Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Obama Presidency
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedObama Presidency

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 202122
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: In repose.
Status: Offline
Points: 38974
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:45
Very important to have a President who respects science more than superstition, imo.  I do rather wish that a non-Christian had become Pres, however.  But in the US' very religious climate, that would be highly unlikely.

I just thought of a joke, sorry it's poor, but some of the conservatives might like it. I don't agree with it myself. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of it. What's black and white and RED all over?
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:30
He's tech-savvy, so even if he turns out to be as corrupt as Bush (I am confident in saying this is impossible), at least he'll be ahead of the curve.

Also, respect for science is better than fundamentalist bumbling from the Bush admin. I don't see and veiled statue's boobies for the Obama admin. Tongue
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: In repose.
Status: Offline
Points: 38974
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 21:23
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right.


There are obvious limits, and Obama is bound by an official secrets act.

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up?


Closing and investigating Guantanamo Bay is to demonstrate to the world the US respects international conventions.  It was a platform and promise that Obama made.  I also would like to think that it's because Obama genuinely believes in justice and the rule of law (and that he respects due and fair process).  It was important for him to start investigations into the welfare of the prisoners and any allegations of abuse as they are under the US' care.  I don't think it helps the US' case to be seen as a rogue state that is above the law and international conventions, and of course I would expect of my government too to not be in violation of human rights. 

Of course one would not expect Al Qaeda to stick to international conventions, nor has the Al Qaeda organisation signed on to them, but I think it's important to send the message to the world's peoples and nation-states that the US upholds certain standards.   I don't believe, as  a matter of principle, in having double-standards/ being hypocritical.  In terms of future expectations, I was thinking more of the dealings with states (expectations of what is appropriate and rightful behaviour).

Torture and coercion was not only used against him.  I wonder when Bush linked its old ally Iraq to Al Qaeda in his struggle for the minds of Americans if he worried desperately about how many innocent Iraqis could be hurt?   Let's face it, there's a lot of hostility towards the US because of its aggressive foreign policies throughout the years -- that has included supporting groups that have engaged in terrorism over the years, and of course the first strike policy has not sat well.  There has been a feeling of hubris coming from the US, that they would support their interests no matter what, and to hell with you if you don't agree.  "You're either with us or against us."  One could be against the policies without being against the people.  I think that Bush was too inclined towards thinking and expressing himself in black and white: good vs. evil, with or against.....  Perhaps this "black and white" president will look to the grey areas more.  At least he comes across as smarter and less dogmatic.  I'm sure he'll be a more stately and respected statesman -- course he lacks that rather endearing swagger.  

Of course the primary responsibility of the head of government should be to protect its citizens, but I don't believe that the ends justify the means.  And when one starts flaunting or discarding conventions, even if it is expedient and effective in the short-term, that can cause long-term problems.  It's a slippery slope.

Obama wants to improve the US' reputation, and in part, this is a struggle for the hearts and minds of people. 

Anyway, that's pretty much how I feel.  Given more time without distraction, I'm sure I could express myself better and more cogently.
 
 
Quote OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.


Glad you like it.  :)


Edited by Logan - January 22 2009 at 21:31
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Back to Top
TheCaptain View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2009
Location: Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 19:19
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I'm pleased that he's addressed Guantanamo Bay as well as the overseas black site CIA detention centres (off course there is much work to be done before closure), and has banned coercion, threats, physical abuse and waterboarding.  If the US is to expect  others to follow the rule of law, and international conventions, they should set an example (follow it themselves). 
Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions?


For the most part, yes. The reason that was one of the first things accomplished was that it was rather easy to do. Were he able to push a magic button to "fix" in his mind any single issue, it would have been the poor economy. The Gitmo decision along with most of his other first few directives were a combination of statements to the public and simplicity.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.
Back to Top
crimhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:50
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

 I'm sorry, a big prank has been played on you, Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is actually Ron Jeremy.


I thought the big prank was the last 8 years of the Presidency?
Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:29
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration. 
We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right.
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I'm pleased that he's addressed Guantanamo Bay as well as the overseas black site CIA detention centres (off course there is much work to be done before closure), and has banned coercion, threats, physical abuse and waterboarding.  If the US is to expect  others to follow the rule of law, and international conventions, they should set an example (follow it themselves). 
Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up?  
 
 
OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.


I'm sorry, a big prank has been played on you Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is actually Ron Jeremy. Tongue
Gee! TongueLOL
I
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:


It doesn't matter what conventions terrorists stick to, torture only works on TV or in the movies.  Dare I say torture is terrorism?  We have to act smarter than they do, not more evil.
Not that I totally disagree with you, but if at least one innocent life is saved I don't give a flying f**k whether  torture is terrorism or not.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:16
Originally posted by IVNORD IVNORD wrote:

Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration. 
We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right.
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I'm pleased that he's addressed Guantanamo Bay as well as the overseas black site CIA detention centres (off course there is much work to be done before closure), and has banned coercion, threats, physical abuse and waterboarding.  If the US is to expect  others to follow the rule of law, and international conventions, they should set an example (follow it themselves). 
Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up?  
 
 
OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.


I'm sorry, a big prank has been played on you, Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed is actually Ron Jeremy. Tongue

I suppose you haven't heard about the various terrorist groups the Bush administration caught which were just a bunch of clowns with no capability to do anything.  But then you can always believe that the real bad guys were actually caught and they had to keep it quiet, like Osama.  But then if you consider the big hoopla made about the capturing of Saddam, they wouldn't have been the types to keep something like that quiet.  The important thing to remember is that the Bush administration kept us safe as long as you don't consider the 9/11 attacks or the anthrax thingy.

It doesn't matter what conventions terrorists stick to, torture only works on TV or in the movies.  Dare I say torture is terrorism?  We have to act smarter than they do, not more evil.


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 22 2009 at 17:24
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
IVNORD View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 17:03
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration. 
We'll see as much of transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity as any government can afford to show. On the other hand, "more" may mean anything. Even a tad more is already more. So you're probably right.
Originally posted by Logan Logan wrote:

I'm pleased that he's addressed Guantanamo Bay as well as the overseas black site CIA detention centres (off course there is much work to be done before closure), and has banned coercion, threats, physical abuse and waterboarding.  If the US is to expect  others to follow the rule of law, and international conventions, they should set an example (follow it themselves). 
Can anybody explain to me the need for such a rush? The very first act of the presidency. Nothing more urgent? Is it only to demonstrate to the world we respect international conventions? And who do we have to expect to follow the rule of law? Al Qaeda? I've heard that "rough" interrogation techniques Kahlid Mohammed was subjected to resulted in the uncovering of the plot to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge. How many people could have died if it we did adhere to the rule of law in this case? Or you really think the terrorists would stick to international conventions and close traffic in both direction before blowing it up?  
 
 
OT: thanks for introducing me to Et Cetera. Great band.
Back to Top
crimhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 15:57
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Right now I'm trying to avoid all the fawning media coverage and giving him some space to get his administration moving.

Here's one great step forward:
WP: "Obama Starts Reversing Bush Policies." Can't be Fast Enough.

And unlike the right wing with Bush you can pretty much count on the left to be critical of Obama to a fault.

Here's to a civilized discussion!




How soon you forget how O'Reilly *snickers* held Bush accountable for what happened. (tongue in cheek)
Back to Top
TheCaptain View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2009
Location: Ohio, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 14:58
He just said that The US won't torture. That's always good to comply to the Geneva conventions I think.
Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal.
Back to Top
Logan View Drop Down
Forum & Site Admin Group
Forum & Site Admin Group
Avatar
Site Admin

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: In repose.
Status: Offline
Points: 38974
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 14:09
I have high hopes for more transparency, accountability, credibility and integrity in his administration.  With his election, the US has gained much international support.  I think we will see improved diplomatic relations and much more commitment to treaties and the rule of law (international and national).  I'm pleased that he's addressed Guantanamo Bay as well as the overseas black site CIA detention centres (off course there is much work to be done before closure), and has banned coercion, threats, physical abuse and waterboarding.  If the US is to expect  others to follow the rule of law, and international conventions, they should set an example (follow it themselves).  It's early days, difficult times, and he's ambitious, we'll have to see how things work out, but I'm optimistic (I know you didn't want to bring hope into it, but I am very hopeful).  I'm a sceptical person by nature, but feeling much less cynical.  I'm hoping (there's that word again) for a more humanistic, socially conscious, rational and open administration.


Edited by Logan - January 22 2009 at 14:16
Watching while most appreciating a sunset in the moment need not diminish all the glorious sunsets I have observed before. It can be much like that with music for me.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 13:43
Right now I'm trying to avoid all the fawning media coverage and giving him some space to get his administration moving.

Here's one great step forward:
WP: "Obama Starts Reversing Bush Policies." Can't be Fast Enough.

And unlike the right wing with Bush you can pretty much count on the left to be critical of Obama to a fault.

Here's to a civilized discussion!




Edited by Slartibartfast - January 22 2009 at 17:21
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 13:29
having trouble findning his executive order press conference to post but I was discouraged by the fact that he had to ask for help from Greg Craig while explaining his own executive orders.  Will get into my issues with Craig and the orders themselves later on, have to run.


Time always wins.
Back to Top
manofmystery View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Direct Link To This Post Posted: January 22 2009 at 13:18
Check your emotional attachments at the door this thread is for frank discussion of his policies, work with congress, and how it is presented in the media.  The media component is in there because they drive most of the public's view of all public figures.  Please avoid empty words, like "hope" (with apologies  to his campaign slogans), and try to explain logically why you support/disapprove his policies, executive orders, etc.  Let's also keep it civil: avoid name calling and wild accusations that you can not back up.


Time always wins.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 202122

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.113 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.