I thought it better to have all the debate about Obama's presidency in one place, instead of having a million and one threads debating his abilities. So this thread can manoeuvre anywhere in sphere of subjects related to Obama and especially his presidency. I won't as yet lock other threads, however I'd prefer it that criticisms or praise of Obama were in here for now, as he hasn't even yet started office, so seems silly to have a million and one topics about. - j7
On a slight side note, for some of you to think about - Obama is now going to be the President, complaining about how bad a candidate he is isn't going to change that fact ;)
On a slight side note, for some of you to think about - Obama is now going to be the President, complaining about how bad a candidate he is isn't going to change that fact ;)
So, we should lay down our verbal arms, and let him kill us all? Would you do the same for the oposition? Obama says something and we jump, right?
Don't make jokes about suicide--that's horrible. --Jae
So, we should lay down our verbal arms, and let him kill us all? Would you do the same for the oposition? Obama says something and we jump, right?
Perhaps you may want to offer a viable option for Obama to take instead of just criticising him (n.b. before I'm accused of any bias - I wouldn't of voted for Obama or McCain - though I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. I'm also not American).
Perhaps you may want to offer a viable option for Obama to take instead of just criticising him (n.b. before I'm accused of any bias - I wouldn't of voted for Obama or McCain - though I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. I'm also not American).
I will criticise any politician when I feel as I need to. You may not have noticed, but LucasForum's server is on American soil. Congrats on trying to surpress the freedom of speech while using an American based forum.
I will criticise any politician when I feel as I need to. You may not have noticed, but LucasForum's server is on American soil. Congrats on trying to surpress the freedom of speech while using an American based forum.
Have I supressed your right to criticise him anywhere? I offered a non Mod comment, hence it not being in green your free to heed or ignore that however, you may want to review the Forum Rules;
1. Everyone is reminded that Lucasforums is a privately owned corporation and is a PG-13 forum. You are our invited guests. The staff have the challenging job of keeping the forums clean and presentable while not suffocating open discussion. If a thread is locked or a post is edited or deleted, this was a step deemed necessary in the staff's judgment. Please don't throw around irrelevant constitutional law or try to plea the case for 'less censorship'. We're not censoring, we're exercising quality control on something in which we invest a great deal of effort and time. You may present your views and opinions, whether they're popular or not, but you must do so in a respectful and courteous manner appropriate to a PG-13 forum.
May I suggest not trying to tell any member of the Mod team how the forums works.
So, we should lay down our verbal arms, and let him kill us all?
I lol'd.
'Cause.
Y'know.
McCain was so against killing people.
The topic is "Obama", not "Yar-El's posting style". Off-topic posts and baiting comments have been removed. Keep it civil and on-topic, please.
To bring up an issue for this thread: What do you all think that Obama will do in way of our foreign appeal? Has our reputation be forever tarnished by Bush, or is the damage reparable?
He'll be the Messiah for a short time, afterwards the boulevard of broken dreams in his wake will at least make him mortal, probably just another president, and pherhaps the great satan V2.0. I just hope he spends his Messiah time well.
And if you think your reputation is forever tarnished by Bush, ask a sub-saharan African what he/she thinks about him and prepare for a surprise.
To bring up an issue for this thread: What do you all think that Obama will do in way of our foreign appeal?
Whatever else is said; Obama is seen very well in Europe - so inside Europe he will have improved your foreign appeal.
Has our reputation be forever tarnished by Bush, or is the damage reparable?
I like America :) The damage isn't un-repairable, and its sad that Bush's presidency is only going to be remembered for the foreign policy - (i.e. the Iraq war). America has much going for it, and it will be interesting to see how things go.
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.
I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!
My friend has even worse stories, he's a member of the local Young Democrats group, or, rather, the Students for Barack Obama group... and there are a lot of kids in it who feel that he's the Messiah!
Now, to declare my bias, I wouldn't have voted for him if I could've (2012!) but nor was I all that crazy about McCain.
Since kids usually represent their Parent's biases, it's really kinda scary that so many parents like Obama this much!
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.
I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!
I agree, it's REALLY creepy how into Obama some people are. Sure, I like the guy and I think he'll do a good job, I mean, Bush is a pretty low standard to beat, but really, this whole craze with thinking that Obama will fix all the wrongs in the world is just weird.
I just hope he spends his Messiah time well.
As do I. It'd be a shame if, once in office, none of the promises that threw him into office were delivered.
And if you think your reputation is forever tarnished by Bush, ask a sub-saharan African what he/she thinks about him and prepare for a surprise.
Indeed. I guess money does buy you friends.
Whatever else is said; Obama is seen very well in Europe - so inside Europe he will have improved your foreign appeal.
Europe's certainly a start. :p
I like America :) The damage isn't un-repairable, and its sad that Bush's presidency is only going to be remembered for the foreign policy - (i.e. the Iraq war). America has much going for it, and it will be interesting to see how things go.
I dare to say that Bush's foreign policy ended up affecting his home policy, too, as opposed to staying overseas.
My friend has even worse stories, he's a member of the local Young Democrats group, or, rather, the Students for Barack Obama group... and there are a lot of kids in it who feel that he's the Messiah!
:lol:
Since kids usually represent their Parent's biases, it's really kinda scary that so many parents like Obama this much!
I disagree: many (kids) are more affected by their peer's/close 'friends'' views. It's not always 'cool' to be with your parents in politics, or so I've observed.
I agree, it's REALLY creepy how into Obama some people are. Sure, I like the guy and I think he'll do a good job, I mean, Bush is a pretty low standard to beat, but really, this whole craze with thinking that Obama will fix all the wrongs in the world is just weird.
QFT.
Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.
I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!
My friend has even worse stories, he's a member of the local Young Democrats group, or, rather, the Students for Barack Obama group... and there are a lot of kids in it who feel that he's the Messiah!
Now, to declare my bias, I wouldn't have voted for him if I could've (2012!) but nor was I all that crazy about McCain.
Since kids usually represent their Parent's biases, it's really kinda scary that so many parents like Obama this much!
I definately agree with this. It is really un-nerving, to me at least, that so many people get this caught up in things.
Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.
:nod:
You may not have noticed, but LucasForum's server is on American soil.
QFT.
Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.
Well, I think that was more in jest than actual truth. A 15 mins of fame sort of thing.
_EW_
First off, Bush actually won the international medal for PEACE(no not peace, nor Peace as it actually stands for something, but I can't remember what) because of his comitment to education and foreign aid. Please try not to trivialize the few good things he has done. He doesn't have a lot of them.
Obama is a good man, and I hope everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt. I also hope that his supporters are honest enough to call him on the things he does wrong. This international craze over Obama will die down rather quickly. For now most of them are still in the "Anybody but Bush" mode, but as soon as Obama does something for the US that others disagree with, we'll be back to being hated again.
The only reasons I supported Obama were:
His pro-science plans
His pro-environment plans
His speech about why 'politics should be secular'
And because his economic plan sounded better than what the GOP came up with. (But not much better. It was still full of problems.)
Other than that, I disagreed with most all the rest of Obama's plans, that and his ties to corrupt people and crazy pastors...
I'm with Mur'phon on this one.
I'm sick and tired of the people who worship the very ground he walks on! It's really disconcerting to be in a class of what you thought were rational people and suddenly find out that they don't like Obama... they practically worship him!
Reminds me of that same religious-like fervor Republicans held for Bush, in spite of the fact that the man couldn't bumble through a sentence without saying a word that didn't, in fact, exist. I'm sorry, there's labelling someone an idiot, and then there's just being unintelligable, which is a major, MAJOR factor in leadership skill, and a precursor for evidence in their cognitive abilities, as well as their intelligence. The man wasn't fit to be anyone's commander in cheif, just like Palin isn't fit to be second in command, for the exact same reason. I don't understand why it seems that, to Republicans, you have to fit a certain mold. White, older, and stupider than you are, and if they aren't stupider, then they're elitist.
I don't follow Obama blindly, worshipping him. I don't worship anyone or anything, that's a personal life choice, and one of the things I love about Obama's policies on separation of church and state, something that a lot, not all, but a lot, of Conservative Republicans are against simply because they don't know how to keep religion, which is basically an irrational faith, out of their reason and logic. I have my doubts about whether or not Obama can make the changes he wants to make. His choices thus far are bold, and ballsy, and constructed, in my mind, to both gather as much bipartisan support as he possibly can, so as to have little to no political resistance in the drastic choices he will be making later on, and forming enough socialist and democratic change in the country to earn a re-election.
If there's ever been a politician intelligent and tactful enough to pull it off, it's him, but for me, being a left-wing libertarian, that means my policies, the things I agree with, will probably be squandered until Obama changes gears out of his center-left position, back into far left. He'll only do that, though, after he's got the Republican support he'll need to avoid bickering in the senate and congress, and get things done properly. If he can do that, then I personally believe that he'll make strident efforts in ushering this country back into an age of enlightenment, fairness, and peace. Does that mean it will all happen in his term? No, but he sure as hell can set a precedent for foreign policy that has been harshly neglected in the past 8 years in favour of war, work with his best-of-the-best economic team to bring stability, and hopefully a less capitalistic attitude (though those two kinda go hand in hand), to the economy, and begin to alleviate the war debts America faces.
He can start working towards leaving his successor the plans for a greener America, begin larger efforts on alternative energies and environmental conservation, raise the quality of living, bridge wealth gaps, pave the way for further redistribution of wealth, and even begin raising the quality of education. That's why I support him, because I think he'll set us down the right track, commence these policies, not complete them, but get them started. That, and I simply do not think conservative policy is at all constructive, nor is it rationally sound, toward any kind of progress. That's why I support Obama, and that's why I'm a liberal in the first place.
As per the comments about Obama's "friends"? I'm just not even gonna bother arguing that anymore. Why? Because it's crap. End of story.
Personally, i really dislike obama. I would've voted for McCain. but thats because im christian and repblicans generally fit that way of life. i mean, im all pro choice, kinda. if a woman wants to screw her life and teh life of her own unborn baby, let her. then she would just be a <snipped>. or just a bad mom, in either case she shouldn't have gotten into bed with someone anyways. or if some gay guy wants to get married to another gay, im alright with that. as long as he doesn't stare at me from across the room. and bush isn't an idiot. what happened over in iraq isn't his fault, wouldn't any one of us , in the heat of the moment, gone to war, all pissed off at the Middle Easterns? we speak with rational hindight, right then and there was were a bloodshed would've broke out.
now ofcourse McCain has his short comings too. he chose the wrong person for VP. if you wanna win the presicency you gotta get someone from a big state. shoulda gone for someone from michigan or something, then he woulda won. but im not going to list all the tiny little discrepencies and wrongs that someones done, at least not yet.
Personally, i really dislike obama. I would've voted for McCain. but thats because im christian and repblicans generally fit that way of life.
That's a poor way to go about selecting a political party to vote for. Choosing a candidate simply based on their party's usual ideals is ignorant, at best. McCain is a far cry from the traditional Republican candidate, to be honest, as is Obama from the traditional Democrat.
i mean, im all pro choice, kinda. if a woman wants to screw her life and teh life of her own unborn baby, let her. then she would just be a <snipped>. or just a bad mom, in either case she shouldn't have gotten into bed with someone anyways.
Do you know how many women are raped and impregnated every day in the United States? If you had a strangers child violently forced on you, can you say you'd want to carry and give birth to it? Some women just aren't ready to be mothers, and if they have one forced on them, they have every right to abort it. With all due respect, labelling a woman who wants to get rid of a rapist's daughter a bad mother is a poor and incredibly offensive judgement call.
or if some gay guy wants to get married to another gay, im alright with that. as long as he doesn't stare at me from across the room.
So, it's ok for a straight man to find a woman attractive, but a gay man isn't allowed to check out another man he finds attractive? So long as he doesn't force himself on the guy, there's no problem with that.
and bush isn't an idiot. what happened over in iraq isn't his fault, wouldn't any one of us , in the heat of the moment, gone to war, all pissed off at the Middle Easterns? we speak with rational hindight, right then and there was were a bloodshed would've broke out.
A politician, particularly the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world, should be calm, rational, and level headed, no matter what's going on. If anyone else had rushed into war just as Bush did, I sure as hell wouldn't have voted for them, either. Saying that it was done in the heat of the moment doesn't justify it, in fact, it only further serves to prove the point that it was a giant mistake.
now ofcourse McCain has his short comings too. he chose the wrong person for VP. if you wanna win the presicency you gotta get someone from a big state. shoulda gone for someone from michigan or something, then he woulda won. but im not going to list all the tiny little discrepencies and wrongs that someones done, at least not yet.
If you want to win the Presidency you need to choose a running mate with some semblance of intelligence. Choosing someone "from a big state" doesn't necessarily do jack - a politician from a big state has the potential to be just as stupid as Palin. But I won't argue with you on that one, because at least you acknowledge that Palin was a mistake.
EDIT @ Jae below: I'm sorry if I'm coming across as uncivil. It's certainly not my intention. I've edited this post, and will keep a closer eye on myself in the future.
It's an Obama thread, not an election thread, not an abortion thread, and please don't turn it into a thread about gawking at someone's buns, legs, or assorted other body parts. Doctor, watch how you word your posts so that you don't end up on the wrong side of the 'be civil' rule. You're getting close to the boundary. Jedi_Man--accusing women of being sluts out of hand if they get pregnant, when there may be completely innocent reasons on their part for the impregnation (e.g. rape), is tremendously offensive. Please avoid that characterization in the future. Thank you.
Personally, i really dislike obama.
Yet, you don't state why.
I would've voted for McCain. but thats because im christian and repblicans generally fit that way of life.
Most Americans are Christians, 78%, give or take. Most Democrats are Christians, yes, they're not the same kind of evangelical christians that the Republican part holds on to, but Obama was a Christian. So then, was Obama the wrong kind of Christian?
i mean, im all pro choice, kinda. if a woman wants to screw her life and teh life of her own unborn baby, let her. then she would just be a <snipped>. or just a bad mom, in either case she shouldn't have gotten into bed with someone anyways.
Then clearly, you are pro-choice, and pro-life, which a perfectly reasonable stance, though I think you need to learn a little more about why people would want an abortion first.
Also: Given your stance, you could easily have gone for Obama, Obama is pro-life and pro-choice, just like you.
or if some gay guy wants to get married to another gay, im alright with that. as long as he doesn't stare at me from across the room.
And Obama, while having to take the Christian line of "marriage is between a man and a woman", at least believes gays should have the right, and it's a state issue.
and bush isn't an idiot. what happened over in iraq isn't his fault, wouldn't any one of us , in the heat of the moment, gone to war, all pissed off at the Middle Easterns?
"Middle easterners" did nothing to us. A radical hate group did. Please get your facts straight. It is like being attacked by the KKK, they do not represent Americans, they are a radical hate group.
In any case, your views are as much Democrat as they are Republican, so, why not Obama?
Perhaps you may want to offer a viable option for Obama to take instead of just criticising him (n.b. before I'm accused of any bias - I wouldn't of voted for Obama or McCain - though I think Obama was the lesser of two evils. I'm also not American).
Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.
And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.
Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.
Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.
And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.
Yup that's still my opinion :xp:, and I would argue a lot of the above as to what Obama is guilty of is down to opinion, I'll agree its fact when he's tried in a court of law (innocent until proven guilty etc).
Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.
Unfortunately these days I think most politicians are corrupt, and would suspect Bush is definatly in bed with big business.
Unfortunately these days I think most politicians are corrupt, and would suspect Bush is definatly in bed with big business.Just suspect? His VP was the CEO and chairman of Halliburton and his own family has been in the oil and banking businesses for years, Bush working for the former before he entered politics. Garfield simply likes to point out that Obama is so different from every other politician in these areas, even though he's no more corrupt than any other politician.
that and his ties to corrupt people and crazy pastors...
I would watch what you say. If I remember correctly, you're quite familiar with ties to crazy pastors.
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones :)
_EW_
And I swear to god, if someone says ad hominem to me, I'm going to pull out my own hair.
Edit:
I don't make idle accusations.
Sorry, but that's the definition of what you're doing.
_EW_
Military action against civilians is terrorism. Period.
Then every bit of modern warfare that has transpired since Sherman's march to the sea could be classified as such. Does this mean that every single combatant is a terrorist?
Warfare is ugly and, ideally, it should not happen, but it does.
No. Maybe that's enough for you, but I don't believe the government ever has a right to kill innocents no matter how many zones they put up.
And, ideally, you are correct. Unfortunately, it does not work out that way, and it is not just to treat individual combatants like criminals, or to view them as such.
But we're kind of getting off-topic here. This kind of discussion belongs in another thread. ;)
Then every bit of modern warfare that has transpired since Sherman's march to the sea could be classified as such. Does this mean that every single combatant is a terrorist?Does every single combatant engage civilians? I'll need to know whether or not this is a premise before I can accurately respond to your other question.
Warfare is ugly and, ideally, it should not happen, but it does.Indeed. I'm not sure what this has to do with a conversation about standards and how we apply them though. :confused:
I'd just like to point out the laughable irony of GarfieldJL, of all people, accusing others of taking part in a smear campaign. :lol:
Does every single combatant engage civilians? I'll need to know whether or not this is a premise before I can accurately respond to your other question.
Are you accusing McCain of deliberately targeting civilians?
Indeed. I'm not sure what this has to do with a conversation about standards and how we apply them though. :confused:
It has everything to do with the fact that, realistically speaking, applying standards has very little to do with waging modern warfare. Unless you want to lose, of course. :p
The best thing that a nation's military can do is take the necessary steps to insure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, but even then they can not be completely avoided. Such is war.
Are you accusing McCain of deliberately targeting civilians?Are you answering a question with a question? :xp:
My earlier assertion was that military action against civilians is terrorism. If you would like to muddy the dialog with allegation that I have not made against the deliberateness (or lack thereof) of John McCain's actions, we can, however I don't see what that has to do with the point I was trying to make.
It has everything to do with the fact that, realistically speaking, applying standards has very little to do with waging modern warfare. Unless you want to lose, of course. :p"Win" or "lose" also have nothing to do with the point I was making.
What constitutes an act of terrorism? However we choose to define it, we then have to ask if anything we do fits that definition. And we have to do it objectively. We can't make arguments from special pleading about how it isn't terrorism when we do it because "we're the good guys", etc.
The best thing that a nation's military can do is take the necessary steps to insure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum, but even then they can not be completely avoided. Such is war.Fair enough. Then I will say that war is an act of terrorism and we should be careful when labeling others "terrorist" because that label applies to us as well. My 2 cents.
PS: I'm perfectly ok with this so long as we're consistent. I don't want anyone to misinterpret my post as some sort of bleeding-heart, "give peace a chance" BS.
What constitutes an act of terrorism? However we choose to define it, we then have to ask if anything we do fits that definition. And we have to do it objectively. We can't make arguments from special pleading about how it isn't terrorism when we do it because "we're the good guys", etc.
In war the concept of "good guys and bad guys" is rarely more than propaganda. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part there are only the victors and the vanquished.
Then I will say that war is an act of terrorism and we should be careful when labeling others "terrorist" because that label applies to us as well. My 2 cents.
And I know way too much about how we waged World War II to ever be able to honestly disagree with you.
This is so much of a non-issue, I think it's utterly ridiculous that we still consider it a viable topic for debate. To assume that Obama is somehow guilty of terrorism, or of planning some sort of terrorist attack on America, I never even remotely implied that. I don't think Obama is planning any kind of terrorism at all. I don't even think Ayers is planning any kind of terrorism now--I think he's moved on to working within the system to effect changes instead of blowing things up for attention.
On the contrary, Jae, I think it's the height of ignorance to assume that simply because they've interacted, they're suddenly friends...Just because I know them, and have shared idle chat with them, doesn't mean they have any influence whatsoever on what I believe, or how I stand on any issue.
Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?
This whole issue a sad farce of an attempt to smear Obama's name, and it's discredited a more or less respectable man of learning in the process. Did Ayers make a bad move? Yeah, he did. My Grandmother's sister made some bad choices too. You know what they called her in the '60s? A hippy. That's all Ayers was too, plain and simple.A lot of hippies sat around in their VW minibuses painted with psychedelic daisies, smoked joints (or did assorted other mind-altering substances) while listening to Janis Joplin and the Beatles, and joined in generally peaceful protests against the Vietnam war if they protested at all. Most hippies did not go bombing things, and Ayers' actions at that time were certainly not the benign actions of a peacenik. Ayers was a criminal for what he did, and was most definitely not a peace-loving Harry the Happy Hippy. Mind you, I don't associate Obama with the Ayers of the past who bombed things. Obama associates with the obviously more mature Ayers, and they've worked together on a number of educational/social activism projects.
I'm not going to throw Obama under the bus for being friends with an anti-war activist who used violent techniques, although I will call Ayers on not apologizing for his crimes and making restitution. However, the things Ayers says and teaches are very liberal, and Obama has associated with him on these issues. Ayers is a lot more liberal than I prefer, and I do want to know how much of an influence Ayers' current liberal ideas have on Obama. So, in that respect, the depth of their relationship, public and private, is important information for me.
As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks. I understand that Obama has denounced Ayers' actions on that matter, by the way, and accept that denouncement as genuine.
Terrorism: Let's work with this definition as a starting point (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism) so we're all on the same page (no pun intended). The Academic Consensus Definition is this:
4. Academic Consensus Definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988).[14]
Since open warfare is not a clandestine (semi- or otherwise) operation, and open warfare has specific intended targets (enemy combatants) rather than symbolic targets, actions conducted during war are not technically terrorist acts. McCain's actions during the Vietnam war thus do not fall under the definition of terrorism. Any willful violations of the laws of land warfare would fall under the heading of war crimes. Since there's no evidence that he attempted to violate the laws of warfare, he can't be charged with war crimes, either.
Intentional targeting of civilians is a violation of the laws of land warfare (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war)
Parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. For example, they are obliged to make every effort to avoid damaging people and property not involved in combat, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb mistakenly hits a residential area.
By the same token, combatants that use protected people or property as shields or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and are responsible for damage to those that should be protected.
See also the Army field manual on the Law of Land Warfare (
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~nstanton/FM27-10.htm) for more military minutiae than most any of us ever wanted.
Due to a number of reported posts from this thread, and several of you becoming upset over various aspects of posts, I'm closing this for 24 hours, for everyone to cool down - will be re-opened this time tomorrow -- j7
Re-opened! -- j7
I agree, it's REALLY creepy how into Obama some people are. Sure, I like the guy and I think he'll do a good job, I mean, Bush is a pretty low standard to beat, but really, this whole craze with thinking that Obama will fix all the wrongs in the world is just weird.
It is also irrational and a bajillion other similar things, most of which could be considered idolization. I'm not normally into viiolence...most of the time... however, dingy people sure could use a good smack upside the head,
or a chinese foot-sole spanking to bring them back to reality.
Creepy? 2 words: Obama girl.
Finally someone of the opposite sex with a collegiate background agrees with me...and a fencer too. I remember how weird and offended some wives in the fencing club got at me when I called obama girl creepy. Seriously SNL status.
As do I. It'd be a shame if, once in office, none of the promises that threw him into office were delivered. Which I have come to expect with *every* politician.
Indeed. I guess money does buy you friends.
Define friend? :) In that case I would rather attempt to tame a ferile aggressive adult brown rat.
I disagree: many (kids) are more affected by their peer's/close 'friends'' views. It's not always 'cool' to be with your parents in politics, or so I've observed.
It depends largely on the age group you're looking at, really.
Personally, I was always apart from my peers and eventually my parents too. My opinions were contrary and different from both. So I can speak for myself when I say there are exceptions.
In general, though, true.
Obama is a good man, and I hope everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt.
I am an independent with largely conservative values, some liberal.
I'd like to give everyone the benefit of the doubt regardless if I agree/disagree with their politics.
Not that I actually think he will live up to it, buuuuut, if he will do things to make the market competitive and *keep* it there, and protect it...GREAT!
Sounds to me like he is a capitalist/free enterprise marketeer.
I'll believe it when I see it, though. Fair enough?
---------------
I also hope that his supporters are honest enough to call him on the things he does wrong. This international craze over Obama will die down rather quickly. For now most of them are still in the "Anybody but Bush" mode, but as soon as Obama does something for the US that others disagree with, we'll be back to being hated again.
Ain't that the fickle truth. You know, I wouldn't count on his supporters as THOSE are who I trust the LEAST.
Obama is a door man in my eyes. Be polite to a door man but keep an eye on him.
I don't understand why it seems that, to Republicans, you have to fit a certain mold. White, older, and stupider than you are, and if they aren't stupider, then they're elitist.
While, yes I do notice such a thing in the general republican mentality, I would advise you not make hasty generalizations. As well as to whomever else believes racism is absolutely necessarily tied into conservatism. It is not, and racists, frankly are an embarrassment.
I don't follow Obama blindly, worshipping him. I don't worship anyone or anything, that's a personal life choice, and one of the things I love about Obama's policies on separation of church and state, something that a lot, not all, but a lot, of Conservative Republicans are against simply because they don't know how to keep religion, which is basically an irrational faith, out of their reason and logic.
Thank you for the discernment--an example of discriminating. The kind rarely seen anymore since political correctness tied racism in with the word.
Principles are something as a general guidance where there is none; Common sense and logic for all else.
I have my doubts about whether or not Obama can make the changes he wants to make. His choices thus far are bold, and ballsy, and constructed, in my mind, to both gather as much bipartisan support as he possibly can, so as to have little to no political resistance in the drastic choices he will be making later on, and forming enough socialist and democratic change in the country to earn a re-election.
Agreed. And that is as far as I agree with you. The rest we will fundamentally disagree on.
Uh huh, we have a guy that pals around with terrorists, worked for a group that specializes in voter fraud, worked with a slum lord (even bought a house with this guy's help), took money from Freddie Mac.
And you say he's the lesser of two evils compared to a war hero.
Obama is either extremely corrupt, or makes George W. Bush look like a genius, I'm going for extremely corrupt. It's Chicago style politics.
The past alliances and actions are definitely something unsettling to say the least. Which gives me cause to not trust him. Whether it is more for his implicit corruption or his naivetŠ¹ and innocence he wishes to project I'm as yet uncertain.
In war the concept of "good guys and bad guys" is rarely more than propaganda. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part there are only the victors and the vanquished.
And I know way too much about how we waged World War II to ever be able to honestly disagree with you.
As is fighting for or sustaining peacesuch things are a slogan. Peace is an unnatural state. It only occurs in society and civility. Frankly, corruption is inevitableno matter what--it is like decay.
I never even remotely implied that. I don't think Obama is planning any kind of terrorism at all. I don't even think Ayers is planning any kind of terrorism now--I think he's moved on to working within the system to effect changes instead of blowing things up for attention.
I agree and I think ayers is also trying to rot the system from the inside out as his anti-americanism would best be achieved that way.
Do you regularly hold a political fund-raising party for someone who's not your friend or with whom you don't share similar political ideals? Do you host any kind of party for someone who's not your friend? Does Ayers, who feels so strongly about his ideals that he was willing to bomb things for those ideals, strike you as someone who would endorse and host fundraising events for someone who didn't share a lot of the same ideals?
Thank you! As well I think the media is covering his old wrinkly butt. Just because he says one thing about his relationship to Obama does not mean that he is telling any truth about it whatsoever. He 'said' something? Yeah, so does everyone.
<SNIP> Most hippies did not go bombing things, and Ayers' actions at that time were certainly not the benign actions of a peacenik. Ayers was a criminal for what he did, and was most definitely not a peace-loving Harry the Happy Hippy. Mind you, I don't associate Obama with the Ayers of the past who bombed things. Obama associates with the obviously more mature Ayers, and they've worked together on a number of educational/social activism projects.
Matured evil is still evil. I mistrust it. Obama, I'm not sure if the mistrust I have towards him is towards the same thing or if it is his blindness while allying with such a thing.
I have a hunch, nothing more, Obama would attempt to be another JFK and that he's attempting to use these evils against themselves and each other. Biden or Ayers would assasinate Obama, just my opinion.
I'm not going to throw Obama under the bus for being friends with an anti-war activist who used violent techniques, although I will call Ayers on not apologizing for his crimes and making restitution. However, the things Ayers says and teaches are very liberal, and Obama has associated with him on these issues. Ayers is a lot more liberal than I prefer, and I do want to know how much of an influence Ayers' current liberal ideas have on Obama. So, in that respect, the depth of their relationship, public and private, is important information for me.
As for whether or not Obama knew about Ayers' past--it's kind of hard to believe a man as well read and knowledgeable as he is would not have learned at some point about Ayers' very public record of attacks.
Confirming my hunches I guess.
Thank you, you are seriously the one of the most coherent people I have seen on this topic.
I understand that Obama has denounced Ayers' actions on that matter, by the way, and accept that denouncement as genuine. It's all a very ugly proposition, regardless.
As somebody who has been backstabbed and been let down repeatedly I have come to expect betrayal and inconsistency from those with questionable alliances--especially in the business of politics.
Genuity of character is important. I reflect what I see, and I see grey.
Well I don't trust him for a lot of reasons I'd advise people to read:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2532305&postcount=3)
Yar-El posted the post, and there is a lot more where that came from.
Thread Concerning Obama Campaign Practices which I started:
http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=192825)
All right, grab the drool buckets, people, and attach them to your head. You'll need them if you read Eli Saslow's gushing article (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/24/AR2008122402590.html) about Obama in the Washington Post. Now, I'm really glad Obama exercises--I think it's a great example for American and can only help in what's become an epidemic of health problems related to weight and lack of exercise.
However, can we make this sound a little less like a Bertrice Small bodice-ripper novel, please? The notable excerpt:
Between workouts during his Hawaii vacation this week, he was photographed looking like the paradigm of a new kind of presidential fitness, one geared less toward preventing heart attacks than winning swimsuit competitions. The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.
"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals"? I don't know whether to laugh or barf. I half-expected to see a picture of Obama either in a Chippendales speedo or on a cover of some cheesy romance novel wearing nothing but tight buckskin pants, said chiseled pects bulging as he catches the swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.
Here's a tip for you, Eli--put your tongue back in your mouth before it gets filthy from being dragged on the ground. I know that a lot of people are absolutely enchanted with Obama, but groveling is just plain tacky.
swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.Moar pics please.
Sounds more like a homo-erotic novellla than anything else. Eli is a guy, amirite? >_>
All right, grab the drool buckets, people, and attach them to your head. You'll need them if you read Eli Saslow's gushing article (
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/24/AR2008122402590.html) about Obama in the Washington Post. Now, I'm really glad Obama exercises--I think it's a great example for American and can only help in what's become an epidemic of health problems related to weight and lack of exercise.
However, can we make this sound a little less like a Bertrice Small bodice-ripper novel, please? The notable excerpt:
"The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals"? I don't know whether to laugh or barf. I half-expected to see a picture of Obama either in a Chippendales speedo or on a cover of some cheesy romance novel wearing nothing but tight buckskin pants, said chiseled pects bulging as he catches the swooning damsel-in-distress-with-pouty-lips-and-boobs-the-size-of-Montana.
Here's a tip for you, Eli--put your tongue back in your mouth before it gets filthy from being dragged on the ground. I know that a lot of people are absolutely enchanted with Obama, but groveling is just plain tacky.
I honestly fail to see how this has any relevance to Obama. The man is clearly a surpressed homosexual that finds him attractive. It is true that some people don't support Obama because his policies fit their mold, or because he is rational, intelligent, and well-read, but rather because he is a fantastic public speaker and is entrancing on stage, if you're only listening to the pretty words, and no recognising what they mean. And the words, to me, mean a whole lot, ring true with a lot of my political philosophies, and are words that I see as words filled with potential for progress and betterment of the entire nation.
This is one of many examples of individuals supporting a candidate for the wrong reasons, IE, because Obama was an African American, or because Palin was a woman. There are some, myself included, however, that choose their candidates by what they plan to do and how they plan to do it. I'm just a little tired of the nutjobs being dredged up to somehow make the man himself look less credible, or trying to build something about his "associates" that make him look like a liar and a schemer. This Eli person has sexuality confusion, obviously. But other than somehow making Obama's election to office seem unfair or irrational, I can't see any alternative reason for bringing this up besides chastising the man, which, frankly, is kind of pointless.
Nobody with any taste in literature, or common sense, for that matter, would eat that cheesefest, and it's a gaff on the Washington Post's part for printing it.
Nobody with any taste in literature, or common sense, for that matter, would eat that cheesefest, and it's a gaff on the Washington Post's part for printing it.I totally agree. I thought the Post had better taste than that, or at least an editorial board that was a little more attentive, unless, of course, they have Bertrice Small on staff, in which case I would be surprised we haven't seen something like this sooner. It's the only time something in the Washington Post made me want to gag for completely idiotic print. I'd love to see the look on Obama's face when he learns how chiseled his glistening pecs are.
Here's a few covers of 'glistening pecs' and 'damsels in distress' for your viewing pleasure. I'm sure Eli had these in mind when he was describing Obama's chiseled muscles. I hope the pouty lips and other, um, assets, are sufficiently large enough for you, Achilles, given the restrictions of a PG-13 forum. :D
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcoverletone.jpg)
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcovermcmullet.jpg)
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcovertallerth.jpg)
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcovertubesock.jpg)
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc17/JaeOnasi/Reimaginedromancenovelcoverwardrobe.jpg)
You seem to be awfully familiar with this particular... um, genre, Jae. :p
You seem to be awfully familiar with this particular... um, genre, Jae. :p
Google is your friend. :xp:
Someone wrote a book entitled Wardrobe Malfunction: She'd Risk it All to Show Her Boob?
Wow.
_EW_
Someone wrote a book entitled Wardrobe Malfunction: She'd Risk it All to Show Her Boob?
Wow.
_EW_
It's from a site that parodies bodice-ripper novel covers.
I thought the titles gave em away as parodies Jae... Then again, with the tripe that gets written in those.....
Those were funny as heck.
Gotta agree though that maybe that story could have gone in the Media bias thread... I think that definitely shows a bit of media bias... maybe just a little... Barely noticable...
OK, so I was getting some stuff in Walgreens today, and on the way out of the store I saw a display of Obama trading cards, inauguration edition (
http://www.toppsonlinestore.com/servlet/the-Obama-Trading-Cards/Categories). Now, I'm as excited as a lot of other people about Obama becoming President and what an amazing moment in history this will be. However, trading cards are just a little over the Topp.
Overall, I've been pleased with what I'm seeing from him since the election--he seems to be putting together a pretty good team of advisors, and I think having a lunch with all the current/previous living Presidents to get advice from them was a great idea. No one can truly understand the job as well as those who've been in it before, and it reinforces the picture I've gotten from him over the last year or so that he cares very deeply about not just being President, but also doing the job with excellence. I suppose you could argue that all Presidents want to be good ones, but Obama seems to be working hard on mastering all the different issues in order to be as effective as possible, and with the economy and wars, he has a very difficult road ahead of him.
I agree that the merchandising is getting a little over the top. Isn't he also supposed to be on the new Spiderman?
However, trading cards are just a little over the Topp. Well done. :)
I'm not sure which sickens me more: the knowledge that some people are so blatantly trying to cash in on something that should be above this type of crap or the knowledge that there is a market for what they're selling. Nevermind, I think I just decided that they both sicken me equally.