• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA's First 100 Out of the Way

Status
Not open for further replies.

mAcOdIn

Member
Tamanon said:
It's just so odd that the tea bag crowd didn't exist before Obama took office. I mean if they voiced discontent with Republicans, why weren't they around? I think you're greatly overestimating the character of the protests. :lol
As a whole I agree with you. I think primarily it was an anti-Obama affair with a few level headed people angry at both sides using or being used by it as an outlet as well.

That's why I didn't go to one because I'd have been guilty by association. It'd have had much more impact, even had they been even smaller in scale, if it was made up of mainly intelligent folk.
 
Tamanon said:
It's just so odd that the tea bag crowd didn't exist before Obama took office. I mean if they voiced discontent with Republicans, why weren't they around? I think you're greatly overestimating the character of the protests. :lol

I agree to an extent. But to be fair, the spending after TARP didn't begin until shortly before Bush left office. If they were solely going after Obama, I would agree. However there were many signs against Republicans. Many in the media want to portray them as being offensive, bad Americans, extremeists, etc... however the same media puts a positive spin on groups like LaRaza having protests to reclaim the South West. Or protests that are against the Iraq war where many paint Bush as Hitler, or protests against the clampdown on illegal immigration where you have high school students running across the 101 freeway stopping traffic. The media puts positive spin on these, saying how these are americans using their 1st amendant right but then for the tea bag crowd they paint as evil, militants, etc...

There was one example of the lady for CNN who said it was horrible how one person painted Obama as Hitler yet there was film of the same lady at a Iraq War protest who was laughing at a protetstor holding up a picture of bush made to resemble hitler.
 
Stoney Mason said:
There are lots of anti-abortion nuts. The entire tea bag phenonmen is a group of hypocrites that sat silent as Republican president after republican president increased spending and raised the deficit. They are exactly like code pink. Extremists.

What qualifies them as extremists? I am just curious? Also, perhaps they did wait, however many including myself were against the TARP money from day one. I was against Bush for the stimulus package and was against Obama for the same. Many people did voice their discontent when Bush was doing it. Also many of the tea bag crowd voiced their discontent with the republican senators on the matter as well.
 

Tamanon

Banned
mAcOdIn said:
As a whole I agree with you. I think primarily it was an anti-Obama affair with a few level headed people angry at both sides using or being used by it as an outlet as well.

That's why I didn't go to one because I'd have been guilty by association. It'd have had much more impact, even had they been even smaller in scale, if it was made up of mainly intelligent folk.

A better example of the folks who have been upset this whole time about spending would've been a Paul rally during the election. But he was blackballed from having any positive coverage on FOX.

Kinda strange, that.

LOL at LovingSteam thinking the media positively portrays other protesters. If you're a protestor, you're one step up from being a criminal in media coverage. No matter what the cause.:lol
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
Dude, the media barely covered Iraq war protests, and none of the networks lavished so much coverage on them as Fox did for the Tea parties. Don't even try to revise this shit.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Yeah. Nice try. The U.S. didn't do all of that. That was a single entity along with a few beurocrats that did all of that.
If by entity you mean government then sure.

Even if I take your argument over clandestine missions and who knew and ordered what, we still have the issue of Native Americans, slavery and equal rights.

If members of a religious organization are born carrying the sins of their predecessors then wouldn't the same be true for governments as well? If people are allowed to change the government by peaceful modifications within the system and not be hypocrites then shouldn't religious people also be able to change the way their organizations operate and not be labeled hypocrites?
 
LovingSteam said:
What qualifies them as extremists? I am just curious? Also, perhaps they did wait, however many including myself were against the TARP money from day one. I was against Bush for the stimulus package and was against Obama for the same. Many people did voice their discontent when Bush was doing it. Also many of the tea bag crowd voiced their discontent with the republican senators on the matter as well.

They are hypocrites. They are extremists. There are a small subset of bigots and other assorted nut bags mixed in with them. They are pissed off and upset they lost and election. Which is fine. They have 4 years to try to win the next one. I won't even pretend to take them seriously.
 
scorcho said:
This country has been trending pro-choice, and Obama's position isn't particularly onerous - choice doesn't advocate everyone being forced to have an abortion in the eyes of the law.

I'm also interested in what you believe Obama's abortion policy has been. From what I've seen, he's worked to de-politicize the way abortion has been handled by the federal government.

My concern with Obama's abortion policy isn't so much that he is an extremist when it comes to the issue but rather certain policy that he may try to pass. One concern is forcing catholic hospitals to offer abortion. I also have an issue of forcing doctors to give abortions. I am expecting him to nominate a judge for the supreme court who is more liberal, in the mold of a Ginsburg, as that is his right. I also was concerned with how he handled the question from Rick Warren regarding his view on abortion.

Some may call me an extremist because I am against abortion in most cases. I still haven't worked out my full feelings on the issue. I do believe that it would be wrong to criminalize abortion as its going to happen no matter what and the best thing would to have women get it done with a physician. I am against late term abortion unless the life of the mother is at stake. I also don't know how I feel about letting minors get an abortion without their parental authorization. Yet I understand how difficult that would be if the minor was raped/molested by a family member or if her telling her parents that she was pregnant would put her own life in jeopardy.
 
scorcho said:
Dude, the media barely covered Iraq war protests, and none of the networks lavished so much coverage on them as Fox did for the Tea parties. Don't even try to revise this shit.

Perhaps you weren't watching the same media that I was then. Especially with the La Raza and immigration rallies. It was all over the news in L.A. The Iraq protests? Again, all over the news. I am not trying to revise anything.
 
Stoney Mason said:
They are hypocrites. They are extremists. There are a small subset of bigots and other assorted nut bags mixed in with them. They are pissed off and upset they lost and election. Which is fine. They have 4 years to try to win the next one. I won't even pretend to take them seriously.

You can call them names all you like. I am asking for actual reasons why they are extremists. Just by calling them bigots doesn't make them such without showing proof. Are you saying they are bigots as in racist because Barak is black? Are you saying they are bigots being against all democrats? What qualifies them as this? Also please don't assume they are racist (if thats what you were saying) since I was against Obama and his policy/ Tarp/ spending money like there is no tomorrow and I am not racist. For some it may be about race, for most others its not.
 

mj1108

Member
Tamanon said:
It's just so odd that the tea bag crowd didn't exist before Obama took office. I mean if they voiced discontent with Republicans, why weren't they around? I think you're greatly overestimating the character of the protests. :lol

That's because 99% of the teabaggers are right wing crazy Republicans.
 
mAcOdIn said:
If by entity you mean government then sure.

Even if I take your argument over clandestine missions and who knew and ordered what, we still have the issue of Native Americans, slavery and equal rights.

If members of a religious organization are born carrying the sins of their predecessors then wouldn't the same be true for governments as well? If people are allowed to change the government by peaceful modifications within the system and not be hypocrites then shouldn't religious people also be able to change the way their organizations operate and not be labeled hypocrites?

Saying one is a hypocrite because of what our government did in the past and one supporting the government doesn't necessarily make one a hypocrite. That's an awfully vague thing to say. I don't support the CIA, there for that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I support agencies within the government that does a lot of good deeds within the U.S. and outside its borders.

Again, you're trying to compare multiple entities that makes up the U.S. government to another single entity such as the Catholic Church.
 
mj1108 said:
That's because 99% of the teabaggers are Republicans.

And many of those at the protest voiced frustration with the Repubs. Why is it that those who continue to call these individuals extremists or nutbags don't make mention that they were upset with the republicans as well?
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
So your view is that large numbers are against a last minute rule that Bush signed upon leaving office that gave medical practitioners the right to refuse medical treatment on their moral considerations?

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

LovingSteam said:
And many of those at the protest voiced frustration with the Repubs. Why is it that those who continue to call these individuals extremists or nutbags don't make mention that they were upset with the republicans as well?
You gotta stop thinking of the world only through partisan lenses. It really simplifies things.
 
LovingSteam said:
I do believe that it would be wrong to criminalize abortion
Good. Then voice your anger towards republicans who have a plank for a constitutional ban in their party platform.

Also for what its worth this thread is trending toward abortion debate and that can be taken off to the specific thread that was created for that situation if we start getting fine grain on the issue instead of talking about it in general terms. Just saying. No one wants this thread destroyed by abortion debate.
 
scorcho said:
So your view is that large numbers are against a last minute rule that Bush signed upon leaving office that gave medical practitioners the right to refuse medical treatment on their moral considerations?

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

How is that extreme? Also, that is simply my concern, I don't know about others.
Realize, I am not just talking about organ transplants because someone may be against that (Jehovah's Witness) but rather the killing of a human life (for those physicians who view abortion as such.
 
LovingSteam said:
You can call them names all you like. I am asking for actual reasons why they are extremists. Just by calling them bigots doesn't make them such without showing proof. Are you saying they are bigots as in racist because Barak is black? Are you saying they are bigots being against all democrats? What qualifies them as this? Also please don't assume they are racist (if thats what you were saying) since I was against Obama and his policy/ Tarp/ spending money like there is no tomorrow and I am not racist. For some it may be about race, for most others its not.
Dude I could give a shit. I'm all talked out on teabagers except to ridicule them. And if you are a teabagger I'll equally ridicule you for the hypocrite and nutbag you are.
 
scorcho said:
So your view is that large numbers are against a last minute rule that Bush signed upon leaving office that gave medical practitioners the right to refuse medical treatment on their moral considerations?

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.


You gotta stop thinking of the world only through partisan lenses. It really simplifies things.

I try my best not to see the world through such lenses. However, it was an observation that I have wondered about for quite some time. That is all.
 

mj1108

Member
LovingSteam said:
And many of those at the protest voiced frustration with the Repubs. Why is it that those who continue to call these individuals extremists or nutbags don't make mention that they were upset with the republicans as well?

So if they were upset with the Republicans, where were the teabaggers when Bush signed the first bailout?
 
Stoney Mason said:
Dude I could give a shit. I'm all talked out on teabagers except to ridicule them. And if you are a teabagger I'll equally ridicule you for the hypocrite and nutbag you are.

And that is all she wrote. I was trying to have a actual conversation with you about this but if you want to just ridicule and call names, there is no point.
 

scorcho

testicles on a cold fall morning
LovingSteam said:
How is that extreme? Also, that is simply my concern, I don't know about others.
Realize, I am not just talking about organ transplants because someone may be against that (Jehovah's Witness) but rather the killing of a human life (for those physicians who view abortion as such.
The edict was written in a broad way that could literally include anything - that's the bigger issue. Also, it kind of goes against the hippocratic oath.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
Saying one is a hypocrite because of what our government did in the past and one supporting the government doesn't necessarily make one a hypocrite. That's an awfully vague thing to say. I don't support the CIA, there for that doesn't make me a hypocrite. I support agencies within the government that does a lot of good deeds within the U.S. and outside its borders.
So all I got was a dodge?

Look if you can be an a la carte government supporter and pick and choose what parts of a corrupt system you support then why can't religious folks also be a la carte Christians or whatever and support what they support?

Way I'm seeing it you're being hypocritical right now, maybe you just inherently hate religion, I don't know, all I know is you're wrong.

Edit: If you can take safety behind the concept of seperate government entities then why can't religious people take refuge behind the concept of different fucking centuries?
 
mj1108 said:
So if they were upset with the Republicans, where were the teabaggers when Bush signed the first bailout?

I don't know about the tea bag crowd but there were many who voiced their displeasure through the media. If you listened to talk radio at the time, call after call after call was how Bush was making a huge mistake, how he was spending like a sailor, how the repub senators who voted for it should be removed next election.
 
scorcho said:
The edict was written in a broad way that could literally include anything - that's the bigger issue. Also, it kind of goes against the hippocratic oath.

And I definitely understand that unless its confined to individual treatments than it can cause big problems. My concern is when its an issue like abortion (again, a life at stake) then a physician should have the right.

Edit: I just read the modern version of the oath and nowhere do I find something that would conflict with a physician refusing to perform an abortion on moral grounds.
 
LovingSteam said:
And that is all she wrote. I was trying to have a actual conversation with you about this but if you want to just ridicule and call names, there is no point.

Yes. You are right. I won't have a discussion with you about abject hypocrisy and extremists. I also won't have a discussion with you about code pink. That's the joke.

I ridicule nutbags. Not pretend they aren't nutbags.
 

Shiggie

Member
8775459.jpg

Old?
Keys is even more of a joke.
 
Stoney Mason said:
Yes. You are right. I won't have a discussion with you about abject hypocrisy and extremists. I also won't have a discussion with you about code pink. That's the joke.

I ridicule nutbags. Not pretend they aren't nutbags.

Well that is where we differ. I don't mind having discussions with anyone on any issue, even if its an issue that I might disagree with. Be it Code Pink, the Tea Bag parties, or religion. But I will respect your wishes.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Karma Kramer said:
Man Steele is getting owned right now on Fox News.

Has there been a media appearance yet where he hasn't been owned? Dude is useless. And I thought he actually had some ideas or a plan for the party too. He seemed one of the better choices early on, now he's just a rambling man wandering from side to side and contradicting himself every other interview.
 

JayDubya

Banned
scorcho said:
Also, it kind of goes against the hippocratic oath.

Do you really want to talk about the "hippocratic oath" as relevant to this discussion?

Okay, and no Wikipedia link needed, thanks!

Well, let's do the quick and dirty version of this post since I have to go get lunch.

The layman thinks of the Hippocratic oath as "First, do no harm" which is the medical ethics principle of nonmaleficence, and incidentally, is precisely the relevant axiom at hand when one refuses to perform the activity in question.

The actual classical oath is less vague - certain activities relevant to what you're mentioning (euthanasia, abortion) are explicitly forbidden in the text. Oh and for that, you might want to check your own link.
 
mAcOdIn said:
So all I got was a dodge?

Look if you can be an a la carte government supporter and pick and choose what parts of a corrupt system you support then why can't religious folks also be a la carte Christians or whatever and support what they support?

Way I'm seeing it you're being hypocritical right now, maybe you just inherently hate religion, I don't know, all I know is you're wrong.

Edit: If you can take safety behind the concept of seperate government entities then why can't religious people take refuge behind the concept of different fucking centuries?

I'm not dodging anything. You're the one coming up with stupid examples. All they're doing is basically following the same principles as their predecessors. The difference is that it's wrapped differently.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Man, seeing some of these Intelligence reports that Rumsefeld made with all those biblical sayings about how righteous the fight in Iraq is makes my blood boil. I mean, it actually gives the appearance that the administration made this into a Holy War. It seriously looks like something you'd expect off some of the Taqfiri propaganda.

righteousnation.jpg


I mean, look at this shit!
 

RurouniZel

Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
I was reading the news about all of the "flip-flopping" Obama is doing on requesting the release of the photos be put on hold for now. But after listening to his reasoning, and doing a little refreshing on his early acts/statements as President, I'm thinking this actually might work in his favor, as well as the favor of his party.

As any good comedian or salesman will tell you, there are two tricks to being successful in any trade. The first is confidence (which as we all know, Obama has in spades). The second, and often overlooked trick, is timing.

Obama may not be the world's greatest comedian, but he is a great salesman. He's confident, efficient, and walked into the PotUS position at the right time. And he understands that releasing the photos will come, but there's a better time for it; one that is far more efficient and profitable for him and his party. I would say, perhaps, September 2010?

Let's look at the timeline. Earlier this year, Obama announced his plan to greatly reduce troops from Iraq by August 2010. His comments this past week about the photos also involve the troops, namely that revealing the photos at this time would give the Taliban/Militants in the middle east more fodder to ignite their anger and thus, put the troops in more danger. As such, it would seem wiser to reveal these photos after most of these soliders have been brought home.

This works out rather conveniently, as this puts the ideal time to reveal the photos a mere two months before the Nov. 2010 congress elections, where many Republican seats are currently being contested. If the photos come out then, the Democrats will have tons of new fodder with which to label the Republicans as the party that "allowed these inhumane crimes against humanity to happen. Crimes that have turned the entire world against the United States". And two months might not be enough time for those Republicans to wade through the PR mess to reverse that tide, which could swing many independents to vote against them. It will be much easier for Obama to push his plans and projects through congress if he has a defining majority (59/60 is technically a majority, but as we've all seen it's not quite enough to make the process smooth). If that number were to increase to say, 70, the Republicans would be all but powerless, and no amount of "No" votes would help them.

If this is the President's line of thinking, all I can say is... that's a pretty efficient way to get rid of the clogs in pushing his ideas through. Whether this is a good thing or not, well, that's a personal opinion.
 

Tamanon

Banned
Rurouni: I think it actually might be a different tact than what you're suggesting. Not a political one per se, but one that keeps some information that would inflame the extremist cells out there from interfering with the Iraq drawdown process.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Jason's Ultimatum said:
I'm not dodging anything. You're the one coming up with stupid examples. All they're doing is basically following the same principles as their predecessors. The difference is that it's wrapped differently.
Right, because they're still out there going after astronomers and holding Crusades.

You're not being remotely reasonable and are clearly biased against the church. Just as people are free to leave the church you are free to leave the country if you feel your tax dollars are in any way supporting something you find morally reprehensible yet you stay, that IMO makes you culpable. Unless you refuse to pay taxes you are supporting the government, all of it.

The Catholic church has changed dramatically. The Pope is able to reinterpret the scripture to facilitate change, that's essentially the same as us interpreting our constitution. Both entities have done wrongs, still are doing wrongs, have methods to change them and have people actively seeking to do just that, however in your eyes changing government is fine changing the church, well it's still the same church of the inquisition.

I'm not the one being unreasonable.
 
Tamanon said:
Man, seeing some of these Intelligence reports that Rumsefeld made with all those biblical sayings about how righteous the fight in Iraq is makes my blood boil. I mean, it actually gives the appearance that the administration made this into a Holy War. It seriously looks like something you'd expect off some of the Taqfiri propaganda.

Honestly though is it really that surprising...


I remember a short time after 9/11 happened, I had this Christian religious friend who suddenly was all interested in Islam and viewed this entire conflict in quasi-biblical terms. He had all sorts of crazy hate Islam books that I would see him with. That sort of mindset was very prevalent back then. The only real difference imo is that its not PC to say those thing as the bloodlust levels you are allowed to display in public are much lower now than a couple of years ago.

Now I have all sorts of issues with Islam as a religion and a social factor but then I have all sorts of problems with Christianity too.
 

Gruco

Banned
scorcho said:
With Cheney's resurgence and this new article on Rumsfeld, it is odd how sympathetic I feel towards Bush now. I should disabuse myself of such feeling.
Yeah, don't feel bad for Bush. He was an incapable leader and it was because of his own shortcomings that these men had the detrimental impact that they did.

Looking back to 2000 and the "President can have good advisors" matra that came back to anyone who pointed out Bush's obvious unfitness for the job, it's a shame that so few people seemed concerned about what would happen if he had bad ones.

As far as Pelosi is concerned, I have a few main thoughts -

1) It's important to pay attention to the language. Pelosi complained about how she was mislead. Panetta is talking about how it's not policy[/i[ to mislead. Strictly speaking, this is not even a he said, she said story because nobody is even directly refuting one another.

2) It's pretty obvious that this is an obfuscation effort. If you look at things in the worst possible light for Pelosi, all you've established is that while she was minority leader she did not complain loudly enough about interrogation techniques which Republicans are insisting are perfectly legal. I mean, it would suck if Pelosi did know about everything and did nothing, but at the same time, the only reasons to point this out would be to undercut her rom the left or confuse people / take advantage of confusion.

3) Of all parties, Graham is the one I am most likely to defer to. He's been pretty reliable on intelligence issues and is known as a note taker, while Panetta was not involved with the CIA until this year.

So yeah, whole thing is stupid.
 
Tamanon said:
Rurouni: I think it actually might be a different tact than what you're suggesting. Not a political one per se, but one that keeps some information that would inflame the extremist cells out there from interfering with the Iraq drawdown process.

This. Its interesting that someone who before they go into office has one belief but then sitting behind the desk has another one. I won't say its a flip flop as much as having the full intelligence brief. This is what sets congressmen/women apart from the Pres many times. Obama now has access to info he didn't before hand. This is why he has no agreed to keeping the military tribunals and not releasing the photos. As President Obama, Barak now understands better the challenges of keeping this country safe. Bravo for him.
 
PHOTOS The President at Notre Dame

610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg


610x.jpg

A student wears a mortarboard with a symbol for an aborted fetus, as she expresses her opposition prior to the commencement address by U.S. President Barack Obama at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana

610x.jpg


610x.jpg

A student (R) displays her mortarboard with a symbol for an aborted fetus, next to a fellow student displaying a symbol from the Obama for President campaign, prior to the commencement address by U.S. President Barack Obama at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Indiana May 17, 2009.
 

Tamanon

Banned
LovingSteam said:
This. Its interesting that someone who before they go into office has one belief but then sitting behind the desk has another one. I won't say its a flip flop as much as having the full intelligence brief. This is what sets congressmen/women apart from the Pres many times. Obama now has access to info he didn't before hand. This is why he has no agreed to keeping the military tribunals and not releasing the photos. As President Obama, Barak now understands better the challenges of keeping this country safe. Bravo for him.

It's Barack. You're thinking of someone else.

And it's not so much what someone believes, it's more ranking the order of importance on what you want to get done. A pretty simple concept in a gray world.
 

RurouniZel

Asks questions so Ezalc doesn't have to
LovingSteam said:
This. Its interesting that someone who before they go into office has one belief but then sitting behind the desk has another one. I won't say its a flip flop as much as having the full intelligence brief. This is what sets congressmen/women apart from the Pres many times. Obama now has access to info he didn't before hand. This is why he has no agreed to keeping the military tribunals and not releasing the photos. As President Obama, Barak now understands better the challenges of keeping this country safe. Bravo for him.

A very good point.
 
mAcOdIn said:
Right, because they're still out there going after astronomers and holding Crusades.

You're not being remotely reasonable and are clearly biased against the church. Just as people are free to leave the church you are free to leave the country if you feel your tax dollars are in any way supporting something you find morally reprehensible yet you stay, that IMO makes you culpable. Unless you refuse to pay taxes you are supporting the government, all of it.

The Catholic church has changed dramatically. The Pope is able to reinterpret the scripture to facilitate change, that's essentially the same as us interpreting our constitution. Both entities have done wrongs, still are doing wrongs, have methods to change them and have people actively seeking to do just that, however in your eyes changing government is fine changing the church, well it's still the same church of the inquisition.

I'm not the one being unreasonable.


Depending on how you look at it, the Catholics are still waging a crusade on a number of issues, such as abortion and stem cell research. Same applies to science.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom