Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
17 mins ago
WASHINGTON Barack Obama opened his presidency by breaking sharply from George W. Bush's unpopular administration, but he mostly avoided divisive partisan and ideological stands. He focused instead on fixing the economy, repairing a battered world image and cleaning up government.
"What an opportunity we have to change this country," the Democrat told his senior staff after his inauguration. "The American people are really counting on us now. Let's make sure we take advantage of it."
In the highly scripted first days of his administration, Obama overturned a slew of Bush policies with great fanfare. He largely avoided cultural issues; the exception was reversing one abortion-related policy, a predictable move done in a very low-profile way.
The flurry of activity was intended to show that Obama was making good on his promise to bring change. Yet domestic and international challenges continue to pile up, and it's doubtful that life will be dramatically different for much of the ailing country anytime soon...
So wait... from the article, I can infer that 'change' means doing a 'flurry of activity' in his first few days?
Doing things the same way, albeit at a faster pace, as before hardly counts as change.
1- economically: he supports the same bailouts, cronyism, and Keynesian stimulus policies that had landed us in this trouble to begin with.
2- militarily: he uses military force without a declaration of war, as much as his predecessor did.
3- domestically: he writes executive orders like they're a replacement for legislature. Last I checked, this power was reserved for the Congress. Abortion is an issue that should be decided at the State level. Remember, all powers not exclusively given to the federal government are explicitly given to the State.
Welcome to Bush III.
So wait... from the article, I can infer that 'change' means doing a 'flurry of activity' in his first few days?
Doing things the same way, albeit at a faster pace, as before hardly counts as change.
1- economically: he supports the same bailouts, cronyism, and Keynesian stimulus policies that had landed us in this trouble to begin with.
2- militarily: he uses military force without a declaration of war, as much as his predecessor did.
3- domestically: he writes executive orders like they're a replacement for legislature. Last I checked, this power was reserved for the Congress. Abortion is an issue that should be decided at the State level. Remember, all powers not exclusively given to the federal government are explicitly given to the State.
Welcome to Bush III.
The executive orders are reasonable. They deal with issues such as hiring practices within the Executive branch and the use of abortion provision as a disqualifying criteria in aid projects funded by USAID, another executive branch department.
So wait... from the article, I can infer that 'change' means doing a 'flurry of activity' in his first few days?
Doing things the same way, albeit at a faster pace, as before hardly counts as change.
1- economically: he supports the same bailouts, cronyism, and Keynesian stimulus policies that had landed us in this trouble to begin with.
2- militarily: he uses military force without a declaration of war, as much as his predecessor did.
3- domestically: he writes executive orders like they're a replacement for legislature. Last I checked, this power was reserved for the Congress. Abortion is an issue that should be decided at the State level. Remember, all powers not exclusively given to the federal government are explicitly given to the State.
Welcome to Bush III.
The executive orders are reasonable. They deal with issues such as hiring practices within the Executive branch and the use of abortion provision as a disqualifying criteria in aid projects funded by USAID, another executive branch department.
So wait... from the article, I can infer that 'change' means doing a 'flurry of activity' in his first few days?
presiident Obama he want t o closs Gitmo. i think this i s big mistake. if he does this then terrorist will have no place to go but to the citys.i agree with him to fund stem cell research this i s good thing.
With regard to Gitmo, Obama put the cart before the horse. It would have been MUCH more intelligent to FIRST decide where these people would go and where terrorists captured on the battlefield in the future would be held -and THEN close Gitmo. Bush wanted to close Gitmo too -and created a bipartisan task force group to answer these questions first. They couldn't -which meant Gitmo couldn't be closed either. I don't expect another one can either -and I noticed that nearly every single Senator and most governors have already announced their states will not accept any of the Gitmo detainees. Who happen to be the most dangerous men on the planet. No other country wants them either.
As for government funding of stem cell research -I think you mean you think government should fund EMBRYONIC stem cell research with taxpayer dollars, right? Because there is no government ban on funding any other kind of stem cell research. And it is NOT a "good thing" if taxpayers funded embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell researchers want the "right" to create a human embryo for the specific purpose of killing it and harvesting its cell -like a crop. Sorry YOU have no problem with that -but a lot of people think the idea of creating a human life for the purpose of treating it as of no more value than a crop of corn in order to benefit a different, but older human life -is immoral and utterly revolting. Not something they believe they should be FORCED to pay for.
I already posted a lengthy bit on embryonic stem cell research on another thread. The level of ignorance by some of its loudest proponents about what is actually involved, why proponents are demanding government force taxpayers to pay for it, why it is the least promising and NOT the most promising line of stem cell research as proponents LIE and insist it is -is mindboggling frankly. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for this when most proponents are so ignorant about it in the first place -yet have no problem insisting that all taxpayers be forced to pay for it. No matter the fact that many people put this in the same ballpark as many of the revolting, dehumanizing practices of the Nazis.
Creating a human life so it can be killed and harvested like a crop for its parts - so an older human life can benefit from it - IS A FORM OF CANNIBALISM.
Given the fact that in a recent poll carried out by the well respected polling organization Marist College Institute of Public Opinion - 60% of people said they think abortions in THIS country should never be allowed or only for the rarest of circumstances of rape and incest -maybe you can explain why taxpayers should be forced to pay their money to international organizations around the world so THEY can provide abortions? Poll: 60 Percent Oppose All, Most Abortions; 28% of "Pro-Choice" are Pro-Life
My tax dollars cannot be used to pay for someone's abortion in THIS country. Elected officials know they are highly unlikely to be re-elected if they try to push through legislation requiring the use of taxpayer money to foot the bill for abortions in this country or in any way used to support or prop up any organization involved in the abortion industry. But my tax dollars can and should be used to pay for abortions and prop up organizations involved in the abortion industry elsewhere around the world? That could only make sense to a rabid liberal. I expected Obama to reverse this just as Clinton did -and expect the next Republican to put it back in place. This one wasn't a surprise, but the thinking behind it given how the majority in this country feel about abortion anyway makes no sense except to a liberal. The left really doesn't have any problem ramming such things down the throat of the majority against their will and forcing everyone else to foot the bill for activities they sincerely believe to be immoral.
I thought Obama would be smart enough not to push his far leftwing agenda until a second term. I thought wrong -guess he isn't so smart after all. This guy is handing Republicans a real present because he has posted his leftwing agenda on the White House website. Most of which he never once mentioned during the general election in order to make sure voters knew as little about it as possible apparently. Some of which, if passed, will undoubtedly be challenged in the Supreme Court since it would result in laws interfering with the free exercise clause of the Constitution and force organized religions to engage in activity that violates their religious tenets. And MUCH of that posted agenda will become excellent campaign fodder for moderates and conservatives in both parties.
If Obama pushes much of that through with the help of the Democrats now in Congress and in addition to the massive spending he wants that won't be an economic stimulus anyway because of the length of time it would take to even get into the economy - 2010 is going to be a very interesting election year. The overwhelming majority in this country are NOT leftwing and do not support much on his posted agenda. A lot of people who voted for this guy but failed to pay attention to what this guy actually SAID in the past on these issues (while keeping mum on them during the general election) -are in for a real eye-opening four years. Because his agenda is NOT the kind of "change" they thought they would be getting by any means. Too bad the rest of us have to pay for it because of those who failed to live up to their responsibilities in exercising their right to vote -by making an INFORMED vote.
I mean one only becomes president once, why are they so hard on him?
Why do you perpetuate the idea that if we hadn't invaded their countries, there wouldn't be as much terrorism, and that their terrorism is really a statement against us instead of activity from a crazed fundamentalist Muslim whacko?Why are the repubs perpetuating the idea that Gitmo prisoners will be wandering main street.
Besides being a completely insane scenario, we already have terrorists on our streets.
They are called gangs and I defy you to take a nighttime walk through their 'turf'!
See, we already have terrorists on our streets that Bush ignored in favor of turning Iraq into a breeding ground for even more antisocial nutjobs!
FEAR! BE AFRAID!! Only repubs can save you!
Bull****!
I mean one only becomes president once, why are they so hard on him?
