Obama: Because America Needs Four More Years of Change!

reply to post by projectvxn


You for got to mention the most important thing for most of us, He now has control of the internet, AKA the internet kill switch. Control us even more now, very bad

I'm not even going to bother reading the threads in the middle; no point in that.

I do know that it'll take more than 4 years to get US out of what OB has put us in.

This is what we get for voting for a man based on his race alone. This is what we get for thinking that his ability to read a speech somehow qualified him to be POTUS. This is what we get for believing a campaign slogan without knowing what is meant by it. We are getting what we deserve for buying into media hype about a unknown politician who isn't qualified to manage a fast food restaurant, let alone be head of state.

Dont blame me I voted for Ron Paul..

Those who voted for Mccain and Obama should be ashamed of themselves.. Actually it is true, the tv can make people do anything..

Whats that begininng of the one song?

If I only had a brain.........



Sucks the be us who know this game is a joke i suppose..

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by die_another_day

 

Race is about all that matters to you isn't it?

Did I ever say anything close to that?

Let me ask you this. Do you think that elections are based on merit?

reply to post by die_another_day


These days election are based on how well you can BS the public. It also helps that you have entire media organizations in the bag for ya.

Hundreds of millions of dollars help too.

SOME may have voted for or against Obama based on his race..Most people just wanted someone other than Bush or anything associated with Bush.

Yeah 4 more years of sitting on your thumb, formulating new broekn promises, and helping to make sure us, middle class are at the NWO poverty levels government and corporate america wants us at...

you know the next election, no matter who it is, thier jsut gunnabe another useless bag of sh*t. yuo al know that right? new president is gunna lfit a finger to help us all alright..the middle finger just like the others. i really hope ron paul wont middle finger us.

Originally posted by ziggy1706
you know the next election, no matter who it is, thier jsut gunnabe another useless bag of sh*t. yuo al know that right? new president is gunna lfit a finger to help us all alright..the middle finger just like the others. i really hope ron paul wont middle finger us.

TPTB won't even give Ron Paul a chance...they will just exclude him from the debates like they did last time, and viola, pundits and sheeple will instantly call him an "unserious" candidate. And that's how the corporate media dictates who we see on the t.v. and in the papers and thus filter which candidates are "allowed" on the ballot box...short of a complete revolution, it's doubtful we will ever see anyone in the presidency that hasn't already been "pre-approved" by the corporate moneyed interests to which he/she is beholden.

Originally posted by meeneecat
Yes because clearly I said exactly that, that he's quote "the worse of the worst"...

That is the point of the OP, that is your argument. You know what rang alarm bells about your political agenda in this thread? The fact you tried so hard to make Bush the lesser evil here, and you were caught out on it.

Next.

I guess Greenwald and the many others who have also criticized Obama for going further than Bush

Greenwald didn't state tha Obama went further than Bush, he argued that Obama was continuing the policies of Bush contrary to what he promised. Again, you are making Bush out to be the lesser evil and why I ask? Because you have a special issues with this president.

But my whole point is not that he is continuing the exact same thing, but that he is continuing the exact same policies and going even further on some.

Going further with what again?

On this thread we concluded that:
Obama was continuing the Patriot act (with the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats behind him)
That he is continuing Guantanomo (as the Bush administration)
That he is maintaining the Military industrial complex
That he is carrying out assassination programmes of the American citizens (as the Bush administration did prior, contrary to your denial)

So what makes him stand out from the rest? You've failed to indicate anything. He's just the worst and you and OP fail to pick him really. To me, he's continued the agenda of DC, He's helped with adding more debt to this already debt burden country, but he doesn't really stand out to me again Bush, have not seen any evidence.

Obama's healthcare plan contains no such "socialized healthcare" that you speak of. Single payer is socialized healthcare, which Obama thought was just too "politically unfeasible".

Obama was in support of a public option, and the reason the public option failed was not because of it's "political unfeasibility". It failed because he could not get Lobbied Democrats and Republicans to side with him to pass it. Remember when the public option got through the house but not the senate? Yea.

And regarding DADT, Obama sure showed a lot of cowardice in regard to his support.

Cowardice in his support? that is a big word right there. As far as I can see it, DADT was lifted under his presidency and would never have under a Republican. Yep.

Actions speak louder than words.

I specifically mentioned civil liberties and transparency for which he has been worse

How so? Interms of transparency, what does this mean to you? Is transparent a totally open white house where anybody can listen to the discussions within, or what? Because if this is what you blame this white house for, then you might as well deal with the coming ones. No single administration has ever been fully transparent with the american people and there never will be one, and for both good and bad reasons.

Yes, because you know exactly how much attention and criticism I placed on the Bush administration.

Oh yes, you gave a slap on Bush's to keep face for your bias, and this pritty much sums up many members on this forum. Good luck with the Republican party in 2012.

Originally posted by Thunder heart woman
What has this man done for the past 3 years??

What hope or change has he given to the nation?

I see nothing that this man as done that hasn't failed. He's a straight up liar in my book.

I think he has a lot of nerve to even bother running again. I voted for him the first time but I will sure as hell won't this time.

Increasing gas prices, food prices, people losing homes, economy sunk, middle class sinking into poverty, lining the banksters pockets, all while his wife preaches about healthy eating when people can barely afford a freakin can of ravioli and not the name brand the off brand! Seriously. He's out of touch with reality. Will he get my vote? Hell to the no.

About the only hope and change we got is that Obama "changed" his mind on his campaign promises,and he "hopes" nobody notices it. What a waste of skin !!!

Originally posted by meeneecat
Yes because clearly I said exactly that, that he's quote "the worse of the worst"...
Originally posted by Southern Guardian
That is the point of the OP, that is your argument. You know what rang alarm bells about your political agenda in this thread? The fact you tried so hard to make Bush the lesser evil here, and you were caught out on it.

Next.

Just because I comment here and agree with *some* of what the OP says does not mean I am a carbon copy. Please quote where I said "Obama is the worst of the worst". Thanks. Next.

Greenwald didn't state tha Obama went further than Bush, he argued that Obama was continuing the policies of Bush contrary to what he promised. Again, you are making Bush out to be the lesser evil and why I ask? Because you have a special issues with this president.

This is the last time I am even going to reply to your comments, because if you can't even be bothered to read what I post, than there's no conversation here. It's funny because Greenwald even uses the phrase "worse" in one of his headlines, if you read it, you would have seen it.

New and worse secrecy and immunity claims from the Obama DOJ: But late Friday afternoon, the Obama DOJ filed the government's first response to EFF's lawsuit (.pdf), the first of its kind to seek damages against government officials under FISA, the Wiretap Act and other statutes, arising out of Bush's NSA program. But the Obama DOJ demanded dismissal of the entire lawsuit based on (1) its Bush-mimicking claim that the "state secrets" privilege bars any lawsuits against the Bush administration for illegal spying, and (2) a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim of breathtaking scope -- never before advanced even by the Bush administration -- that the Patriot Act bars any lawsuits of any kind for illegal government surveillance unless there is "willful disclosure" of the illegally intercepted communications.

Source

and this:

Yet now, as President, he claims the power to assassinate them without charges. Could even his hardest-core loyalists try to reconcile that with a straight face? As Spencer Ackerman documented in April, not even John Yoo claimed that the President possessed the power Obama is claiming here.

Source

and

In the last week alone, the Obama DOJ (a) attempted to shield Bush's illegal spying programs from judicial review by (yet again) invoking the very "state secrets" argument that Democrats spent years condemning and by inventing a brand new "sovereign immunity" claim that not even the Bush administration espoused, and (b) argued that individuals abducted outside of Afghanistan by the U.S. and then "rendered" to and imprisoned in Bagram have no rights of any kind -- not even to have a hearing to contest the accusations against them -- even if they are not Afghans and were captured far away from any "battlefield."

Source

And these criticisms too:
www.spectator.co.uk...

You've already ignored everything presented in here:
my.firedoglake.com...

Another thing, former Bush officials have praised Obama for "going further" than the Bush administration in the "War on Terror"

"Bush Officials Praise Obama For Going Further Than Bush In Terror Crackdown"

Originally posted by Southern GuardianGoing further with what again?

It's increasingly frustrating to have a conversation with you when you willfully ignore the evidence provided to you. Seriously, this is the last time I respond to one of your posts. It's just frustrating.

Originally posted by Southern GuardianOn this thread we concluded that:
Obama was continuing the Patriot act (with the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats behind him)
That he is continuing Guantanomo (as the Bush administration)
That he is maintaining the Military industrial complex
That he is carrying out assassination programmes of the American citizens (as the Bush administration did prior, contrary to your denial)

No, "we" did not conclude anything of the sort. These are "your" conclusions...for which again, you are ignoring evidence...talking about him continuing Guantanamo as Bush did, does not excuse him continuing Guantanamo and also detaining even more prisoners, indefinitely, in abusive conditions at Bagram. (Source)
Please don't try to put words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Southern GuardianSo what makes him stand out from the rest?

Repeating the same question over and over does not make it so. Try to let go of your willful ignorance and actually read and consider the evidence being placed in front of you instead of just repeating the same things over and over again, saying that I'm not providing you with enough evidence.

Obama was in support of a public option, and the reason the public option failed was not because of it's "political unfeasibility". It failed because he could not get Lobbied Democrats and Republicans to side with him to pass it.

I put the words "politically unfeasable" in quotes because those were Obama's own words. And again, the idea that "the votes werent there" is inaccurate, I know you don't like reading this evidence, but here's Greenwald again: "Truth about the public option momentarily emerges, quickly scampers back into hiding":
www.salon.com...

As I've noted before, the column of mine which produced the greatest level of hate mail and anger in the last year -- both in terms of intensity and quantity -- was this one from August, 2009, when I compiled the evidence strongly suggesting that the White House, despite Obama's multiple statements to the contrary, had secretly bargained away the public option with corporate interests early in the negotiation process and therefore did not intend to push for its inclusion in the final bill. That produced so much anger because it contradicted the central Democratic orthodoxy at the time that Obama -- as he claimed in public -- was trying as hard as he could to have a public option in the health care bill, but . . . gosh darn it, he was unfortunately stymied by his inability to get 60 votes for it, despite his best efforts (the fact that the health care bill ultimately passed via reconciliation, whereby the public option would have needed only 50 votes, was a separate issue).

Source

Interesting he notes how he got a lot of hate mail for this, from democrats. And of course he's not the only one who has criticism here:
www.huffingtonpost.com...
news.firedoglake.com...

Originally posted by Southern GuardianCowardice in his support? that is a big word right there.

Oh aren't you cute. That's not even worth replying to. Again, can't be bothered to consider any of the legitimate criticisms from actual LGBT people regarding gay rights...no, you choose to attack me. good one.

Originally posted by Southern GuardianActions speak louder than words.

Yup, why don't you try looking at some of those actions instead of trying so hard to ignore those specific actions and evidence that I'm posting about here.

Originally posted by meeneecat"I specifically mentioned civil liberties and transparency for which he has been worse"

Originally posted by Southern GuardianHow so?

Here we go again, this statement was a conclusion of all the evidence that I had provided in the following paragraphs, which you a)either choose not to read, or b)willfully ignore. Repeating the same questions over and over does not mean I did not provide ample evidence.

Interms of transparency, what does this mean to you? Is transparent a totally open white house where anybody can listen to the discussions within, or what? Because if this is what you blame this white house for, then you might as well deal with the coming ones.

And again, assumptions assumptions...this time that I assume "transparency" is "a totally open white house where anybody can...."...again, don't bother yourself with the evidence, because you might actually learn something that would challenge your current beliefs. But hey, you don't have to take my word for it. "actions speak louder than words":
"war on whistleblowers, glenn's words: the Obama administration has been "infinitely worse than the Bush administration" and references a NYtimes and a number of other articles/investigations to corroborate this"
progressivealaska.blogspot.com...
"state secrets"
www.eff.org...
"state agencies becoming less transparent"
www.huffingtonpost.com...
news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by meeneecat""Yes, because you know exactly how much attention and criticism I placed on the Bush administration."

Originally posted by Southern GuardianOh yes, you gave a slap on Bush's to keep face for your bias, and this pritty much sums up many members on this forum.

I'd like you to quote the parts of my comments where I showed "bias"...because what you seem to not realize it that, making legitimate criticism about things that are actually going on in the world, things that are real and can be pointed to is not "evidence" of bias. However you just keep on saying things like "I'm biased" or "I have personal issues with Obama" and then ignore my request to "quote the parts of my comments where I expressed 'personal issues about Obama". Well, what it looks like to me is that you do not want to engage with any of the actual evidence, so you go ahead and attack the person, calling me "biased" and having "personal issues"...way to go, now I know what you are actually about.

Good luck with the Republican party in 2012.

Again, showing your true colors. It's funny,'cause I have never voted republican in my life, and I vote in every election, local, state and federal...but yet again, you assume to know everything about me and my political views, simply because I make some legitimate criticisms of the current administration, criticisms of which I happen to not be alone, and for which you apparently have failed to notice that I have been referencing mostly progressives, whom, as you also fail to realize are some of Obama's harshest critics. But I guess simply making some legitimate criticism automatically makes me and them "Republicans" in your book. Naive. I feel sorry you that your worldview must be so narrow, that you need to fit everything into black & white, "republican vs. democrat", "right vs. left". I guess you haven't paid any attention to my other comments on this thread either (not that you did that anyway)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sad thing is, people who can't get past the "left vs. right" paradigm and constantly trying to put other people into little boxes and categories, seem to be fairly common in this world...if only the world were that simple:



And by the way, please, don't bother replying, because I'm done with this conversation. I don't engage with people who willfully ignore evidence and make excuses.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by die_another_day

 

These days election are based on how well you can BS the public. It also helps that you have entire media organizations in the bag for ya.

Hundreds of millions of dollars help too.

SOME may have voted for or against Obama based on his race..Most people just wanted someone other than Bush or anything associated with Bush.

It was shown in research that money is not that important. Looks and the people's perception are the predominant factors in elections.

I don't think it's just "some," I think it's more like 50% of his constituents. As a minority, I know how these things work.

reply to post by die_another_day


"As a minority"...Whatever man.

I'm a Hispanic immigrant, I don't even have my citizenship yet. All I know is my personal experience.

MOST of the people I know who supported Obama did so because they were sick of Bush.