the new president

[AgentDrake]

Warning: ranting toward the end of the post.
Last few paragraphs are a bit of attempt at conflict preemption. I'd appreciate people reading them, but they're not really anything that I haven't posted before.

Ok...
I guess no one did see him studder...

I will simply remain the invisible newb

I only noticed once... but to be fair, that one wasn't his fault. Roberts accidentally switched the order of two words in the oath the first time he gave it to Obama to repeat. The change wasn't one that would make any sort of difference in the oath itself, just throw Obama off when repeating something like that in front of over a million people.

Blah blah blah I'm a sore loser.
Obama won, he's the president now. Deal with it. And support the man, I mean, he IS the one that's supposed to save your sorry behinds from the HUGE economic crisis, so I'd show a little more faith. Heck, I hate my president's GUTS, but I'll still support the man when he's doing his job.

THANK YOU, my good sir. Thank you.

historic moment: Obama is the first President with open ties to domestic terrorists and open racists.

Uh, no, not really.... Definitely not on racism, anyway, and as far as domestic terrorism, well.... depending on how loose your definition of terrorist is, you can tack Ulysses S. Grant on the list for that little "Sherman" incident during the war....

Look, guys, I don't agree with a lot of Obama's ideas, but he's legitimately president. The United States does NOT need more polarization right now. Criticism of Obama that serves no constructive purpose is, at this point, out of place. Not that you "can't" do that; but that, quite frankly, it's not helpful for anyone or anything. Badmouthing him, no matter how much you dislike him, will accomplish nothing at this point but generate more division. If you have criticism that can foster a discussion, an exchange of ideas, or even an attempt at persuading another person of your ideas is great, and worthwhile. But just gunning at him because you don't like him (even if the dislike is justified) is, IMHO, out of place, not to mention a logical fallacy. For example, let's take someone that EVERYONE will dislike:

1. According to Hitler, national security is important.
2. Hitler is a bad person.
3. Therefore, we must avoid all national security at all costs. We must purge national security from our land. National security is evil.



*coughcough*

Okay. A bit ridiculous, no? Even though Hitler was slaughtering millions in the name of national security, and using that national security to carry out unspeakable crimes, national security is not, itself, evil.

Well, let's modify the situation a bit.

1. According to President Obama, social programs can be helpful.
2. President Obama is a bad person (just for the sake of the parallel, let's assume this....)
3. Therefore all socialism must be avoided at all costs, blah, blah, blah.

Look, guys. WHY IS SOCIALISM EVIL?!?!?
No, I'm not pro-socialism. I've already explained this whole deal before. I'm definitely capitalist.
No, absolute socialism doesn't work. Yes, the government should have extremely limited power. Yes, the government already tries to control more stuff than it legitimately should, blah, blah, blah. BUT. some of you guys defend Capitalism as though it were the holy institution of God.
Seriously. Capitalism, Free Markets, et cetera are economic systems, and relatively NEW ones at that. I don't exactly see capitalism in the Bible. AND I have yet to see ANY examples ANYWHERE in history where there was a truly and absolutely free market, and it WORKED. SERIOUSLY. If ANYONE can give me ONE GOOD EXAMPLE, I'll give them a . Socialism is NOT EVIL. Ineffective, well, that depends on the circumstance. I would say in general, yes. As a base economic system, definitely. Based on a false worldview? Well, because of my beliefs, I would argue yes, corruption of man, and whatnot, but whatever.
I'm not saying that I agree with Obama's agenda, but just because he's president does not mean that we have to treat him the same way a LOT of people treated Bush. C'mon, Lurtzy. Your comments are bordering on exactly the same thing a lot of democrats were throwing at Bush. Yeah, Obama's got problems. But there's a difference between raging at his problems and constructively dealing with them. And at this point, questioning his qualifications and character for being president is a moot point. He IS president. Question his present decisions, anticipate possible future issues to deal with based on past choices, but don't obsess over what he has done just for the purpose of tearing him down. Doesn't help anything.

AND WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH HIS MIDDLE NAME?!? (At this point, I myself am rating. Don't remember anyone here digging at him for his middle name.)

"Hussein" is an Arabic name meaning "Victory." It's a very NICE name! Not to mention that it's a very common name in, let us say, certain other cultures. So the guy's got a name related to part of his heritage. Does that mean my cousin-in-law, a guy with the middle name Cnut, should change his name? I mean, King Cnut was pretty violent! Yeah, the people ended up loving him later on, but still! Does that mean that people named "Richard" should change their names because of Richard III? Ha! Try justifying yourself for being named after Richard III!!!

ARGH!

Okay. Last thing: Conflict pre-emption.
Let's try NOT to turn this into a hostile discussion. My above post contained ranting and was not meant to be hostile to anyone. Even in ranting, I tried to provide justification for my arguments/complaints/et cetera. And I tried to keep them constructive.  I'm not always going to succeed at that, but whatever. The last thing we want is for this forum to break out into hostilities, which can happen easier than people realize. SO, I'm going to request (request, mind you) that, if you don't have anything useful to say (not necessarily nice), then don't say it. And put forth an effort to be both reasonable and objective.
Me, due to a very long story, I try as hard as I can to acknowledge legitimate points even if I disagree with them. Just because something is legitimate or reasonable doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but please at least take the time to realize that, even assuming that you're right, that doesn't mean the person who disagrees with you is illogical, irrational, or just plain stupid. Try to think as objectively as possible, and be aware of other people's point of view. sometimes, they might just see something more clearly than you do, even if you don't realize it.
I, personally, believe completely in the existence of objective truth, so don';t think I'm going all relativist on you guys. But I've found that looking at things from other peoples' POVs (or as close as I can figure them) and comparing them with your own can help you realize things about them, yourself, and others, as well as help you form stronger, and more accurate beliefs and opinions. And doing this will result in you discovering things that are sometimes uncomfortable. I recently had a few little personal revelations, resulting a a kind of "quarter-life crisis." (nowhere near mid-life yet....) Anyway, all this is an attempt at conflict pre-emption.

I'm done now....

[turin08]

Much applause and some gold for that Agent Drake.

[Anonymous Prodigy]

He isn't much of a dancer. Take a look at the inaugural balls.

[MR. Lurtzy]

Ok, so Jeremiah Wright is not racist? William Ayers is not a terrorist? Look, I am bringing these people up because they are associated with Obama It shows that Obama has poor judgement, and now that he is the president, it is even more frightening that he has been associated with these people for so long. It's terrifying what he might do in office, especially with these despicable people influencing him.

[sickofpalantirs]

Centurion, I neither called Obama stupid nor a terrorist, but merely commented on his association with terrorists.

To which, AGAIN, I'm forced to reply: George W. Bush had connections with a lot of dubious characters associated with terrorism, not to mention that whole stuff about oil companies. Sorry to point out AGAIN, but it seems some people tend to forget this.

been through this Lurtzy.

AD hits the nail on the head.  I'm on another forum where...well I'll let you see it for yourself

http://www.dragonsinourmidst.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7267&page=18


go the bottom.  the very bottom.  read the last post.  I almost cried.

[MR. Lurtzy]

That's a very unnecessary song.

[Elf_Lvr]

The point really wasn't that Obama is good - it's just that people before him have had the same (or similar) problems.

Seriously, I don't know what I'm going to do when I vote - campaign promises obviously mean nothing. Names mean nothing. Race means nothing. In the end, even a lot of a candidate's ideals don't make a lot of difference - it all comes down to what Congress - and the American public at large - will let them do. Sure, maybe some of the people Obama is "connected" to aren't good people. No one has a perfectly good resume. What it ALL comes down to, REALLY, is what he does now that he's in office. And he hasn't DONE anything yet.

I, at least, respect him a little bit for bravery. He's taking this much crap before he even sets foot in the White House and yet he can still claim that he can make America a great nation again. I don't care how impossible it seems - we need a little bit of that attitude right now.

Maybe you can rub it in my face when Obama hands the nation over to terrorists or the economy fails completely and we hit another Great Depression. But until any of that actually happens... have a little hope, will you? You of little faith...

I think some people would agree with me if I said we're all in God's hands. Some wouldn't. But heck, I believe so. And even if this world goes to #$&*@!, that just means heaven's all the closer.

[AgentDrake]

Ok, so Jeremiah Wright is not racist? William Ayers is not a terrorist? Look, I am bringing these people up because they are associated with Obama It shows that Obama has poor judgement, and now that he is the president, it is even more frightening that he has been associated with these people for so long. It's terrifying what he might do in office, especially with these despicable people influencing him.

Like el said-- the point isn't that Obama doesn't have ties to Wright and Ayers, but that other presidents have also had similarly... questionable connections. I was merely pointing out that connections with racism and/or let us say "combatants of questionable tactics" (terrorists, slash-and-burn, et cetera) are not exactly new to the White House.
Besides. As I understand it, the connections with Ayers were more along the lines of "Yeah, I knew him, and I would talk to him at times about politics." Doesn;t mean that Obama is a terrorist. doesn;t mean that he agreed with Ayers or his methods. Heck, I bet it would be interesting to talk politics with bin Laden. Safe? Maybe not, but it would still be interesting. Agree with him? Approve of him? No, and no. Still.

Don;t get me wrong. I'm not an Obama supporter in the sense that I follow him blindly, or that I voted for him, or that I agree with his ideas. I certainly hope he will be a good president, and he has something which the US could use right now: charisma, and a great talent for speaking. the US has problems, and one of the biggest at the moment is morale. Whether the morale drop is justified or not (I actually would argue that it's more cause than effect in relation to many of the other problems the US is facing) it's there. And Obama can definitely help get us out of it.
It's a very dangerous talent, of course. I mean, Hitler had that in spades, and look what that caused. (No, I'm not saying Obama is the next Hitler. I'm saying his gift for speech and charisma is dangerous.)
Point being, I hope he'll be a good leader. Doesn't mean I agree with anything he stands for. doesn't mean I agree with nothing he stands for. Doesn't mean ANYTHING beyond that he's president, and I hope he's a good leader.

[Gil-Estel]

The things about his speech I absolutely loved is the way he was referring to the start of the US. That they stepped forwards in times of trouble, that the US was the land were everyone was welcome, and were to be treated equal and free. I liked the way he seemed humble in taking up the glove. He seems to me an idealist, but also one that is aware of the problems ahead and the difficulties. The way he filled in the fact that the US has a leading role in the world, because whether we like it or not (us being the rest of the world ) the US has got a leading role. And I'm glad to see he is willing to face the responsibility and pointing out that they are allies, no foes.
All and all I really liked the speech, it was inspirering, hopeful, and AD I have to agree, he is a gifted speaker, in which lies a danger of exaggerating. Still, I would like to give him the benefit of doubt!
And to see his actions concerning Guantanamo Bay only added to the hope I feel when it comes to Obama! Put your actions where your mouth is...

[Anonymous Prodigy]

I give him the benefit of the doubt as well, and I share AD's sentiments on the issue.

[MR. Lurtzy]

The fact that he's giving terrorists trials here in the US is beyond anything any other president would ever do.

[Gil-Estel]

why is that such a bad thing? BTW I allways thought that in our 'modern' societies, everyone is considered to be innocent till proven otherwise...

[AgentDrake]

The fact that he's giving terrorists trials here in the US is beyond anything any other president would ever do.

Actually... given that Congress passed the "NOPEC" bill awhile back, (one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard of) it's little surprises that Obama did something like that. Heck, at least this is arguable. NOPEC was basically an attempt to sue OPEC in the US court system for violating US laws.

Yeah. Brilliant, ya idiots.
OPEC isn't subject to US law, and they're not subject to the US courts, and they can do whatever they want to. We have no authority to subpoena them into our courts. Oh, we tried, but they just laughed at us and our idiot politicians.

See, this is why I'm a cynic.

why is that such a bad thing? BTW I allways thought that in our 'modern' societies, everyone is considered to be innocent till proven otherwise...

Well, but the question is is whether terrorism is a civil crime or an act of war.
Much grey areas. On the one hand, if terrorism is merely a form of crime, and terrorists merely criminal networks, then it ought to be treated as a crime. On the other hand, if it's viewed as an act of war from one entity against another (ie, al-Qaeda vs the US) then the prisoners in Guantanamo (or wherever they're going now) aren't criminals in prison, they're POWs.
So... are terrorist networks to be considered political entities, criminal networks, or (my opinion) some third form of entity?
The problem of captives in fighting terrorism is a big one. They're more than civil criminals, and in many/most cases (I would presume....), weren't under US jurisdiction when captured (ir, Afghanistan, Iraq, et cetera). they are therefore (at least in those cases) not subject to United States Law (nor, it may be argued, are they protected by United States rights, whether that particular oversight should be corrected or not....). So are they civil criminals, to be tried in civil courts, or are they POWs, or are they something else?

Anyway....

[Elendil!Urukfear]

I, personally don't like Obama, but I don't think He's gonna kill the country or nuthin'.

I believe that he won't be as good a president as Bush. I think that as soon as he starts with his so-called plan, he's gonna find out it's a lot harder than he expected. Except for the abortion part, it will most likely be easy for him to convince people, because there are a lot of citizens that think it fair.
But, abortion, no matter how you say it, is murder. Everyone is entitled to their own lives whether they have an issue or not, they still have the right to be born and have a life as much as we do.

Like el said-- the point isn't that Obama doesn't have ties to Wright and Ayers, but that other presidents have also had similarly... questionable connections. I was merely pointing out that connections with racism and/or let us say "combatants of questionable tactics" (terrorists, slash-and-burn, et cetera) are not exactly new to the White House.
Besides. As I understand it, the connections with Ayers were more along the lines of "Yeah, I knew him, and I would talk to him at times about politics." Doesn;t mean that Obama is a terrorist. doesn;t mean that he agreed with Ayers or his methods. Heck, I bet it would be interesting to talk politics with bin Laden. Safe? Maybe not, but it would still be interesting. Agree with him? Approve of him? No, and no. Still.

Don;t get me wrong. I'm not an Obama supporter in the sense that I follow him blindly, or that I voted for him, or that I agree with his ideas. I certainly hope he will be a good president, and he has something which the US could use right now: charisma, and a great talent for speaking. the US has problems, and one of the biggest at the moment is morale. Whether the morale drop is justified or not (I actually would argue that it's more cause than effect in relation to many of the other problems the US is facing) it's there. And Obama can definitely help get us out of it.
It's a very dangerous talent, of course. I mean, Hitler had that in spades, and look what that caused. (No, I'm not saying Obama is the next Hitler. I'm saying his gift for speech and charisma is dangerous.)
Point being, I hope he'll be a good leader. Doesn't mean I agree with anything he stands for. doesn't mean I agree with nothing he stands for. Doesn't mean ANYTHING beyond that he's president, and I hope he's a good leader.

Warning: ranting toward the end of the post.
Last few paragraphs are a bit of attempt at conflict preemption. I'd appreciate people reading them, but they're not really anything that I haven't posted before.

Uh, no, not really.... Definitely not on racism, anyway, and as far as domestic terrorism, well.... depending on how loose your definition of terrorist is, you can tack Ulysses S. Grant on the list for that little "Sherman" incident during the war....

Look, guys, I don't agree with a lot of Obama's ideas, but he's legitimately president. The United States does NOT need more polarization right now. Criticism of Obama that serves no constructive purpose is, at this point, out of place. Not that you "can't" do that; but that, quite frankly, it's not helpful for anyone or anything. Badmouthing him, no matter how much you dislike him, will accomplish nothing at this point but generate more division. If you have criticism that can foster a discussion, an exchange of ideas, or even an attempt at persuading another person of your ideas is great, and worthwhile. But just gunning at him because you don't like him (even if the dislike is justified) is, IMHO, out of place, not to mention a logical fallacy. For example, let's take someone that EVERYONE will dislike:

1. According to Hitler, national security is important.
2. Hitler is a bad person.
3. Therefore, we must avoid all national security at all costs. We must purge national security from our land. National security is evil.



*coughcough*

Okay. A bit ridiculous, no? Even though Hitler was slaughtering millions in the name of national security, and using that national security to carry out unspeakable crimes, national security is not, itself, evil.

Well, let's modify the situation a bit.

1. According to President Obama, social programs can be helpful.
2. President Obama is a bad person (just for the sake of the parallel, let's assume this....)
3. Therefore all socialism must be avoided at all costs, blah, blah, blah.

Look, guys. WHY IS SOCIALISM EVIL?!?!?
No, I'm not pro-socialism. I've already explained this whole deal before. I'm definitely capitalist.
No, absolute socialism doesn't work. Yes, the government should have extremely limited power. Yes, the government already tries to control more stuff than it legitimately should, blah, blah, blah. BUT. some of you guys defend Capitalism as though it were the holy institution of God.
Seriously. Capitalism, Free Markets, et cetera are economic systems, and relatively NEW ones at that. I don't exactly see capitalism in the Bible. AND I have yet to see ANY examples ANYWHERE in history where there was a truly and absolutely free market, and it WORKED. SERIOUSLY. If ANYONE can give me ONE GOOD EXAMPLE, I'll give them a . Socialism is NOT EVIL. Ineffective, well, that depends on the circumstance. I would say in general, yes. As a base economic system, definitely. Based on a false worldview? Well, because of my beliefs, I would argue yes, corruption of man, and whatnot, but whatever.
I'm not saying that I agree with Obama's agenda, but just because he's president does not mean that we have to treat him the same way a LOT of people treated Bush. C'mon, Lurtzy. Your comments are bordering on exactly the same thing a lot of democrats were throwing at Bush. Yeah, Obama's got problems. But there's a difference between raging at his problems and constructively dealing with them. And at this point, questioning his qualifications and character for being president is a moot point. He IS president. Question his present decisions, anticipate possible future issues to deal with based on past choices, but don't obsess over what he has done just for the purpose of tearing him down. Doesn't help anything.

AND WHAT THE **** IS WRONG WITH HIS MIDDLE NAME?!? (At this point, I myself am rating. Don't remember anyone here digging at him for his middle name.)

"Hussein" is an Arabic name meaning "Victory." It's a very NICE name! Not to mention that it's a very common name in, let us say, certain other cultures. So the guy's got a name related to part of his heritage. Does that mean my cousin-in-law, a guy with the middle name Cnut, should change his name? I mean, King Cnut was pretty violent! Yeah, the people ended up loving him later on, but still! Does that mean that people named "Richard" should change their names because of Richard III? Ha! Try justifying yourself for being named after Richard III!!!

ARGH!

Okay. Last thing: Conflict pre-emption.
Let's try NOT to turn this into a hostile discussion. My above post contained ranting and was not meant to be hostile to anyone. Even in ranting, I tried to provide justification for my arguments/complaints/et cetera. And I tried to keep them constructive.  I'm not always going to succeed at that, but whatever. The last thing we want is for this forum to break out into hostilities, which can happen easier than people realize. SO, I'm going to request (request, mind you) that, if you don't have anything useful to say (not necessarily nice), then don't say it. And put forth an effort to be both reasonable and objective.
Me, due to a very long story, I try as hard as I can to acknowledge legitimate points even if I disagree with them. Just because something is legitimate or reasonable doesn't mean it's necessarily true, but please at least take the time to realize that, even assuming that you're right, that doesn't mean the person who disagrees with you is illogical, irrational, or just plain stupid. Try to think as objectively as possible, and be aware of other people's point of view. sometimes, they might just see something more clearly than you do, even if you don't realize it.
I, personally, believe completely in the existence of objective truth, so don';t think I'm going all relativist on you guys. But I've found that looking at things from other peoples' POVs (or as close as I can figure them) and comparing them with your own can help you realize things about them, yourself, and others, as well as help you form stronger, and more accurate beliefs and opinions. And doing this will result in you discovering things that are sometimes uncomfortable. I recently had a few little personal revelations, resulting a a kind of "quarter-life crisis." (nowhere near mid-life yet....) Anyway, all this is an attempt at conflict pre-emption.

I'm done now....

Whoah... ... ...
thas all I got to say.

[sickofpalantirs]

abortion...now there's a huge can of worms.
thats one issue that confuses me, on one hand I'm all for fetal rights and all, but on the other I'm not comfortable with the government forcing a woman to incubate a child, undergoing all the possible complications thereof.