Barack Obama: Change, but to what end?

oscarBravo

11:11 wrote: »

I have been giving considerable thought to the next president of the United States of America, and like most people was taken back by him in general.

"Most people"? Riight.

Obama's keywords have always been "Change", "Hope" and "Believe". Now, when his campaign first started people went nuts. They thought that change is finally here, and that Obama will make everything right. But I have noticed that Obama never says what he will change, what to hope for and what to believe in.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

Or, more likely, you carefully filtered out anything that didn't tie in with your pre-conceptions. After all, once you've decided to equate someone with Hitler, there's not much point actually, y'know, listening to anything they say, is there?

Nodin

the_syco wrote: »

Wonder where'll "New Guantanamo Bay" be...?

Moyross. No fences either. I still say thats inhumane though.

Nodin

Agamemnon wrote: »

Some people will be disappointed with Obama's presidency because his campaign was rather vague in places, leading more idealistic voters to see what they wanted to see.

Overall though, I think he will do a good job. The main issue will be the economy - if he can stop the rot during his first term, he is guaranteed to be re-elected. Looking at recent history, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were two of the most popular presidents, legendary figures to their respective parties. Both of them inherited poor economic conditions when they took office, both of them were able to turn it around and both of them won second terms.

Indeed, his vague waffle reminds me of Reagan in a way - a different style, but still bereft of much content. However he is obviously a highly intelligent man, and unlikely to blunder about the world 'as a wild ass in the garden'. Certainly if one state can help repair the world economy its the US, and he's easilt the best man to be in the chair of the choices available.

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

After all, once you've decided to equate someone with Hitler, there's not much point actually, y'know, listening to anything they say, is there?

Where was the outrage when people here were comparing George W Bush to Hitler? Oh yeah... there was none.

There’s that old saying from George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." So why not allow and have a civilized discussion about the comparisons of Obama to Hitler? Isn’t that what this forum is all about?

Here is a excellent quote I read recently regarding other efforts to disallow any type of comparisons of Obama to Hitler.
"Finally, when someone writes in a newspaper opinion piece that another viewpoint should be banned from appearing, that person's post sounds far more like the Nazi era where opposition was dealt with violence and papers dared not to breathe a word of complaint or suggest that anything that the leadership was up to was perhaps not the best for their country. Be very careful when you wish for censorship of any kind as you may one day get your wishes."

oscarBravo

I'm not censoring, I'm disagreeing.

Comparing almost anyone to Hitler is so mindbendingly stupid (not to mention intellectually lazy) that it spawned Godwin's Law. But if you really, really must compare someone to Hitler, should it be on the basis of invading countries and locking people up in prison camps or... um... giving a good speech?

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

But if you really, really must compare someone to Hitler, should it be on the basis of invading countries and locking people up in prison camps or

For one, a big difference...
In England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by the United States. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

For one, a big difference...
In England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by the United States. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

In other words, comparing GWB to Hitler on that basis would be a pretty stupid thing to do, right? I'm pretty sure that was my point.

But, seeing as we're agreeing, you will no doubt agree that comparing Barack Obama to Hitler because the man is a dab hand at speechifyin' is not just stupid, but epically stupid?

Pocono Joe

Compare GWB to Hitler all you want. I'm use to it here. Open discussion is a good thing.

When I heard Barack Obama throughout the campaign basically saying that he is going to solve all our problems just by electing him, or when he stated "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," I will admit it scared me. And I wouldn’t dismiss that kind of talk as simply “speechifyin'.” I would rather characterize it as dangerous speech. But I wouldn’t use them to serve as a genuine comparison to Hitler, but rather as an alarm for people to wake up and stop the hagiography. Buying blindly into someone’s (especially a very powerful someone) rhetoric can be quite dangerous. And by that you can make a comparison if you wish.

And you bring up Godwin's Law. Would it be “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy” to argue that because the 'Hitler Factor' has been done so many times before in elections, that people no longer think it credible? Therefore the shock value is gone, and the resistance to the Hitler Factor could eventually become a dangerous thing for people. Without the discussion, how would people recognize another Hitler type politician in the future if people considered making the comparison “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy.”

Personally, I plan on giving Obama the same chance that Democrats gave George W Bush when he took office back in 2000 (sound fair enough?)

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Compare GWB to Hitler all you want. I'm use to it here. Open discussion is a good thing.

Open discussion requires paying attention to what other people are saying. I'm saying that comparing anyone to Hitler is a pretty stupid thing to do. I've said it more than once.

When I heard Barack Obama throughout the campaign basically saying that he is going to solve all our problems just by electing him...

Except that he never said that, or implied it any more than is required of anyone running for executive office. It's sort of expected of candidates that they'll tell the electorate that they'll solve their problems.

...or when he stated "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," I will admit it scared me. And I wouldn’t dismiss that kind of talk as simply “speechifyin'.” I would rather characterize it as dangerous speech. But I wouldn’t use them to serve as a genuine comparison to Hitler, but rather as an alarm for people to wake up and stop the hagiography. Buying blindly into someone’s (especially a very powerful someone) rhetoric can be quite dangerous. And by that you can make a comparison if you wish.

I don't wish to do so. I think that if you have to stoop so low as to try to draw tenuous comparisons of that kind, you're running out of mud to sling. But that's just me.

And you bring up Godwin's Law. Would it be “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy” to argue that because the 'Hitler Factor' has been done so many times before in elections, that people no longer think it credible? Therefore the shock value is gone, and the resistance to the Hitler Factor could eventually become a dangerous thing for people. Without the discussion, how would people recognize another Hitler type politician in the future if people considered making the comparison “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy.”

Oh, I don't know. Maybe wait for them to, y'know, dismantle democracy, or invade a neighbouring country, or blame all the country's woes on a particular ethnic group, that sort of thing. I think I'd be looking for actual signs of, like, evil or something.

But maybe I'm naive. Maybe we should decry any politician that can actually inspire the respect of large numbers of people, just in case they might turn out to be a mass-murder at some later point in their careers.

Seriously: can't you see how utterly bizarre and grotesque your line of reasoning is to someone who hasn't pre-emptively decided that Obama is some sort of terrifying antichrist figure?

Personally, I plan on giving Obama the same chance that Democrats gave George W Bush when he took office back in 2000 (sound fair enough?)

Your prerogative. Moral high ground is overrated, after all.

Sounds like the Republicans plan to adopt precisely the attitude our own Fianna Fáil take whenever they end up in opposition: make the government's life as difficult as possible, in every way imaginable, even if it's to the country's detriment: after all, by far the most important thing is being in power, and all other considerations are secondary.

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

Moral high ground is overrated, after all.

Sounds like the Republicans plan to adopt precisely the attitude our own Fianna Fáil take whenever they end up in opposition: make the government's life as difficult as possible, in every way imaginable, even if it's to the country's detriment: after all, by far the most important thing is being in power, and all other considerations are secondary.

Moral high ground and a few bucks will buy me a cup of Starbucks coffee.

And no, I’m just one of the 58 million voters who haven’t sampled the Kool-Aid. I’ve heard his plans, and I think most of them aren't good for America.

Also, the Rebublicans pretty much have absolutely no say anymore... didn't you see what Nancy Pelosi recently did? (Almost Hitleresque I'd say :rolleyes:)

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

For one, a big difference...
In England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by the United States. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

Which is waffle really, as his ex COS was on CH4 news last night referring to the way the US likes to cover its occasional bit of imperial adventuring by spouting about freedom, human rights and the like. Thus 60 or so of Iraq's 83 oil fields are under foreign control, with a percentage split of revenue of the type not seen since the 1930's and the British Empire in the region, with strategically placed bases in one of the most important areas of the planet, should the need arise to expand influence (or 'spread democracy and human rights').

(He was actually asked in Switzerland, by an ex-Bishop of Canterbury, btw).

Matt Holck

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Compare GWB to Hitler all you want. I'm use to it here. Open discussion is a good thing.

ummm...
GWB was the stooge for the dumb joke on late night comedy
Hitler had the youth marching in the streets and shooting slogan
Nope I can't, sorry

When I heard Barack Obama throughout the campaign basically saying that he is going to solve all our problems just by electing him, or when he stated "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," I will admit it scared me.

I'm not sure I'd feel safe if my neighbors were ready to fight

The Raven.

I must say that if I was one of the young persons living in America at present, I’d be scared too. On September 11 2008, Obama had this to say:

‘And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.’

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act

I doubt if he will be going anytime soon.

Overheal

The Raven. wrote: »

I must say that if I was one of the young persons living in America at present, I’d be scared too. On September 11 2008, Obama had this to say:

‘And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.’

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act

I doubt if he will be going anytime soon.

Cherry Picking?

Obama's entire service program proposal quickly became controversial, largely for being mistaken as a call for a national paramilitary force, though the proposal's only reference to military service was to volunteer participation in regular U.S. Armed Forces, as one activity that would qualify for inclusion under the program's umbrella.

The program being to promote education. Federal assistance to schools contingent to school districts establishing service programs.

Also, given conscription's history in the United States, I can't say I'm worried it will be happening anytime soon, and I fall within the age. This bill seems very weakly supported, even within the democratic party, and Nixon's removal of the vietnam draft was historic. Not soon to be forgotten by anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#End_of_conscription

As for his Change - Obama already has my vote. He can take his sweet time for all I care at this point. I'll choose to re-evaluate what change he has brought in 2012 - it hardly seems a worthwhile argument now when he hasnt even put his socks in the presidential suite.

The Raven.

No, I wasn’t ‘Cherry Picking’. Quoting part of an article and supplying the link, rather than posting the entire thing, is what we are supposed to do here. I specifically quoted Obama’s own words, which I find scary, and somewhat at odds with the 'service program proposal'.

If these are the kind of ‘changes’ he intends, then I would argue that it is very important to discuss these issues, sooner rather than later. After all, it was Obama who initiated this discussion, long before he even knew he would occupy the presidential suite.

lostexpectation

he may attack sudan
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/air-force-wraps.html

Manic Moran

He may do pretty much whatever the hell he wants, he's the President!

I honestly don't expect any radical changes to pretty much anything in the first couple of weeks.

NTM

40crush41

Húrin wrote: »

Americans are so... ideological.

I am, you're right.
And so here is a man who is speaking differently.
The words -if government is big or small is not the question, but if it works, where the answer is yes, then we will proceed, where the answer is no, we will cut the program- caught my attention.
Hopefully this will be carried out. As my sister said -it is not the theory anymore of what works, but what does work.

MisterAnarchy

Manic Moran wrote: »

He may do pretty much whatever the hell he wants, he's the President!

NTM

The President is not as powerful as many people think.
He can do a lot if congress backs him and pretty much nothing if they don't.

Overheal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The President is not as powerful as many people think.
He can do a lot if congress backs him and pretty much nothing if they don't.

The last 2 years were enough evidence of that.

Matt Holck

checks and balances

corkstudent

Why do people keep saying Obama has no distinct policies when they're not even reading up on what his policies are? If you're going to judge it by media aimed at the lowest common denominator in the US, you're not going to find any intellectual meat.

sceptre

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Personally, I plan on giving Obama the same chance that Democrats gave George W Bush when he took office back in 2000 (sound fair enough?)

Let's assume that's fair for the purposes of my post. All the democrats I know (and I actually mean all) had an attitude in January 2009 that it was going to be OK, because there was a good chance that GWB was going to surround himself with smart people who knew what they were doing, even if their policies would be a little different to what they had liked.

They gave the guy a chance for a few months before deciding that the only difference between the Bush administration and a bucket of swill was the bucket.

Either way you look at it, even dubya was no Hitler. Hitler was smarter. And for the "OMG, is Obama like Hitler" fear, it's worth noting FDR didn't go into all that much detail about what the New Deal would be before his first election either. Although he did take the time out to refer to his opponent as "fat". Conspiracy theories are probably more popular in recent years than ever before, partly due to the arrival of the Internet as a convenient way of distributing views that almost no-one would pay for at a cost of almost zero. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if by March we hear a rumour that GWB has salted away tons of gold from the Federal Reserve and is preparing to leave the country with it[1] (that rumour, by the way, did the rounds about Hoover after Roosevelt beat him). Hitler comparisons tend to be poor currency among those who have heard the little German guy compared to everyone from US Presidents down to Homer Simpson but they seem to be worth something in the group of people that reads one book about lizards taking over the planet and takes it as true because they've seen it in print. Unfortunately, that's turned out to be a surprisingly large group of people.


[1]Please, feel free to spread that around the Internet. I'll find it funny. Don't post it on Politics though or there will be a slapping

JohnMc1

corkstudent wrote: »

Why do people keep saying Obama has no distinct policies when they're not even reading up on what his policies are? If you're going to judge it by media aimed at the lowest common denominator in the US, you're not going to find any intellectual meat.

You do realize that you insulted the people that actually voted for him don't him?

Ludo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You do realize that you insulted the people that actually voted for him don't him?

I think he insulted everyone with that comment including republicans. Yet it is a very valid comment. Very little of the pre-election coverage actually examined the policies in detail but catered to the entertainment side of news.
I am talking about the tv news channels here by the way. Newspapers tend to do things in a bit more detail. Unfortunately most people don't read the type of newspapers that give this coverage, hence they are all in financial trouble.