My number one reason for disappointment in Obama

[MikeK]

I am not disappointed in Barry and the 'boys' that he brought with him for his administration. From the moment I heard he was running, I looked at him and immediately thought, "Here's a guy that is going to clothe himself in the sheep's skin of the center and govern from the FAR left."[...]

I am not an Obama fan and defender but you've stepped off on the wrong foot in this depiction. If Obama was indeed governing from the far left George W. Bush and a few of his conspirators would be sitting in prison today.

I believe Obama's obligation to the shadow government that sponsored him is to keep as many of the policies adopted by the Bush Administration in place and to do it in a way that keeps the lid on. He is, more than anything else, a methodical pacifist. An artful back scratcher. But by no means is he a true leftist. If he were he would not have given $750 billion to the bankers and their facilitators who robbed us. Instead dozens if not hundreds of them would be in prison by now, possibly including Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers.

Obama is George W. Bush with liberal use of lubricant. And that is not the "far left."

 

[MikeK]

Him being improperly vetted and illegally elected as president is itself, the worst thing about the kenyan. That has set a MAJOR precedent of blatantly ignoring our constitution...[...]

Let's keep it accurate if not honest. The notion that he is not properly vetted is speculative theory. And it was George W. Bush who was illegally placed in Office. Obama was fairly elected. There is no valid evidence to suggest Obama is not an American citizen. The notion that he is not is merely evidence of extreme right-wing desperation and mean-spirited slander.

So if you wish to attack him do so from a position of valid and useful accuracy, otherwise your comments are worthless to any but the least significant mentality.

 

[BDBoop]

Him being improperly vetted and illegally elected as president is itself, the worst thing about the kenyan. That has set a MAJOR precedent of blatantly ignoring our constitution...[...]

Let's keep it accurate if not honest. The notion that he is not properly vetted is speculative theory. And it was George W. Bush who was illegally placed in Office. Obama was fairly elected. There is no valid evidence to suggest Obama is not an American citizen. The notion that he is not is merely evidence of extreme right-wing desperation and mean-spirited slander.

So if you wish to attack him do so from a position of valid and useful accuracy, otherwise your comments are worthless to any but the least significant mentality.

It's gotta suck, when ignore-worthy adversaries become mods, and you have to read their drivel.

 

[Trajan]

Him being improperly vetted and illegally elected as president is itself, the worst thing about the kenyan. That has set a MAJOR precedent of blatantly ignoring our constitution...[...]

Let's keep it accurate if not honest. The notion that he is not properly vetted is speculative theory. And it was George W. Bush who was illegally placed in Office. Obama was fairly elected. There is no valid evidence to suggest Obama is not an American citizen. The notion that he is not is merely evidence of extreme right-wing desperation and mean-spirited slander.

So if you wish to attack him do so from a position of valid and useful accuracy, otherwise your comments are worthless to any but the least significant mentality.

It's gotta suck, when ignore-worthy adversaries become mods, and you have to read their drivel.

it also sucks when your mental capacity is so low and your self image is so poor that you need to keep making a point that someone is a mod, when you don't agree with them...its meaningless except as a confession of or expression of intellectual vacuity.........but, when that's all ya got, that's all ya got..*shrugs*

 

[Provocateur]

Getting sworn in

Twice.

 

[GoneBezerk]

It's funny seeing libs mad at Obamination for actually acting like an adult with the Bush tax cuts, GITMO, Afghanistan, drone attacks, etc.

You see, you dumbfucks look even dumber after you claimed Bush was a criminal for doing those things but now your dope kept them in place because "grown-ups" in the Govt explained the dangers out there.

It's easy for Obamination to lie on the campaign trail but once in the big boy seat, he can't act like you idiots on the internet.

 

[LockeJaw]

I don't even consider him my president, or president of the United States, he's a total and complete fraud...

Is that real?

 

[Provocateur]

The whole "fundamentally transforming America" thing is a big disappointment.

 

[LockeJaw]

I agreed with the Libs on the patriot act and still do. I would never be an Obama supporter, but he would've earned some respect from me if he would've made it a priority to get rid of it.

 

[Provocateur]

It's funny seeing libs mad at Obamination for actually acting like an adult with the Bush tax cuts, GITMO, Afghanistan, drone attacks, etc.

You see, you dumbfucks look even dumber after you claimed Bush was a criminal for doing those things but now your dope kept them in place because "grown-ups" in the Govt explained the dangers out there.

It's easy for Obamination to lie on the campaign trail but once in the big boy seat, he can't act like you idiots on the internet.

I don't know if you read the Blackfive website, but I thought this commentary was accurate.

I had a chat w/ an NPR host over the weekend about how odd it was that during the Bush administration the heinous act of waterboarding created a massive backlash of outrage. But, now that Obama is simply vaporizing the bad guys without a shred of due process, there is deafening silence. My point being that as a terrorist, I would greatly prefer to be waterboarded and then housed at a comfy facility in the Carribean rather than returned to my component molecules in a rain of Hellfire. But that's just me.

BLACKFIVE: Axelrod says Romney wouldn't have killed OBL

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'd go with the warmongering, the overall crippling spending has been horrid but the warmongering decisions have directly led to killing people.

 

[BDBoop]

Let's keep it accurate if not honest. The notion that he is not properly vetted is speculative theory. And it was George W. Bush who was illegally placed in Office. Obama was fairly elected. There is no valid evidence to suggest Obama is not an American citizen. The notion that he is not is merely evidence of extreme right-wing desperation and mean-spirited slander.

So if you wish to attack him do so from a position of valid and useful accuracy, otherwise your comments are worthless to any but the least significant mentality.

It's gotta suck, when ignore-worthy adversaries become mods, and you have to read their drivel.

it also sucks when your mental capacity is so low and your self image is so poor that you need to keep making a point that someone is a mod, when you don't agree with them...its meaningless except as a confession of or expression of intellectual vacuity.........but, when that's all ya got, that's all ya got..*shrugs*

You keep setting the standards, sweet pea, I'll keep dropping to meet them.

 

[Navy1960]

This is true..but Carter's idea was harrassment..Reagan went with "winning".

Well how'd the "winning" go?

I didn't post that to pick a side so much as to say that our help for Afghan rebels began under the Carter Administration as well as to show that over the years several Administrations both Republican and Democrat have spent time in that country to no avail in my humble opinion. On a personal level once we had killed UBL the SecDef should have marched out to a lecturn at the Pentagon and claimed victory and ended that War. Given the long history of nations involved there, I can assure you that not long after we have left there it will be as if we never were there and it will be business as usual and all we have to show for it a rather large bill to pay to China for it, not including the costs to the all the brave young warriors who have fought there over the years.

That wasn't my point.

My point was the policy changed from harrassment to winning. Not that I think either was a good thing. But in terms of policy..it had blowback..and in a major way.

So..what would be your opinion?

Winning was a good idea?

My personal opinion when it comes to a nation like Afghanistan if you can call it that, was no policy be it " winning" or "harrassment" would ever be effective in the end, because the nation itself has proven over thousands of years to revert back to it's tribal nature after any nation that seeks to conquer it or reform it leaves. Take your pick from the the former Soviet Union, to the British , all the way back to Persians the one thing that area of the world had in common was a willingness to fight not for a national identity but rather a tribal one. As you and I both know our nation has expended vast amounts or resources in that area of the world and at first, I was in full agreement with the policy of this nation as it's main focus was to track down terrorists responsible for 9-11 and eleminate them using SpecOps and CIA forces to do so. However with a policy, stated like this...

"Afghanistan was the ultimate nation building mission" George W. Bush

The United States became bogged down in not only building a nation that has for thousands of years proven itself to be less a nation and more tribal the concept of nation building was and is destined to fail like it has for eons there. Had someone at DoD or the White House spent a little more time on this issue we would have not found ourselves in the position we are in now , over 10 years later, little result, several young Amercians dead and wounded, and many Afghans dead and wounded, when all this could have been accomplished in a more surgical way without the need to attend to "nation building". The U.S. Military is a not good at nation building but is very good at defense and very good at missions designed to take out an enemy, they are not so good at building nations.

See if this sounds familier.

“The single most important reason that Soviet leaders delayed the decision to withdraw for as long as they did is that they continued to believe the USSR could help stabilize Afghanistan, build up the Afghan armed forces, and make the Kabul government more acceptable to the people. This is hardly the only reason, however. Soviet leaders found it difficult to disengage from the Afghan conflict because they feared undermining Moscow’s status as a defender of Third World countries against encroaching neo-colonialism.”

As I stated earlier, our mission in Afghanistan was done with the death of UBL, and more so with the destruction of most if not all of AQ in that nation. The long history of policy towards that nation has been flawed, from the beginning take your pick of Presidents and should have always been one that reflected the needs on a more local basis and not Afghanistan as a nation.

 

[asterism]

What action did he take as President that you are most disappointed in.

Drone killings vs. capture and interrogate.

It's a crass lie of omission to his campaign rhetoric and I think it's actually more sinister. Would you honestly rather be killed than waterboarded?

 

[Amelia]

I don't even consider him my president, or president of the United States, he's a total and complete fraud...

Is that real?

In 2007, Chris Matthews said Obama was born in Indonesia.

 

[ThinkCritically]

If you can only pick one ... what would it be?

Mine is the extension of the Patriot Act. If I could only ask him one question, and get an honest answer, I'd want to know the logic behind that.

110% agree

 

[asterism]

For a group that thinks so lowly of him, I would think it would be much easier to come up with concrete, specific examples.

Oh, you're looking for a list. Ok:

-GM bailouts (extending a failed Bush policy and making it worse)
-TARP II (same)
-Jiggering the unemployment numbers (fewer employed but a lower unemployment with a higher working age population?)
-Campaigning against the Bush strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan and then following it to the letter, then claiming credit for the successes of it.
-Blaming "the previous Administration" for problems he "inherited" but then celebrating successes he inherited like the leads that led to getting Bin Laden.


-as I stated before, killing targets instead of waterboarding them.

 

[asterism]

If you can only pick one ... what would it be?

Mine is the extension of the Patriot Act. If I could only ask him one question, and get an honest answer, I'd want to know the logic behind that.

I would have to say, in the first years of his Administration a lack of focus on the economy and more focus on the healthcare bill. Let me explain, it's my humble opinion that President Obama used up a lot of the good will he had when first elected on the healthcare bill needlessly at a time, had he focused on the economy and housing issues would have gone a long way. I do believe the support for the provision for the "individual mandate" in the healthcare act was not very wise on the Administrations part and will more than likely be overturned. Had the Administration encouraged congress to pass a series of smaller bills such as " pre-existing condition", etc. they would have had wide support for those in my humble opinion.

In fact, I was just reading about that in Robert Draper's book. A very good read, there are no kid gloves. Pelosi is wrong, here's why. Obama is wrong, here's why. Weiner is ... well, we don't need to go over that again.

Yeah. The bill should have gone one piece at a time, and a lot more good could have been done.

Is that an argument for incrementalism?

 

[asterism]

Okay. Ignore the word 'disappointment', and I'll leave out the word 'president'. What is the one thing Obama has done that you perceive as his biggest blunder.

Fine...his corruption or ignorance. Because the people that sit on this Presidents economic council are inarguably the same Goddamn people that caused the collapse.
Inarguable.
But I don't expect you or anyother Obama supporter to know this, or what critical key role Larry Summers and others on his team played.

See this thread? This is me trying to get educated on the whole picture, not just the D side.

Ah.

Here's the fiscal conservative side:

1. For a central planner, he's utterly clueless. Literally, this guy has no clue about the economy. He can't even pick a competent set of experts, hence the drastic failure of his policies, and the predictions of his appointees. It's clear that he chose a group of activists with some economics credentials instead of choosing some economists with activist credentials. That shows a complete naivete in the dynamics of the system of which he is trying to control.

2. Any idiot would be able to tell the President than in order to fix the healthcare system while also staying true to the other Progressive sacred cows the economy needed immediate and concentrated attention that delivered results first, then healthcare reform a close second. That the President chose to focus on ARRA just shows that either he was wrong about how popular his healthcare reforms would be or that he was wrong about how horrible his stimulus was going to perform, or both. That means he was just really wrong about all of that.

Think about a nation where he didn't double down on the bailouts, didn't do the Solyndra Roulette, didn't "pass it before we can see what's in it," didn't screw over bondholders and shareholders to give unions control of GM, and didn't take the public option off the table just so he and his sycophants would be able to claim a legislative victory in 2009.

Imagine Obama being pragmatic about Iraq and Afghanistan and saying that after seeing all the information it's time to get behind our warriors. Then do exactly what he has done and get out of Iraq after another 2 years and set the timeline to exit Afghanistan. Then make the case that drone killings are better than capture and detention (I disagree, but he could successfully win that argument against me because he's the President).

Then after directing the nation's attention to rallying behind a war effort, he calls for shared sacrifice and enlists the unions to have some skin in the game - thereby giving wage and pension concessions for an ownership stake in the largest manufacturer in the nation (exactly what they have now). And then, asking for us to "take a gamble, then hedge our bets" on a combination of increased investments in alternative energy while increasing the level of private domestic oil production (again, exactly what we have now).

Then, passing the same ARRA but selling it as a "step in the right direction."

Everything would be the same now, but he would be a shoo-in for re-election and he wouldn't have a Republican House.

 

[MikeK]

I didn't post that to pick a side so much as to say that our help for Afghan rebels began under the Carter Administration as well as to show that over the years several Administrations both Republican and Democrat have spent time in that country to no avail in my humble opinion. On a personal level once we had killed UBL the SecDef should have marched out to a lecturn at the Pentagon and claimed victory and ended that War. Given the long history of nations involved there, I can assure you that not long after we have left there it will be as if we never were there and it will be business as usual and all we have to show for it a rather large bill to pay to China for it, not including the costs to the all the brave young warriors who have fought there over the years.

I am aware of no reason for our fully deployed presence in Afghanistan other than patronage of the Military Industrial Complex -- as was the case in Iraq. If the intention of our government was revenge for the 9/11 attack that could have been achieved early on via bribery and classic assassination methods, which ultimately was the method used. It didn't call for deployment of a mechanized army.

The bottom line is you are 100% correct in observing that the people of Afghanistan are tribally oriented. Any notion about forcibly altering in one decade a social characteristic which has evolved over dozens of of generations is not only ignorant but arrogantly so.