did he inquire, how much leadership did he show?

Sic Semper Obama.

Cairnius wrote:
History can blame Bush for all of this. His lack of leadership allowed the United States to be run by narrow interests for eight years, and that's his fault. He could have manned up and actually been a President any time he wanted, and he chose not to, probably because he knew he was hopelessly over his head.

History can blame him? When did it become history? I thought his policies were matters of current events?

I tip my cap to you, armchair intellectual. You remind me why I disdain the academy.

Dogma wrote:I tip my cap to you, armchair intellectual. You remind me why I disdain the academy.

Trust me... Dogma can throw down internet style!!!



Do not deny his skill, or woe be to those who who do, for his style is unrivaled... BANANA!!!

Bananas are delicious. Especially when Fostered.



Eat it, I dare you.