If You're Still an Obama Fan

Politics International Politics
1

Now here’s a succinct op-ed pinpointing a most dire grievance against President Obama.

If You’re Still an Obama Fan…[quote]You might be an Obama fan because you regard him as at least better than Bush.
…
You might be an Obama fan because you think that a black president is a major step forward for this country.
…
Let us assume, for the sake of argument here, that everything that Obama does while he is president is the right thing with but one exception.
…
What is that one thing? It is Obama’s refusal to prosecute or in any way hold accountable the Bush regime for its explicit and egregious crimes of torture and indefinite detention.
…
There is only the rule of men and women who claim that they are acting in the nation’s best interests. That is all that we have now and into the future as long as Obama is allowed to commit this one omission.

So, if we let Obama overlook this one thing, then the floodgates will remain open and the high waters that come will sweep many people, including some of you reading these words and myself, away.

This one omission makes Hurricane Katrina look like a mere gust of wind, a mere trifle, lifting a few hairs on our heads. As bad as Bush and Cheney were, they would then be only the beginning…[/quote]
If we Americans ever force our “representatives” to employ our own professed values, how would the shocked world respond?

2

I’m an Obama fan because he’s actually doing things that are good for the country.

I can count on one hand the good things Bush did during eight years, and in just one year Obama has done dozens upon dozens of good things.

3

Barry’s had a good couple of weeks, lets not shit on him because he hasn’t sold out his frat brothers (previous admin.) just yet.

4

I remember hearing somewhere that in the Patriot Act, Congress gave loads of powers to the President and also included the provision that those acting for him couldn’t be prosecuted for executing the Act.

Maybe O isn’t doing anything because he legally can’t.

I might be wrong on that tho’

5

Obama can’t prosecute the Bush regime because he needs Republican support for his future agenda. Americans want him to focus on improving their lives, rather than pursuing a punitive expedition.

Prosecuting the Bush regime will lead to a more destructive cycle of partisanship when relations are already sensitive between Obama and Republicans. It’s also counterproductive in a midterm election year.

6

Any attempt to prosecute a former administration would be resisted tooth and nail. That’s not how the system works, which places more emphasis of preserving and perpetuating institutions. Prosecutution would be viewed as a slippery slope indeed, as it’s nopt only viewed as bad form, but also considered as the setting up a dangerous precedent.

7

As long as Obama keeps doing what Bush was doing, many people will remain fans…it’s the NEW stuff they hate. :laughing:

8

[quote=“hardball”]As long as Obama keeps doing what Bush was doing,[/quote]Makes sense.

[quote]Afghan prisoners are being abused in a “secret jail” at Bagram airbase, according to nine witnesses whose stories the BBC has documented.

The abuses are all said to have taken place since US President Barack Obama was elected, promising to end torture.

Source: Afghans ‘abused at secret prison’ at Bagram airbase (April 15, 2010)[/quote]

9

I for one have no problem with Obama. I think that he is working out quite well. And I am a Republican. The health care issue needed to be tackled. It has been an issue for 40 years. About time someone at least tried to address it. I have no problem with his Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan policies. I think that he is doing a very good job. Those that criticize his deficits can do so only if they were vocal when Bush was doing the same. I was and I am still worried but I get that we were facing an economic and financial mess.

Overall, color me happy.

Green whatever. Your understanding of the Patriot Act is limited. You might want to do some research. Funny that all the parameters are still there but that the criticism has melted away now that Bush is no longer president. Fine. But from a principle-based view, what has changed?

10

[quote=“fred smith”]I for one have no problem with Obama. I think that he is working out quite well. And I am a Republican. The health care issue needed to be tackled. It has been an issue for 40 years. About time someone at least tried to address it. I have no problem with his Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan policies. I think that he is doing a very good job. Those that criticize his deficits can do so only if they were vocal when Bush was doing the same. I was and I am still worried but I get that we were facing an economic and financial mess.

Overall, color me happy.

Green whatever. Your understanding of the Patriot Act is limited. You might want to do some research. Funny that all the parameters are still there but that the criticism has melted away now that Bush is no longer president. Fine. But from a principle-based view, what has changed?[/quote]
Kind of wild that GW and Obama are never in the same place at the same time anymore…

given this news, it is even more frightening:
dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne … elona.html
:astonished:

11

[quote=“Chris”]I’m an Obama fan because he’s actually doing things that are good for the country.

I can count on one hand the good things Bush did during eight years, and in just one year Obama has done dozens upon dozens of good things.[/quote]

He has allowed your country to be financially raped and he is not finished yet. You are either gullible or in the loop.

12

[quote=“bereal”][quote=“Chris”]I’m an Obama fan because he’s actually doing things that are good for the country.

I can count on one hand the good things Bush did during eight years, and in just one year Obama has done dozens upon dozens of good things.[/quote]

He has allowed your country to be financially raped and he is not finished yet. You are either gullible or in the loop.[/quote]

Financially raped? Far cough. He went Keynsian because that was the only play left. What would you have done? Let the markets regulate themselves? Sacrifice human life and dignity for economic purity? In 20 years we would have been better off? Don’t be a putz.

13

I must have misunderstood. I thought the financial rape hit it’s peak under the previous administration and the current one was actually trying to put some regulations in to prevent, or at least limit it. :ponder:

As for not having prosecuted, or at least investigated, members of the previous administration, or not having lifted “Don’t ask, don’t tell” or not having accomplished everything I would like him to, I think I can forgive him. He’s only been in office a little more than a year, has had a lot on his plate and has made, and continues to make, significant accomplishments. The reality is he has to pick his battles. He’s not operating in a vacuum.

14

Seems that he has some major accomplishments under his belt. Wait until he nominates and gets his second Supreme Court justice in less than two years of being in office. Health care reform. Escalated efforts in Pakistan/Afghanistan while reducing the effort in Iraq without pulling out the rug, huge advances in diplomacy with regard to Iran. Eventually, that may prove a pointless path but we have time despite the hand wringing on the right. Iran is very isolated now. Those on the right cannot criticize the financial mess after Bush’s deficits. Good that they are finally showing concern but most will take that with a grain of salt. Signed a nuke deal with the Soviets, de-escalated the issue of missile interceptors in Poland/Czech Republic while actually gaining a better option by having mobile interceptors. Defused the situation with Russia over Georgia and Ukraine, while preserving both nations’ independence. Kept all the important security measures in place. Guantanamo is still open. Overall, a pretty good record considering all the challenges that he has faced. Keep this up and even the diehard Republican Fred Smith may consider voting for him in 2012.

15

Wow. Yet on another level, whoever pays the piper eh, Fred?

HG

16

He and his western allies should have never helped the banks that created the world economic crisis. Western governments have given billions and billions to these financial criminals.
It’s far more noxious than some case of torturing.

17

The problem is that the collapse of these banks would bring the global economy into serious straits… a Greater Depression. The upper management should be prosecuted; the banks should be required to pay back the bailouts (to a certain percentage); but just letting them fall would be bad for us, not just them.

What we need are regulations that prevent too much of the world’s economy from being concentrated into a handful of “too big to fail” corporations. The entities that affect and control segments of the economy needs to be spread out.

18

[quote=“CraigTPE”]The reality is he has to pick his battles.[/quote]You’re probably right, we’d see a very crippling polarization across the nation if his administration directly advanced the prosecution of former officials for war crimes. But directly advancing is not the same as ‘blocking’ some seemingly valid cases, i.e. Detainees vs. Rumsfeld, Iraqis vs. Blackwater… Some mouths of opposition of course may try twisting the employment of the justice system to mean Obama hates whites or is manipulating the office for personal vendetta. And how many people would choose to believe it? Probably enough to make things much much worse. What a mess.

[quote=“JFP”]…given billions and billions to these financial criminals.
It’s far more noxious than some case of torturing.[/quote]As far as the numbers of how many have been directly/indirectly effected, yes. But, torturing only handfuls versus siphoning money from the masses, is a question of significance between violent vs. white collar crimes. Both issues are serious, and neither should go unchecked, unchanged, unaccounted.

19

Could be or as usual you just don’t pay attention to policy.

  1. Sonia Sotomayor is in the Supreme Court. This is a success or failure of the president. Bush I nominated her to the appellate court. Most Republican if not all Republican senators voted for/approved her. This should be cause to dislike Obama because?

  2. Bush II engaged in huge deficit spending, while throwing money at numerous problems growing the federal government in the process. Obama continued his stimulus package while ramping up the effort during the most severe recession we have had in a long time. The economy is now growing. As Republicans, we criticize Obama for what? continuing George Bush II’s policies?

  3. Bush had already negotiated an exit date for Iraq: 2011. Obama has kept to this while ensuring that we have enough troops to keep the peace. We will have extensive influence after 2011. We will have a huge security presence no matter what you “call” it. Why would I disapprove of Obama?

  4. Obama ramped up efforts in Afghanistan to win the war. We have troop levels there that Bush could never have gotten. The drone attacks in Pakistan have stepped up considerably knocking out all manner of previously protected warlords, Taliban and Al Qaeda. Why would I have a problem with that? Sharif is out, democracy is in and Pakistan is cooperating to a far greater extent than under Bush. Another problem?

  5. Iran was intractable. Bush did not have the wherewithal to invade. I have stated this for eight years. I also stated that this is why I was glad Bush took out Saddam when he had the chance. Obama has gotten far more international support for the US effort. Will it succeed? Hard to say, but where would I have a problem with continued policies that I suppported from Day 1?

  6. Is Guantanamo closed? Have we stopped wiretaps? Have we a credible security deterrent in place? I guess so.

Back to you. What do I have cause as a Republican to be disappointed with exactly?

20

Speaking about financial rape and paying the piper, its going to be a long slow f**k…

[quote]America’s Growing Vulnerability to Catastrophe
excert:
The major responsibility of those in government is to be certain that a country is capable of surviving a worst-case scenario such as war, massive economic downturn, or a catastrophic natural disaster.

Yet the current regime in Washington, D.C. does not seem to understand or care that the policies they are pursuing will leave no margin for error in the event of an apocalyptic natural or man-made calamity.

The wealth of the United States has always been its fallback position in order to come through wars and recessions or cope with natural disasters. The country’s enormous gross domestic product (GDP) has allowed the government to spend (by reducing taxes, if necessary, and borrowing) whatever monies were needed to offset the losses incurred from these events and/or to restart the engine of the economy.

This nation has had an unlimited credit card and until recently used it somewhat wisely, compared with what has begun under Obama. As long as the United States maintained a reasonable debt-to-GDP ratio (less than 50%) and kept the annual budget deficit to less than 3% of the GDP, then it always had the ability to survive a contingency of unimagined proportions.

At the end of 2008, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government stood at 40.2% of GDP. In the four years of the Obama administration, the debt will increase $5.7 trillion (equal to the entire debt incurred by the United States since its inception up to and including 2008). This will result in the country having a debt to GDP ratio of 72% by 2012, a mere two years from now.

It has been acknowledged by a consensus of economists that unemployment, as a result of the Obama agenda, will remain in the double-digit range over the next three to four years. This government refuses to recognize the need for spending reduction, opting instead to adopt new entitlement programs and, as part of its war on wealth, dramatically raise any and all taxes on the citizens and the private sector. That component coupled with the massive new regulations already passed and proposed will result in inflation adjusted negative or stagnant GDP growth.

Without significant repeal of the Obama tax and regulatory policies and changes in the entitlement programs and overall reduction in government expenditures, the current spending proposals and impact of the trillions needed for ObamaCare, Social Security, and Medicare and interest payments will result in the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeding 100% by 2019.

Recently the bond ratings of Greece, Portugal, and Spain have been downgraded (Greece to junk bond status). Not only is the entire European Union threatened with collapse because of the excessive debt and budget deficit policies of these countries, but so is the entire world economy. In the case of Greece, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 125%, and the annual budget deficit is 13.6% of the GDP. Greece can no longer borrow money (except at excessively high interest rates) and must turn to the European Union for a bailout in order to pay debts due within the month.

By comparison, the United States, if it remains committed to the Obama agenda, will experience a debt-to-GDP ratio of 104% and an annual budget deficit of 9.7% of GDP by 2019. This nation will become the next Greece.

The United States, unlike Greece, will not have the European Union or the IMF to turn to. Where, then, will the monies come from if the worst occurs?..more at link[/quote]

These are the economic destruction (change) that Soetoro/Obama, and his cohorts, have brought to the USA.