Serious question about our thoughts about Obama.

**jerrytimes** · December-01-09, 08:10 PM

I'm not an Obama supporter by any means. I don't think that he's tough, he doesn't do what American's want and he's a deer in headlights in the white house [[just like his predicesor). What I want to know is this. There are a bunch of people on these boards that support him and are happy with him so far. Why?

**elganned** · December-01-09, 08:55 PM

Not anymore. He's just another say-one-thing, do-another politician as far as I'm concerned.

Lorax · December-01-09, 09:03 PM

Obama was never liberal enough for me, Dennis Kucinich was my candidate. I voted for Obama, and he held great promise, but like Elganned said, he's become just more of the same.

He constantly panders to middle-interests, and tries, sadly, to court favor with Rethuglicans, and continues to give us half-measures, watered down bills, and even in light of the super majorities in both houses, he's too weak to insist Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi take the hard tack against opposition to the much needed socializing of the national agenda.

The banks should have been allowed to fail, more industry needed bailouts, as did the average homeowner. There is no digging out of this mess now, as the die is cast.

There will only be so much relief, and as businesses continue to close, and additional jobs lost, eventually the people are going to have to take to the streets if they want real change.

**firstandten** · December-01-09, 11:00 PM

I'm pretty pleased with the way he has been performing to date. I knew what I was getting when I voted for him. Obama when you lay everything out is a pragmatic incrementalist who leans left. He doesn't easily fit into the left,right liberal conservative way most of us think. A lot of that comes about due to the manner in which he makes decisions. He listens to everybody in the room, he lets everybody state there case. Unlike Bush, if the case you trying to make doesn't fit into his ideology he will either ignore you or fire you. Whereas Obama tries to look at all the angles. To the casual observer it looks like he is wishy-washy or weak, but once a decision is made he will state his case. If Obama was weak he would have rubber-stamped his military advisors first report of some 60,000 troops and an open-ended committment to the region.

Because Bush was so bad, Obama was able to verbally paint a picture for you during the campaign, so whatever you wanted him to be he could be it. If you wanted him to be this liberal, socialist, radical then thats what he was, as long as he wasn't Bush.. Obama however understands what wins elections in America, and thats where the pragmatism comes out.

Obama is not a kick ass take names kind of guy, if you read his books one can see that and that is not his nature. He is a lot like he was during the campaign. He lets everyone take there shots at him making him look shaky at times but at the end because of his discipline, his ability to stay on message and organization he came out on top.

We are seeing the same thing with him in office. The stimulus package in which it looked like it wouldn't get passed got passed. Maybe the amount wasn't enough for some people [[it wasn't for me) but he made the calculation that he knew that the amount was the best he was going to get and its better than having the bill defeated.

He is going to get health care passed, after all the pissing and moaning a bill will get passed. Now will it have everything we want. Probably not, the public option will be watered down [[ we will have a public option !) but thats where the incrementalist in him comes out.

If you see how he's doing versus his campaign pledges, he been pretty much on the mark in terms of what he said he would do as president, and whats he done to date.

Unless he proves to me otherwise I think America made a fine choice in Obama and in the short term you may not be happy with some of his moves, but he's a "stay the course" kind of guy and I think thats how one must look at the moves he makes.

**Papasito** · December-01-09, 11:07 PM

If Obama really wants to have a legacy, he needs to focus on fixing our economy and not taking on massive amounts of debt for programs a broken economy can not afford. If he was as smart as he leads us on to be, he would have focused on the economy in his first term, and easily won re-election for a second. Then, upon a strong economy, he could have pushed his healthcare takeover and cape-and-trade manufacturing killer much more easily.

IMO fixing domestic problems like the Economy should have been his number one concern.
This guy is all over the map trying to do too much at once,
and either doing mediocre or failing at all of it.

**firstandten** · December-01-09, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by Papasito

If Obama really wants to have a legacy, he needs to focus on fixing our economy and not taking on massive amounts of debt for programs a broken economy can not afford. If he was as smart as he leads us on to be, he would have focused on the economy in his first term, and easily won re-election for a second. Then, upon a strong economy, he could have pushed his healthcare takeover and cape-and-trade manufacturing killer much more easily.

IMO fixing domestic problems like the Economy should have been his number one concern.
This guy is all over the map trying to do too much at once,
and either doing mediocre or failing at all of it.

My response to that would be that all those issues you mentioned are interconnected. A big reason the economy is broken is because of health care the decline of manufacturing and so forth. If you fix one without fixing the other you're not solving the problem, plus you never know how the political landscape will be from year to year so you have to strike while the iron is hot.

**1KielsonDrive** · December-02-09, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Obama was never liberal enough for me, Dennis Kucinich was my candidate. I voted for Obama, and he held great promise, but like Elganned said, he's become just more of the same.

He constantly panders to middle-interests, and tries, sadly, to court favor with Rethuglicans, and continues to give us half-measures, watered down bills, and even in light of the super majorities in both houses, he's too weak to insist Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi take the hard tack against opposition to the much needed socializing of the national agenda.

The banks should have been allowed to fail, more industry needed bailouts, as did the average homeowner. There is no digging out of this mess now, as the die is cast.

There will only be so much relief, and as businesses continue to close, and additional jobs lost, eventually the people are going to have to take to the streets if they want real change.

Thank you Lorax.

**1KielsonDrive** · December-02-09, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by firstandten

.

Because Bush was so bad,

Unless he proves to me otherwise I think America made a fine choice in Obama and in the short term you may not be happy with some of his moves, but he's a "stay the course" kind of guy and I think thats how one must look at the moves he makes.

America made a fine choice only in relation to Bush and McCain/Palin. I'm with Lorax. I'd like to have had another candidate to vote for. Alas, t'was not to be. I have to admit I worked my ass off for Obama, but see my first sentence. It wasn't because I bought into his Demican 'Change You Can Believe In' hokey. It was because we have a two party duopoly. There's no getting around that.

**d.mcc** · December-02-09, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Obama was never liberal enough for me, Dennis Kucinich was my candidate. I voted for Obama, and he held great promise, but like Elganned said, he's become just more of the same.

Amen, my sentiments exactly. I like how just because we are leftists, all the righties out there think a Center-Right democrat is our savior...

Lorax · December-02-09, 10:33 AM

Thanks guys for the replies- I'm probably more leftist than most, and ideally, as our founding fathers envisioned, would like a multi-party system, publicly financed, and the removal of corporate lobbying from Washington.

As a nation of 300+ million people we need sweeping and all inclusive programs to handle the crushing responsibility to the general welfare of our people, including a single payer health care system, state-sponsored public education through college level, a pared-down military used only judiciously, and sensible regulations on corporations wanting to do business in America.

All states open to union formation, and an emphasis on the continued maintenance/improvement of our infrastructure, development of the arts, state-sponsored development of renewable energy sources, and sensible immigration policies.

Nationalization of the largest banks, a sane monetary policy, and regulation of all banks in keeping with local lending mandates and restrictions on Wall Street's ability to develop exotic investment products.

Is this asking too much?

**d.mcc** · December-02-09, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Lorax

Nationalization of the largest banks, a sane monetary policy, and regulation of all banks in keeping with local lending mandates and restrictions on Wall Street's ability to develop exotic investment products.

Is this asking too much?

Hamilton would be proud

**johnsmith** · December-02-09, 12:09 PM

but he's a "stay the course" kind of guy and I think that's how one must look at the moves he makes.

Bush was a "stay the course" guy too.

I agree that the two republidemocrat candidates completely sucked in '08.

As for socialized health care, the U.S. Constitution does not allow for it. And don't give me the "general welfare" clause argument to explain that it does. Using the "general welfare" clause to say that it can, would also mean the federal gov't can do just about anything to improve the "general welfare." It can't. It's very limited in its scope of what its role is. Look at the 10th Amendment. Nationally socialized healthcare is not delegated to the U.S. federal gov't in the Constitution. Nor is a large amount of what the federal gov't already does.

**gibran** · December-02-09, 05:06 PM

Freedom is an indivisible word. If we want to enjoy it, and fight for it, we must be prepared to extend it to everyone, whether they are rich or poor, whether they agree with us or not, no matter what their race or the color of their skin. Wendell willkie...

Our brave men and women fight for all people equally, they are not fighting for some, a party or even their ethnic background...education,and health-care for all is morally right..it is a value the has been hijacked by special interests...but if our men and women can sacrifice their lives for a "value and a nation of values" then we can find away to let the millions of people that struggle to find affordable health care and the 2900 who die each year because of the lack of it find: Social Justice and that includes HC...

...after all it is a nation that has a statue in it's harbor stating that we are a beacon to the world...maybe just not when it comes to HC and valuing our people...then we have the greatest technology an dHC but it isn't extended to all equally.

The right can hide behind their religion but,most leader in this area are failing and have been highjacked by the extremists [[Hagges and Robertsons) most people with compassion can connect the dots and see HC is important to all Americans...and reform is needed unless you own stock in the mentality of " I got my , you get yours"....an dif you do now that's compassion at it's finest.

**ghettopalmetto** · December-02-09, 06:21 PM

Why do you hate America, jerrytimes?

dharma4313 · December-02-09, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Lorax

As a nation of 300+ million people we need sweeping and all inclusive programs to handle the crushing responsibility to the general welfare of our people, including a single payer health care system, state-sponsored public education through college level

Three hundred million, or one hundred million, we're not in the business of giving losers a free ride. Darwinism, survival of the fittest, the cream rises to the top, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, may the best man win, some gots it, some ain't. There's a place for everyone in America, if you win, congratulations, well done, and keep up the good work, if you lose, may you serve as an example to others tempted to follow your useless, foolish, feckless ways. Can I have an amen?

**ejames01** · December-02-09, 07:11 PM

All I can say about Obama is that he is better than the last president and better than the McCain would have been.

Lorax · December-02-09, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by dharma4313

Three hundred million, or one hundred million, we're not in the business of giving losers a free ride. Darwinism, survival of the fittest, the cream rises to the top, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, may the best man win, some gots it, some ain't. There's a place for everyone in America, if you win, congratulations, well done, and keep up the good work, if you lose, may you serve as an example to others tempted to follow your useless, foolish, feckless ways. Can I have an amen?

No, but you can hold this chicken between your knees, if you like.

Feeling a little judgemental, aren't we? So who in your view are the losers getting a free ride?

Funny how the socialized democracies of Europe don't see it your way. If you had been fortunate enough to be born in Scandanavia, you'd have had a free public education through college level PhD.

They have no problem using their tax dollars to support educating their people and keeping them healthier than the rest of us, but then again, there some Americans who view their own people as nothing more than something to step over on their way to wealth and "success", or whatever your particular definition of the word is.

Sounds like we have another fascist out for himself, a wealthy elitist who's got his, and screw everyone else.

dfunkycity · December-02-09, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by dharma4313

Three hundred million, or one hundred million, we're not in the business of giving losers a free ride. Darwinism, survival of the fittest, the cream rises to the top, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, may the best man win, some gots it, some ain't. There's a place for everyone in America, if you win, congratulations, well done, and keep up the good work, if you lose, may you serve as an example to others tempted to follow your useless, foolish, feckless ways. Can I have an amen?

I can't believe I am about to say this but I agree with the liberal only because i hate greed.

Gee, I hope u are not a republican because I really don't know any greedy ,cold,calculating and callous ones that are the least bit in similarity to you.
Matter of fact the only people I know like that are liberals but that in itself is ironic.
I sincerely hope that you get a little taste of poverty now that you are so full of ourself.

A little humilty would suit you well.

dfunkycity · December-02-09, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by ejames01

All I can say about Obama is that he is better than the last president and better than the McCain would have been.

Since you seem to have the world's ills wrapped up with that crystal ball you're totin around would you be so kind as to provide us with the numbers for Friday night's Megamillions.

Lorax · December-02-09, 07:46 PM

Originally Posted by dfunkycity

I can't believe I am about to say this but I agree with the liberal only because i hate greed.

Gee, I hope u are not a republican because I really don't know any greedy ,cold,calculating and callous ones that are the least bit in similarity to you.
Matter of fact the only people I know like that are liberals but that in itself is ironic.
I sincerely hope that you get a little taste of poverty now that you are so full of ourself.

A little humilty would suit you well.

Of course he's a Rethuglican- he expouses the ideals of a typical John Birch conservative. Liberals are greedy? LOL!! Then you've never met a real liberal. Phony liberals like George Soros and others talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

There are few wealthy liberals, though they do exist. Wealth is the usual separator between the two- the richer one becomes, the more politically inclined to being a Rethuglican. True liberals are more concerned about everyone having a place at the table and a chance to make something of themselves, Rethuglicans could care less, and see others as stepping stones to their own success.

ccbatson · December-02-09, 08:39 PM

Greed that respects all individual rights is a tremendous virtue. How so? It leaves the only moral option for prospering to the provision of highest quality goods and services at the lowest prices...Everybody wins.

**elganned** · December-02-09, 09:33 PM

Trouble is, Cc, that greed doesn't respect all individual rights; it's only concerned with its own rights and what it can con out of everyone else.

That's why it's called "greed".

ccbatson · December-03-09, 09:49 PM

Temper it with justice and you have capitalism...the most virtuous system to ever exist...and the most successful when allowed to flourish.

**firstandten** · January-03-10, 01:15 AM

Lately liberals have been trying to figure out Obama , just what is he ? I lately read a couple of pieces that seems to put what he is into better focus.

I believe he's a better version of Bill Clinton, more disciplined and on message than Bill. Plus he's had the advantage of learning from Bill's mistakes.

He's a "third way" politican. It fits into his sense of pragmatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_[[centrism)

Obama is too much of a realist to kick the corporate interest to the curb. After all its that money that both parties need to win elections. Bottom line things won't change radically until the money is taken out of the political game. Campaign finance reform is badly needed.

**Gannon** · January-03-10, 08:20 AM

I fail to see in this definition how this term could ever be used in association with an economic system that places money more important than people. I believe you are seriously deluded, Cc, at best...and a scourge against humanity at worst.
vir⋅tue

/ˈvɜrtʃu/
–noun
1.moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
2.conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.
3.chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue.
4.a particular moral excellence.
5.a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one's weaknesses.
6.effective force; power or potency: a charm with the virtue of removing warts.
7.virtues, an order of angels.
8.manly excellence; valor.
—Idioms
9.by or in virtue of, by reason of; because of: to act by virtue of one's legitimate authority.
10.make a virtue of necessity, to make the best of a difficult or unsatisfactory situation.

vir⋅tu⋅ous
/ˈvɜrtʃuəs/
–adjective
1.conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright: Lead a virtuous life.
2.chaste: a virtuous young person.

Please tell me specifically how and why you think Capitalism could ever be considered VIRTUOUS.

Don't feed the crickets.