"While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."
"While we're at it," he said, "we're going to close Guantanamo. And we're going to restore habeas corpus. ... We're going to lead by example _ by not just word but by deed. That's our vision for the future."
Why should we close Guantanamo? Those people should rot in their cells and die painful deaths.
Yeah, Mr. Transparent & Open, he just slipped in 6 appointments without Senate approval. I'm glad my dumbass friends who voted him in are coming to the realization they (and the American public) were suckered in on a bunch of bullshit.
Way to cite an obviously biased source. I'm not going to dignify this thread with a response.
oosadd wrote:
Way to cite an obviously biased source. I'm not going to dignify this thread with a response.
Nice response.
Ha! One post ripping Obama for adhering to Bush era policies involving indefinite unjustified detainment of whomever we designate "terrorists", and another ripping him for using the back door to appoint a senior level justice department official who is criticized as being too eager to extend constitutional protections to those "terrorists". I'm no Obama supporter, but I can't think of a better example of the damned if you do, damned if you don't nature of a politician's career.
But Obama made such a big deal about being open with the public and congress. What a lie that turned out to be.
it's ironic that the greatest criticism of barack obama is that he's not the liberal he campaigned to be, but a conservative eager to cooperate with republican demands. as demonstrated by the absence of voters in demographics that put him in office in 2008 from the 2010 election, obama has alienated persuadable voters by acting too much as mccain and bush would have. even the "achievements" conservatives villify are tainted by measures they insisted upon under threat of filibuster, which they used anyway. these include 40 million new customers for insurance corporations and the propagation of the Graham-Leach-Bliley fiasco that destroyed our economy in the first place. meanwhile, obama has failed at simple moral imperatives like nuclear non-proliferation and closing systemic torture facilities
You Say What? wrote:
But Obama made such a big deal about being open with the public and congress. What a lie that turned out to be.
Yup. Big lie. Can't believe you fell for that one. He's a standard issue politician, not the messiah. Shocking huh?
But another question here is what is a politician to do when they make two campaign promises, then find that political reality necessitates backtracking on one to accomplish the other (not saying that's 100% the case here, but it's a very real scenario). What's the appropriate action there? What are your expectations? Stick straight to unrealistic promises and accomplish nothing?
oosadd wrote:
Way to cite an obviously biased source. I'm not going to dignify this thread with a response.
The fact is that he did use the recess appointment just as every president does and is constitutionally able to do so. That does not mean that he cannot be criticized for the appointments or that the appointments can be used him against him politically as they have been against every president.
Many people don't care about specific issues that much, so much as about their "team" (i.e. Republican or Democrat) succeeding. Obamacare, for instance, could have been Nixoncare. Or consider the attitudes of the parties towards the filibuster - whoever is in power doesn't like it, whoever is not in power does. Or how about Medicare Part D? If President Gore had pushed that and signed it into law I guarantee you that the Democrats would have hailed it as long-overdue protection of senior citizens, a critical extension of the social safety net, and the Republicans would have said it was an irresponsible new government entitlement.
Obama's a Muslim wrote:
Yeah, Mr. Transparent & Open, he just slipped in 6 appointments without Senate approval. I'm glad my dumbass friends who voted him in are coming to the realization they (and the American public) were suckered in on a bunch of bullshit.
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Obama-Appoint-Senate-confirmation/2010/12/30/id/381445?s=al&promo_code=B623-1
How is this not transparent? Are you blind?
Nothing new here. He said what he needed to get elected. He learned the truth and make a decision. Your problem is actually listening to what they SAY before they are elected.
biggus dickus wrote:
Nothing new here. He said what he needed to get elected. He learned the truth and make a decision. Your problem is actually listening to what they SAY before they are elected.
Yup, just like every other politician. Just like Bush said they would run the cleanest administration in history. Move along, nothing to see here.
An Historian wrote:
Many people don't care about specific issues that much, so much as about their "team" (i.e. Republican or Democrat) succeeding. Obamacare, for instance, could have been Nixoncare. Or consider the attitudes of the parties towards the filibuster - whoever is in power doesn't like it, whoever is not in power does. Or how about Medicare Part D? If President Gore had pushed that and signed it into law I guarantee you that the Democrats would have hailed it as long-overdue protection of senior citizens, a critical extension of the social safety net, and the Republicans would have said it was an irresponsible new government entitlement.
Quite a few Republicans and conservatives did not like that. In general, if Teddy Kennedy is on board, it is a bad idea.
luv2run wrote:
An Historian wrote:Many people don't care about specific issues that much, so much as about their "team" (i.e. Republican or Democrat) succeeding. Obamacare, for instance, could have been Nixoncare. Or consider the attitudes of the parties towards the filibuster - whoever is in power doesn't like it, whoever is not in power does. Or how about Medicare Part D? If President Gore had pushed that and signed it into law I guarantee you that the Democrats would have hailed it as long-overdue protection of senior citizens, a critical extension of the social safety net, and the Republicans would have said it was an irresponsible new government entitlement.
Quite a few Republicans and conservatives did not like that. In general, if Teddy Kennedy is on board, it is a bad idea.
I agree with you, some people do care about ideas/issues/principles, etc. But a lot of people (it sure SEEMS like a majority) feel a different way depending on who is currently in power.
There are three or four posters here using various different names that constantly post their hate of the President. It is getting old. Go back to sucking Limbaugh's and Beck's d*cks.