The Problem with Barack Obama... to me...

[MaggieMae]

Did anyone notice they didn't play "Hail to the Chief" when Obama gave that speech? Wouldn't it be normal to play that? Especially at West Point?

They played it before he walked on stage.

 

[Modbert]

My favorite Pacino speech is the one in "And Justice For All" where he had to defend a dispicable person, whom he KNEW was guilty as sin, and in the end couldn't do it. Also, the one he gave to school regents and peers of the kid who took him on one last whirlwind party in NYC before he died in "The Scent of a Woman." Needless to say, Al Pacino is my favorite actor of all time. Now yall can get back on topic. Sorry.

Al Pacino should have at least five Oscars on his shelf at home.

And he never died in "Scent of a Woman."

Relevant note, that speech you're talking about:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZjgCK1_tAY[/ame]

Trivia: It was done in one take.

 

[MaggieMae]

But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

The same could be said about a great deal of the Presidents since FDR. Of the Presidents I've lived through, only George H.W. Bush was really and truly worthy of the office. And yes, I did live through Reagan.

I don't regret my vote for him, but I do regret that he isn't a stronger President. He seems hobbled by the fact he has his own party controlling the Congress, much like Bush seemed to be hobbled by DeLay and Frist. They seem to be leading him, rather than the other way around.

I'm kinda hoping that the GOP picks up seats in 2010. I'm a fan of divided government and both Clinton and Reagan shined as Presidents when they were forced to deal with an opposition controlled Congress. I think Obama will be a stronger, better President with a reasonable GOP party to work with.

H.W. was driven out because of a poor economy. Come to think of it, so was Carter. Is Obama next? When will people learn that a PRESIDENT really doesn't control economic cycles, nor are they personally to blame for the mistakes made by the private sector which moves the economy.

 

[California Girl]

I wouild be extremely disappointed in any president that was "passionate" about sending 30 thousand young americans into harm's way.

The very best of war time leaders - like Churchill - managed to combine the compassion of sending soldiers into war, with passion for the just cause. I expected more from Obama - I think you give him too much credit. His lack of passion wasn't about the seriousness of the issue, it was because he just doesn't give a shit.

For one thing, Churchill and Roosevelt sounded passionate because they were on radio, not television. So they had to give imaginations a boost just to generate interest. And if he "didn't give a shit," dear, he never would have run for president. He knew from the outset that he would be criticized more than any president in history, so he didn't do it for any potential glory.

That's what's wrong with the way you think. You start of with a rather good post, open for serious debate, and then you go off and say something stupidly childish which just makes people pissed off rather than agreeing to disagree like adults.

My point, dear, which seems far too complicated for you is that he does not care about the wars. He is passionate when he's talking about his pet agenda - healthcare, social reform, yadda, yadda, yadda. His speech at West Point was a 'tick box' exercise - ie, he had to announce the 30,000 so he's gotta do a speech.... There was no substance. He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

 

[MaggieMae]

My statement stands. He was announcing a strategy change that will result in 30 thousand americans being placed in harm's way. That is nothing to be enthusiastic about imo.

Enthusiasm is often mis-portrayed as an appetite for conflict. If he'd been upbeat, Fox would have been all over it. Obama is surrounded by image consultants and speechwriters now - they would be unlikely to let him make such an obvious mistake.

'Passion' and 'enthusiasm' convey more of a 'positive pleasure' message, which is not what I meant; wrong words. I wish he had displayed much more conviction in his speech; confidence that, although this is something we wish we didn't need to do, we're going to do and we're going to win. I wish I had seen that which he displayed in the first video in his speech last night. I didn't.

I think his image consultants need to tell him to show some damn emotion. He may very well be getting advice to 'stay cool as it exudes confidence'. To me that comes off as indifferent and uncaring.

It could well be that he knows we're fighting a losing battle (literally). It would be hard to exude confidence if that's the case. Too bad we will never be privy to the many hours behind closed doors discussing the strategy. I'm sure there were many negatives figuring in to how to proceed.

 

[rightwinger]

The very best of war time leaders - like Churchill - managed to combine the compassion of sending soldiers into war, with passion for the just cause. I expected more from Obama - I think you give him too much credit. His lack of passion wasn't about the seriousness of the issue, it was because he just doesn't give a shit.

For one thing, Churchill and Roosevelt sounded passionate because they were on radio, not television. So they had to give imaginations a boost just to generate interest. And if he "didn't give a shit," dear, he never would have run for president. He knew from the outset that he would be criticized more than any president in history, so he didn't do it for any potential glory.

That's what's wrong with the way you think. You start of with a rather good post, open for serious debate, and then you go off and say something stupidly childish which just makes people pissed off rather than agreeing to disagree like adults.

My point, dear, which seems far too complicated for you is that he does not care about the wars. He is passionate when he's talking about his pet agenda - healthcare, social reform, yadda, yadda, yadda. His speech at West Point was a 'tick box' exercise - ie, he had to announce the 30,000 so he's gotta do a speech.... There was no substance. He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

How dare you?

Do you think ANY President doesn't care that soldiers are being killed? Do you think LBJ cared? Do you think Nixon cared? I don't care what party or political persuasion a President belongs to, having to face dead soldiers coming home is haunting to every President

 

[California Girl]

Did anyone notice they didn't play "Hail to the Chief" when Obama gave that speech? Wouldn't it be normal to play that? Especially at West Point?

They played it before he walked on stage.

I don't think they did. According to what I read, Obama 86ed it because he didn't think it appropriate. I don't disagree with him on that.

Oh My God!! I just agreed with Obama! *Grabs a nearby bottle of Chardonney for comfort*

 

[MaggieMae]

Yea, because I provided video evidence of why I think he doesn't give a shit. There are two videos - one when he gives a shit and one when he doesn't. Any strong leader who really cared would have managed to stir Americans. Instead, he simply delivered a speech which he clearly did not believe in.

And that pisses me off. These are my family, my friends, he wants to send - And if he's sending another 30,000 - then there are hundreds of thousands of 'me', around the country. These are our troops - he owed it to them to care and he didn't.

Yea, you're reaching for shit that's not really there and we're expected to think you simply disagree with his actions but don't hate him, or at least hate on him. *pathetic* back atcha.

Who are you to say whether a man, who says he cares for the lives of our Armed Forces in-fact does, or not.....Jesus? Moses? Muhammad? Allah? Buddha? Ghandi?

awful. Partisanship personified. Casting on him that he doesn't give a fuck about our troops with nothing but unsubmissible bumble-fuck evidence. Real nice! Stay classy, America!~

A claim of 'partisanship' from you is, actually, laughable.

We need Winston Churchill, and we have Hugo Chavez.

Churchill managed to rally the UK to face it's 'darkest hour' and did it with compassion. Instead, we have a Chavez who is Mr Enthuiastic about 'community organizing' but when it comes to defending this nation, he appears less than 100% commited.

More over the top dumb comments.

 

[California Girl]

For one thing, Churchill and Roosevelt sounded passionate because they were on radio, not television. So they had to give imaginations a boost just to generate interest. And if he "didn't give a shit," dear, he never would have run for president. He knew from the outset that he would be criticized more than any president in history, so he didn't do it for any potential glory.

That's what's wrong with the way you think. You start of with a rather good post, open for serious debate, and then you go off and say something stupidly childish which just makes people pissed off rather than agreeing to disagree like adults.

My point, dear, which seems far too complicated for you is that he does not care about the wars. He is passionate when he's talking about his pet agenda - healthcare, social reform, yadda, yadda, yadda. His speech at West Point was a 'tick box' exercise - ie, he had to announce the 30,000 so he's gotta do a speech.... There was no substance. He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

How dare you?

Do you think ANY President doesn't care that soldiers are being killed? Do you think LBJ cared? Do you think Nixon cared? I don't care what party or political persuasion a President belongs to, having to face dead soldiers coming home is haunting to every President

How dare I? Because I'm an American and I can speak freely. Our forefathers fought and died for that. And I stand by it.... I don't think Obama gives a shit about Afghanistan.

 

[MaggieMae]

So, if I am, in fact, a 'partisan'.... who am I 'partisan' for? Because I'd really like to know. Admittedly, I tend to play with the Obamanation - but that is more about them than actually supporting a different party. Anyone who honestly believes that Obama is some great man has my sincere sympathy.

You're just a hater. The jealous type. You see a man that was touted for his charisma, and you don't like him, and so anything remotely resembling a complement towards him must be man-love..........infatuation.........Messiah worship..................or any hint of him being intelligent must be spin. That's the most simplistic way to lamBast anyone who disagrees with your views, and you use it to the fullest fuck-me-ship possible. You're the antithesis of a fair-minded person, in posts at least anyways.

You can't not say shit like "Obamanation" if your life depended on it, which makes your hatorship prevalent. You're so insecure about it, you even had to make a thread about it to "make sure" you let people know you've got no hate for him, and even then you blame the "other side" for that insecurity and pretend they're making up "invisible righties" who hate Obama.

Believe it, the hate is real. It's here. From Czars to Dinner dates with his wife, to his wife's looks to his bad bowling...........the hate is here. It's not imagined.

Obamallalalalma.
Obamanoids.

I mean fuck, I don't agree with a shit-ton of shit he's done and said, but to see grown assed adults froth at the mouth over calling him "Husseiney" and "Barry Boy" and shit, it's like HERE'S A FUCKING SHOVEL. GET SOME OF THAT SAND OUT OF YOUR VAGINA. YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.

Take a bow, sir. Best post in a loooooooooooong time.

 

[MaggieMae]

Unusual, isn't it? Never happened with the previous administration - the left were just thrilled with Boooooooooosh.

This is true, but some people aren't guilty of it

and some are

and Google sees everything, if you want to prove me wrong.

90% of the threads under the Bush regime were still about "the left is teh wrong about everything and wants to destroy the us!!!" ....still. Under Bush.

But you're right, the other 10% of threads about Bush and the bad speech and all of that, was corny IMO.

Bill Clinton actually got a double-dose because all of the stuff the right bashed him for during his 8 years was all revisited when Hillary announced her own candidacy.

 

[Modbert]

How dare I? Because I'm an American and I can speak freely. Our forefathers fought and died for that. And I stand by it.... I don't think Obama gives a shit about Afghanistan.

I have a idea how he can look like he "gives a shit." He can fly a plane onto a ship with a banner saying Mission Accomplished on it. OWA-

Seriously though, I'm sure Obama cares. No President should feel passionate about sending 30,000 men and women off to war. To Obama and many others, this is doing what is necessary.

I'm not saying whether this is right or wrong. I'm mixed about the issue to be quite honest. However, to go out on a limb and say Obama doesn't give a shit about the men and women being sent off to fight without any real evidence is bullshit.

Did I think Bush was an idiot? Yes. Did I think he was a failure of a President? You damn well bet I did. Did I ever think that he didn't give a shit about the troops being sent off to war? No. Maybe some in his Administration considering their behavior towards bringing them home at some point, but not him. He may of been an village idiot for a President, but he cared.

Obama cares too.

 

[rightwinger]

My point, dear, which seems far too complicated for you is that he does not care about the wars. He is passionate when he's talking about his pet agenda - healthcare, social reform, yadda, yadda, yadda. His speech at West Point was a 'tick box' exercise - ie, he had to announce the 30,000 so he's gotta do a speech.... There was no substance. He left the country - and far more importantly - our military in no doubt that he really is not interested in Afghanistan.

How dare you?

Do you think ANY President doesn't care that soldiers are being killed? Do you think LBJ cared? Do you think Nixon cared? I don't care what party or political persuasion a President belongs to, having to face dead soldiers coming home is haunting to every President

How dare I? Because I'm an American and I can speak freely. Our forefathers fought and died for that. And I stand by it.... I don't think Obama gives a shit about Afghanistan.

You have no concept of what freedom of speech means. Freedom of speech means you can not be arrested for what you say. It does not mean that you can say anything you want without consequence or criticism .
I think that for you to imply that Obama or any President doesn't care about our soldiers dying is reprehensible. EVERY American President who makes decisions that result in soldiers dying agonizes over it.
For you to claim otherwise show what a shallow, partisan bitch you really are

 

[MaggieMae]

Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr are looked at from a bit of time and each failed to accomplish the American dream, I give Clinton a slightly higher grade than the other two as they actually hurt the nation. Clinton hurt himself and allowed too much deregulatory crap to proceed. Obama inherited a supreme mess from Bush Jr, two poorly done wars, although Iraq was an illegal invasion and Afghanistan a half hearted attempt to get OBL. I would have liked to see us pull out of a medieval tribal nation, but at least Obama gave it thought and set some goals. Let's hope it works rather than constantly reading into his actions our own narrow minded views as California Girl does.



OpEdNews - Article: Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?

They failed to accomplish your American dream? This is a bizarre concept that you guys have because I always thought that a person was responsible for their own destiny in a free society. You guys seem kind of strange to me sometimes but you make sense when I realize that you think of the "collective will" or the "commune" actually substitutes for the individual person and their own will because what else explains the idea that society determines what each individual does within society over their own economic lives. Its because you guys think society exist as a whole only and independent individuals do not.

Its something I am getting really tired of but since you mentioned the supposed failure of Reagan, Clintion, and Bush to achieve the American dream for us then let me point out that more people moved into the million dollar income level during the last 30 years than in any time in American history. Its a trend I like to see continue but I fear that Obama is trying to stop their American dream from happening simply because he believes that only the "working class" aka proletariate should exist.

So everyone should strive to be millionnaires and that would fix society? How about during the ride to get there, a whole lot of people went into debt up to their eyeballs? Including millionnaires (on paper only). The baby boom generation became the ME generation, and didn't care how they succeeded as long as they had every material thing they could ever want. If that's your idea of the "American Dream," you have my sympathy. Their children of course are on that same path, barely knowing that failure is often part of growth leading to common sense decisions. (Someday I'll share the story of my perfect little brother's rise to wealth, his perfect little family, and how his perfect little kids--now in their 30's--are a perfect little mess).

 

[mudwhistle]

Unusual, isn't it? Never happened with the previous administration - the left were just thrilled with Boooooooooosh.

This is true, but some people aren't guilty of it

and some are

and Google sees everything, if you want to prove me wrong.

90% of the threads under the Bush regime were still about "the left is teh wrong about everything and wants to destroy the us!!!" ....still. Under Bush.

But you're right, the other 10% of threads about Bush and the bad speech and all of that, was corny IMO.

Bill Clinton actually got a double-dose because all of the stuff the right bashed him for during his 8 years was all revisited when Hillary announced her own candidacy.

The difference is the right didn't have to make anything up....he did fuck that woman...Miss Lewinsky.

Funny thing is...right now I would take his lying ass over Obama any day.

At least he was a pragmatist.

 

[rightwinger]

The moronic Republicans used their majority in Congress to ensure that Clinton was tied up in litigation for his entire two terms. First it was the Whitewater nonsense, then they had the gaul to actually introduce impeachement proceedings over a blowjob.

It was the beginning of the end for the Republicans. It showed them for the meanspirited party willing to bring down the country for some political points

 

[mudwhistle]

The moronic Republicans used their majority in Congress to ensure that Clinton was tied up in litigation for his entire two terms. First it was the Whitewater nonsense, then they had the gaul to actually introduce impeachement proceedings over a blowjob.

It was the beginning of the end for the Republicans. It showed them for the meanspirited party willing to bring down the country for some political points

It was over a felony...purjury to be exact....lying to a Grand Jury.

Not a fucken blowjob you mental-midget.

 

[rightwinger]

The moronic Republicans used their majority in Congress to ensure that Clinton was tied up in litigation for his entire two terms. First it was the Whitewater nonsense, then they had the gaul to actually introduce impeachement proceedings over a blowjob.

It was the beginning of the end for the Republicans. It showed them for the meanspirited party willing to bring down the country for some political points

It was over a felony...purjury to be exact....lying to a Grand Jury.

Not a fucken blowjob you mental-midget.

Republican Party showed to the world they were more interested in vindictive prosecution than what was good for the country.

 

[maineman]

The moronic Republicans used their majority in Congress to ensure that Clinton was tied up in litigation for his entire two terms. First it was the Whitewater nonsense, then they had the gaul to actually introduce impeachement proceedings over a blowjob.

It was the beginning of the end for the Republicans. It showed them for the meanspirited party willing to bring down the country for some political points

It was over a felony...purjury to be exact....lying to a Grand Jury.

Not a fucken blowjob you mental-midget.

never once convicted or even charged with a felony....

and presumed innocent until proven guilty of any felony...right?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yea, the problem is that if anyone agrees with him on anything, that's what they're labeled as instead of being an adult about shit, and having discussions. I mean, I tell some pretty childish jokes, horrific sometimes, maybe I should be shot, even, but it's getting boring as all hell to see the "anything Obama does is bad no matter what" crowd. It's ridiculous on its face and it's not based in reality, it's based in "mee goood.....youuuu baaad" mentality. Sort of like a cave-man, in a way, but with a few less IQ points.

dont you think every president has this crowd?.....it did not start with this guy...certaintly wont end with him....