Barack Obama

Aztec Triogal

Aztec Triogal

3-7-77
Veteran
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
2,973
Age
40
Location
Williamsport, PA
Gil
0
Now his first 100 days isn't up until April 29th but I'm curious to hear what Americans (and anyone interested in American politics) think of the man so far. He hasn't done a whole hell of a lot. Been on more interviews than anything else but he did shut down Guantanamo already.

My general opinion of him has always been that because I'm a republican I don't think I can stand behind his political views, but he seems like a straightforward and respectable person. I can't help but like the guy and think he's going to be good for the nation in general, even if he doesn't necessarily promote the ideals I like. Especially in matters that relate to finance and industry, I'm not sure I can ever see things "his way"... but I've come to respect his ideals on other issues.

Comments?
 
I think that even if you disagree with the man, one has to respect all that he has managed to accomplish over a period of 60 days. I can't think of too many other presidents outside of FDR who have been handed such a poor hand both domestically and with regards to foreign affairs. He seems confident, as though he has a vision of what he wishes to accomplish.

The thing that impresses me the most about him is that in today's instant gratification, screw the long term for what works now society, he gets that the big picture is more important, and isn't willing to sacrifice the future for the political whims of today.
 
I'm waiting to make my opinion solidified. But its hard to have any positive thoughts about his term so far... any time his speech writer isn't present the man puts his foot in his mouth, so fuck all those people who voted for him because he's supposedly such a great speaker, and the only two things he's really done so far (keep in mind... I've been without any news source for the past two weeks) is close Guantanamo with absolutely zero consideration for what to do with the prisoners, and pass a spending bill, I mean, stimulus bill that scares everybody so much they still won't spend money.. partially because the companies that the government will be pouring their money into will simply use it to pay off debt, not increase spending.

Now I have no doubt that things can work out. He has a background in economics, so it isn't like he randomly came up with these plans. And while I really don't like him, he's in charge of my country now so I respect his position, and I hope he proves me wrong. I just don't think he will. Eventually the free market system will *gasp* do its job and fix itself, and then he'll take full credit for it.

Ha, now I really don't know what I think at all. So... I think he has a shot, and if he doesn't follow that really narrow line he will only be in the history books in 50-100 years for being the first black president, nothing more.

EDIT: and a big HA to all you who ignore my posts usually! I said something anti-Obama so you can't ignore me now!
 
Lol, that's quite the attitude you've got there. :3

Anyhoo, I voted for the guy, which, of course, means I very much respect and like him. I think he's great - not perfect, obviously, but it's kind of difficult to judge him based on the fact that he hasn't had much time to make all that much of a difference. I mean, come on, we go back to people like Regan when I was born and the country was still fucked. Albeit not as bad as we are now, but since the dawning of U.S history we've been digging ourselves this nice little hole. Now after the last few presidents, Obama is left with this huge mess and he's outright said there's no way he's going to be able to completely fix it, which I think is down right ballsy. Most people wouldn't admit something like that. Instead, they'd spit out some crap they know we wanna hear and chalk it up to God who's gonna save us.

Obama won't be able to make all that big of a difference in 100 days, nor will he be able to when his 4 years is up. Who knows if the country will even reelect him, unlike Bush when American's were too scared to vote for someone different because of this "war" we are in. I do feel, however, that his efforts are something we definitely need right now, so kudos to him.
 
Ok, I am going to say this but one of the main reasons I hate talking Politics is all of the fights that escalate. So please, if you are going to read my post, realize that it is my view and even if you don't agree with it let's not start a flame war.

I do not like Obama. I liked him at first, but then I hated the way he treated Hillary. He began to seem like he was fake. Especially the way he talked about people. For example, when he was talking about his own Grandmother (I believe that's who it was) he called her a "typical white person". Now, that just doesn't seem right to me. As a white guy I would get all kinds of nasty remarks if I said that someone was a "typical black person". I hate that Obama is treated as a rock star. Bush did horrible in my opinion, but Obama can't just become President and fix this economy and this world over night the way some people act like he can. I want a President, a leader, not a rockstar.

So far I haven't seen anything that he has done that I have really hated. However, he hasn't done much. I mean come on. He is treated as a God, and what has he done? I am not a Republican nor a Democrat. I am now in the middle, or Independent I guess you would say. I lean towards Democratic views in most cases, but neither Democrats nor Republicans are perfect and neither of them believe the exact way I do. After all the great things Hillary said about Obama, and she didn't even get the VP nod. That really ticked me off. Even though she lost, and people treated him like a God and her like a monster, she STILL supported him in the election.

Obama is a very smart man. Perhaps a little manipulative though, but it takes smarts to be able to manipulate anyways. I do believe he is a bit fake. I don't think he is as nice as he tries to be, and tries to show he is. That's just my opinion though. I just get a fake vibe by him. It's going to take a lot to redo what Bush did, and I don't think Obama will fill those shoes. We can only go up guys. Even if the economy is a lot better when Obama gets through, it should be. We are so down in the dumps that the only way we can go is up. Sure we could go a little bit lower and be completely on Ground Zero, but more than likely we will only rise. I just don't want people to be surprised when even if our economy is better in four years, Obama didn't bring the entire world to peace or something. In my eyes that's how highly people see of him, and he just isn't going to be as great as anyone would like. I do want everyone to know though, he may still do good. He may even do great, who knows. These are all just my opinions, but I am certainly not counting him out or his will to lead our Country.
 
Sorry for the short-ish post, but when he came out and said that there is no way that he can fix the economy in his first, or second, term... it was really a tactic to permanently remove any blame from himself, no matter even if he intentionally screwed up the entire country... Pres. Obama could destroy the stock market and declare revolution and the blame will forever now rest on the shoulders of Bush. I am not saying he is planning on it, just that his saying that was/is/will be his only reason for saying it.

And, of course, we as a country are the most freaking narrow-minded "open-minded" people ever, so when he says things like that everyone just accepts it as fact. NOT critically thinking is what got us in this mess, why... the... fuck... are we not thinking critically now? We need to stop blindly following a man who is obviously flawed, he isn't god, therefor not every decision he makes will be the correct one.

Gah, sorry I ranted again. That wasn't irected to anybody in particular, just america in general. Our average IQ is dropping just as fast as our literacy rate, and it frustrates the hell out of me.
 
His repeal of the ban on stem-cell research gets the thumbs up from me.

His plan for troop removal gets a "meh" from me, considering it's almost exactly the same thing Bush said before he left office.

Tough to judge 100 days worth of work, considering how long it takes things to get through Congress, and the President, in reality, can only do so much. Congress does most of the leg work. But I think he'll bring more to the table than he'll take away, in the long run. And right now, we need as much as we can get.
 
He's currently in the middle of making a speech about how he will basically punish people for donating to charities... and it's probably the first thing I've really heard from him that pisses me off. It's bullshit and he knows it.

He kept referencing that if people donated $100 dollars to a charity, as it stands now, 39% of that (39 bucks) could be exempt on their taxes. He wants to lower that exemption percentage... basically meaning that the government would take more money from any person who donated to charity.

And to justify it he says that people who donate to charities, he believes, are good people who have only good intended by their donations... which if that's true... basically means he's punishing good people for doing good things. The truth is, a truth which he denies, that rich bastards use charities for tax loopholes and lowering their tax exemption percentage is really just a good way to milk their cashflow... but he refuses to say that. The only good thing about it is it would basically take the same from both a rich or poor person base on the percentage donated... so it's basically a flat tax, which I like.

The thing that gets my goat, I think, is not so much the concept... but that he's clearly talking out both sides of his mouth. He's basically doing something that is cheap and underhanded... but doing it as a declaration as a great wonderful thing. And unless you're a complete fucking moron (democrat), you can see right through it.
 
"And to justify it he says that people who donate to charities, he believes, are good people who have only good intended by their donations... which if that's true... basically means he's punishing good people for doing good things."

Well, if they're truly good people, they'd do it without the tax break wouldn't they?

The problem is the wealthy don't donate to charities out of the goodness of their hearts. They do it specifically for the tax breaks so they significantly lower their tax burden. Middle to lower class families don't have the same option, so we're placing a higher tax burden on those with less money. I don't see the problem in dropping the percentage a dozen or so points, especially considering the tax revenue that could create in the current state of the economy.
 
CassinoChips said:
Well, if they're truly good people, they'd do it without the tax break wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

Which is his superficial stance on the matter... but I have a serious problem with that. It's punishing good people for doing something charitable and philantropic. The excuse "oh don't worry, we can take advantage of them because they're nice" is bullshit. That's the equivelant of punching someone in the chops and saying "Well I thought he wouldn't mind". That's a terrible explanation... but what's worse is its utter bullshit. The second part of your post is why he's actually doing it. So why lie about it, especially when your cover-up is worse than the actual reason?
 
What's the difference between a cover-up and a reason? Interpretation.

Frankly I'm all for anything that places the tax burden on those who can afford it. He's not punishing people for "being nice." He's closing a loophole that allowed people to take advantage of charitable donations. So you'll forgive me if I don't feel any sympathy for him "taking advantage" of people who were taking advantage of people.
 
I wouldn't be so critical of Obama. He's entering into a presidency that is dealing with many major issues. I believe Obama is doing the best he can so far.

As a president, you have limited powers. Major powers are commander and chief of the us army, picking a cabinet, veto, pardoning anyone, and a few others. Besides that that, the biggest concerned about being the President of the US is being the face of America. The president is America, and whatever he/she does or says, will be associated with America and will effect on how the rest of the world sees America/Americans.

If McCain would have won, I don't believe our foreign affairs would be any better when Bush was in office. Maybe much later on, but who knows? The world would associate McCain with Bush, and America will continue to have that 'white man power' reputation.

With Obama in office immediately our foreign affairs healed up. The world cheered and celebrated when Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States. During the past few months Obama has been visiting several countries, trying to change America's bad reputation. Hell, he already met with Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela) to remove those negative tensions between the US and Venezuela.

Our economy wasn't as great as it use to be but eventually it will heal up. This isn't the first economic crisis America faced. Obama won't be able to wave a magical wand to heal the economic crisis over night.

I think Obama is doing the best he can. I do feel pretty bad for the guy since he entered into a rough administration. Not only that, he's dealing with racial and conservative tensions among some Americans.
 
Muninn said:
I think that even if you disagree with the man, one has to respect all that he has managed to accomplish over a period of 60 days. I can't think of too many other presidents outside of FDR who have been handed such a poor hand both domestically and with regards to foreign affairs. He seems confident, as though he has a vision of what he wishes to accomplish.

The thing that impresses me the most about him is that in today's instant gratification, screw the long term for what works now society, he gets that the big picture is more important, and isn't willing to sacrifice the future for the political whims of today.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me?

I have absolutely no respect for Obama.

He isn't even constitutionally qualified to be president. He's not a natural-born citizen.

You know, I get so tired of trying to even put my disdain for him into words. It seems impossible some times. He has done so many things worth hating him for, that I can barely think about it without getting a headache and becoming nauseous.

Obama voted AGAINST the Born-Alive Infant's Protection Act. It was a piece of legislation that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants that survived abortions.

Are you aware of what they do to infants that survive abortions (which is already murder)? They leave them to die. They don't even provide them with euthanasia. They just refuse them of food and water, and leave them to rot.

And that's the kind of fucking "hope" and "change" you support?

Fucking disgusting and pathetic.
 
Axmann said:
Obama voted AGAINST the Born-Alive Infant's Protection Act. It was a piece of legislation that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants that survived abortions.

Are you aware of what they do to infants that survive abortions (which is already murder)? They leave them to die. They don't even provide them with euthanasia. They just refuse them of food and water, and leave them to rot.
Click to expand...
While I am in support for choice for abortion (while being personally against the idea, I'd never have one myself) I have to say, that is really quite disgusting.
A small percentage of aborted babies, do survive, and to just leave them there to die - once they are now living, breathing, babies outside of the womb - is downright inhumane.

To reject a legislation that would enforce medical care for surviving newborns of failed abortions, is just horrendous. I didn't even know they didn't provide them medical treatment to preserve their lives.. It is the medical professions duty to preserve and maintain ALL life, and correct me if I'm wrong, but while that child was 'unwanted' by the birth parents, and wasn't meant to survive - it did - and now that it is born, it is a life, that needs care as much as any newborn.

Any parent that kills their new born baby is trialed for murder. Just because the abortion didn't work, somehow it makes it okay? That doesn't sit right with me. :/

Anyway, about Obama. I do not support him at all.. for quite a few reasons, one of them being that I'm just not on the same political stance as him. But also there is a huge vibe I get from him that I just do not like; he's not genuine. I find his whole demeanor fake and manipulative. Sure his speeches have good scripts, but without them he'd put his foot in his mouth like any George W Bush. And at least George Bush was more amusing when he did it.. :)

I'm sick of people going on about him like he's the new Messiah. You'd think he was bigger than Led Zeppelin, the way some people odolise him. >_> And I don't see that it's deserved, thus far. I also think that kind of blind odolization is dangerous in a leader of a country - you should question your leaders at every step. They work for YOU.
 
Last edited:
Axmann said:
Are you kidding me?

I have absolutely no respect for Obama.

He isn't even constitutionally qualified to be president. He's not a natural-born citizen.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, Hawaii was a state. Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen. Therefore, he is a natural-born citizen. He is also 35 or older, and has lived in the US for the past 14 years or more. Thus, constitutionally qualified.

Unless of course you're sitting on the smoking gun of evidence that everybody else has missed. Which I doubt.

Axmann said:
Obama voted AGAINST the Born-Alive Infant's Protection Act. It was a piece of legislation that would require doctors to provide medical care to infants that survived abortions.

Are you aware of what they do to infants that survive abortions (which is already murder)? They leave them to die. They don't even provide them with euthanasia. They just refuse them of food and water, and leave them to rot.
Click to expand...

He voted against the BAIPA in the Illinois state legislature. The Act was passed through the House and Senate before Obama was a Senator. The reason he voted against it at the state level was because it was worded differently from the Federal version and did not create the same protections/limitations as it did at the Federal level.
 
CassinoChips said:
Last I checked, Hawaii was a state. Obama was born in Hawaii to an American citizen. Therefore, he is a natural-born citizen. He is also 35 or older, and has lived in the US for the past 14 years or more. Thus, constitutionally qualified.

Unless of course you're sitting on the smoking gun of evidence that everybody else has missed. Which I doubt.
Click to expand...
Oh, really? He was born in Hawaii? Interesting, because he has spent millions in legal fees avoiding producing a copy of his original, long-form birth certificate. The "Certification of Live Birth" which was "produced" by his campaign was 1, proven to be a forgery by a qualified PhD, Dr. Ron Polarik (http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/) and 2, these were given to non-residents of Hawaii at the time.

How much does it take to get through peoples' heads that HE HAS NOT PRODUCED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND HAS SPENT MILLIONS TRYING TO AVOID DOING SO!?

Doesn't that seem odd, that he would try THAT HARD to prevent it from being released?

Do me a favor, and hold your breath until he produces a legit BC that says he was born in Hawaii, kay?


CassinoChips said:
He voted against the BAIPA in the Illinois state legislature. The Act was passed through the House and Senate before Obama was a Senator. The reason he voted against it at the state level was because it was worded differently from the Federal version and did not create the same protections/limitations as it did at the Federal level.
Click to expand...
Oh, really?

It didn't used to be called anything other than the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act", did it?

Come now, we aren't going to pretend that the text of a bill named so specifically could change drastically, are we? I would hope not.

Point? He voted AGAINST a bill titled the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" Bills are named the way they are names for a reason, my dear friend.
 
Axmann said:
Oh, really? He was born in Hawaii? Interesting, because he has spent millions in legal fees avoiding producing a copy of his original, long-form birth certificate. The "Certification of Live Birth" which was "produced" by his campaign was 1, proven to be a forgery by a qualified PhD, Dr. Ron Polarik (http://polarik.blogtownhall.com/) and 2, these were given to non-residents of Hawaii at the time.

How much does it take to get through peoples' heads that HE HAS NOT PRODUCED A BIRTH CERTIFICATE, AND HAS SPENT MILLIONS TRYING TO AVOID DOING SO!?

Doesn't that seem odd, that he would try THAT HARD to prevent it from being released?

Do me a favor, and hold your breath until he produces a legit BC that says he was born in Hawaii, kay?
Click to expand...

Thanks for playing.

It's been fun.

Any more questions?

Axmann said:
Oh, really?

It didn't used to be called anything other than the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act", did it?

Come now, we aren't going to pretend that the text of a bill named so specifically could change drastically, are we? I would hope not.

Point? He voted AGAINST a bill titled the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act" Bills are named the way they are names for a reason, my dear friend.
Click to expand...

Amazingly, two bills can have the same name and yet have different wording if one is at the state level and the other is at the Federal level. As was the case here. Yes, the titles are the same. But the verbiage in the bills is different. Much like Hollywood may remake a movie with some slight tweaks to the plot, the BAIPA voted on at the Federal level differs from the BAIPA voted on in the Illinois state legislature.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top