Barack Obama: Change, but to what end?

11:11

Greetings,

I have been giving considerable thought to the next president of the United States of America, and like most people was taken back by him in general. It's an unknown thing, the whole atmosphere drags you away, but after I got thinking and wish to share some things with you all if you don't mind.

Obama's keywords have always been "Change", "Hope" and "Believe". Now, when his campaign first started people went nuts. They thought that change is finally here, and that Obama will make everything right. But I have noticed that Obama never says what he will change, what to hope for and what to believe in.

This is an ingenious tactic. Saying those things implies people are sick of the norm and want something different, right? Of course people are going to fall for this one, and they have en-masse. I did too, it really did seem genuine. But if you look past the celebrity endorsements, the messiah-complex that so many media outlets place on him and look past his convincing manner, he's only ever reading from the teleprompter, not the heart.

I started to get a bit worried when I saw the 'victory' speech. People were looking at him, seriously, like a messiah...some sort of God. There are many churches around the States that do call him a messiah and all the rest of it.

Repetition is the best way to make people believe something is real. "Believe", "Hope" and "Change"....it will all be ok, just trust Barack Obama and he will make it all right again. I have not heard anything as to what Obama wants to change. Sure, he wants to shut down Guantanamo, but that could be a front? Play the savior?

Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. Wouldn't that include just about every citizen then? Here are the links to prove what I'm talking about:

http://change.gov/americaserves/

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

Now, that's from 'the horse's mouth', as it were. We're looking at Obama wanting to create a military group made of teenagers and older people to police the United States. He's already on the way to doing it. He's a video of a "Barack Obama Youth Group" rallying and doing marches while shouting the Obama-mantra....warning, this is scary:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=E1QiSi0_kTo

I hate to say it, but this is exactly....I mean EXACTLY what a certain person decades ago in Germany did. The country was in tatters, and the people were desperate. Along came a man who speaked of "Hope" and "Change" and renewed dreams of the German ideals. He was mesmerizing and had the whole country beside him. He also famously made a youth group to support his agenda.

I know it's a bit harsh of me to say this, but isn't this what is happening?

Please, feel free to reply and tell me what you think.

11:11

40crush41

As a friend of mine said -I don't look to my president to be my savior. I agree 100%. I'm not sure how many Americans felt this way.. not too many I'd assume. (but then, I was on a college campus).
-(edit) I would like to add here that it was times with talking to people that saw him this way, as you had correctly pointed out.. like a messiah.. that the question you have as your title would come into my mind (why I looked at this thread).

I was hoping for the sake of my country that the comparisons to JFK were closer than those to Hitler.

I agree with my dad on this -that it will be a healthy dose of reality when Obama doesn't fill up everyone's tank and increases my taxes. I am not an expert in the world of poli-sci, but I think that people need to become aware that the government can't take care of everyone, charities and churches are good for this, not the government. Gov. should be set up to help the people who fall through big cracks.

..forget about it -its idealistic and not practical.

There will be changes, but not as drastic as he had made it seem (or as radical left had hoped.) I wonder when or if he will even be able to touch the health care system.. As far as a civilian army, I remember hearing about that. Doubt it would fly. We don't want that, and neither does the military...

my 2 cents.. if worth even that much here.

40crush41

ps.
https://www.obamacoincollection.com/Default.aspx?MID=527017
This commerical has been running a lot lately... and such things.. even his face on baseball cards.

Popular guy, but of course its understandable, it is history.

11:11

40crush41 wrote: »

ps.
https://www.obamacoincollection.com/Default.aspx?MID=527017
This commerical has been running a lot lately... and such things.. even his face on baseball cards.

Popular guy, but of course its understandable, it is history.

Well, yes, it's true it is history, but this also helps his image. Note the coin of him beside Lincoln. As if to say he's bringing back the constitution, when he's not.

That's another 'old wives tale'....people in America talk about the constitution like it was writen by God and handed down as a sacred document of truth. It was made by an average group of people with good (I hope) intentions, but it obviously has not worked out!

Doesn't really matter now since constitution is being ripped apart now with the Patriot Act and all.

norbert64

what's that thing about Godwins Law again :rolleyes:

Ruskie4Rent

His recent rhetoric regarding the economy indicates that his administration will be very inclusive of opposing ideas. He's showing that he is willing to take on board any policy proposal from experts all across the political divide. He also has promised transparency to what is happening in his administration, and why.
Saying that he'll do this and doing them are different things, but transparency and inclusiveness?..that'll be a big change to the past 8 years methinks.

Pocono Joe

I hear Obama is considering Emmanuel Goldstein to help his bolster his new administration. It sure will be a CHANGE from the past administration. And 11am will never be the same again.

todolist

Obama's economic policies will be disastrous for America.I do fully believe he's another Jimmy Carter in the making.One term and then gone.

Manic Moran

Possibly, but I would say for different reasons. Jimmy was shown to be pretty ineffectual. Even if Obama does show out to be a pretty reasonable President, the problem is that of the huge expectations which were laid out for him, and I'm not sure he can meet them. He isn't set up to meet the standards of 'A common or garden President', it seems that he's almost hailed in as the 'Saviour of American Politics.' He will either need to prove himself to be very good, or the Republicans have to put forward a fairly mediocre opponent for Obama to get a second term, I think. Of note, Bush I was a one-term-pres as well.

NTM

Matt Holck

Bush Senoir was Ronald Reagan's third term

11:11

Matt Holck wrote: »

Bush Senoir was Ronald Reagan's third term

Just as Zbigniew Brzezinski is Barack Obama's mentor and puppeteer. :rolleyes:

Húrin

In fairness he has said that he will close Guantanamo Bay, and execute some sort of green energy new deal. Though the messianic rhetoric is a bit much.

40crush41 wrote: »

I am not an expert in the world of poli-sci, but I think that people need to become aware that the government can't take care of everyone, charities and churches are good for this, not the government. Gov. should be set up to help the people who fall through big cracks.

Americans are so... ideological.

Matt Holck

the idea that
most people should float on their own (function independently)
that only A few need to be helped is delusional

people function by working with each other

Overheal

He hasnt made it into office yet and already he's been starting to renege on his campaign promises and attitude.

I'm not saying I'm surprised. If anything it was to be expected. But as was said above the way people sat in awe, and cried at his victory speech and etc etc .... what goes up must come down, and you do not get much higher than that point in his political career. Yet if you sound like a realist (and I tried this at my family xmas meetup) and say Obama wont live up to half his expectations people look at you like Bill O'Reilly's concubine.

I cant wait for the pin to drop.

JohnMc1

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness he has said that he will close Guantanamo Bay,

This could be very dangerous if that happens. They are talking about housing them in NYS jails and other jails across the country. Only an idiot would think that's a good idea.

todolist Obama's economic policies will be disastrous for America.I do fully believe he's another Jimmy Carter in the making.One term and then gone.

They are already trying to give him a third term.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/14/three-terms-for-barack-obama/

Overheal

The poll on that article suggests that on average, most people beleive in the 22nd Ammendment, and that even if it were to be abolished under a new law, that the abolishment would only take place after Obama leaves office, either on January 21, 2012/2016.

JohnMc1

I'm glad that most people believe in the 22nd Amendment but let's be real here. If McCain won and a week before his inauguration a Rep Congressman had tried to have the 22nd Amendment abolished so McCain could get a third term there would be massive outrage. Especially from the media that cheerleads for Obama and the Dems.

Overheal

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=216314&title=barack-obama-path-to-the

^ great video.

Matt Holck

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Roosevelt created the New Deal to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems, through various agencies, such as the Works Project Administration (WPA), National Recovery Administration (NRA), and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA).[1] Although recovery of the economy was incomplete until World War II, several programs he initiated, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), continue to have instrumental roles in the nation's commerce. Some of his other legacies include the Social Security system and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

Works Project Administration
The Works Progress Administration (renamed in 1939 the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest New Deal agency, employing millions of people and affecting most every locality in the United States, especially rural and western mountain populations. It was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt's presidential order, and funded by Congress with passage of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935 on April 8, 1935. (The legislation had passed in the House by a margin of 329 to 78, but got bogged down in the Senate.) [1]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (January 30, 1882 – April 12, 1945), often referred to by his initials FDR, was the thirty-second President of the United States. He was a central figure of the 20th century during a time of worldwide economic crisis and world war. Elected to four terms in office, he served from 1933 to 1945 and is the only U.S. president to have served more than two terms.

The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947.[1] It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 26, 1951.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

sceptre

Overheal wrote: »

The poll on that article suggests that on average, most people beleive in the 22nd Ammendment, and that even if it were to be abolished under a new law, that the abolishment would only take place after Obama leaves office, either on January 21, 2012/2016.

Indeed.

I can't see the 22nd amendment ever been repealed, regardless of who's in power. Neither party controls or is likely ever to control state legislatures in 38 states[1] and that's assuming it got the necessary two-thirds approval in both houses of congress. Not going to happen, both parties would be too afraid of being shut out of the white house forever by someone who was popular enough to do that. Each of them would have too much to lose. The other option, the constitutional convention, has never been used and no-one even knows how it might work (and you'd still need three quarters of the states to ratify it). That's even less likely.


[1]Of course, there's the option of special state conventions under const article V but they've only been used to repeal prohibition. Again, there are enough democrats or republicans to automatically block such a proposal, even if they all know in advance that it won't apply to the current guy. Again, too much to potentially lose for them to support it universally

blahblahblah.

this has nothing at all to do with it,

but the othere day i went into a book store and it had a whoe section dedicate to obama

bnt

11:11 wrote: »

Well, yes, it's true it is history, but this also helps his image. Note the coin of him beside Lincoln. As if to say he's bringing back the constitution, when he's not.

The Lincoln parallels are becoming more evident, whether or not they're deliberate. After all, Obama is only the 2nd US President to have held office in Illinois, after Lincoln. (Neither Lincoln nor Obama were born in Illinois, yet Reagan was, though he held office in California.)

The timing is also fortunate for Obama: Feb 12 2009 will be the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth, as well as the official centennial of the foundation of the NAACP (which was deliberately timed that way). Now there's Obama's train ride from Philadelphia, following the route that Lincoln took - so it's pretty clear that he gets the comparions, and is not ashamed to play on them.

Now, will we ever hear an Obama speech as perfectly concise as the Gettysburg Address? :pac:

Matt Holck

I'm going with Franklin Roosevelt

I want to government yo built public projects like Hoover dam and transportation tails

the government might be richer if it owned it's own utilities

Overheal

Matt Holck wrote: »

the government might be richer if it owned it's own utilities

True, but that goes against the principles of the Free Market. Look at ESB, Eircom, Aer Lingus, Bus/Iarnrod Eirean: getting sold off, slowly but surely. Competition is far better for an economy.

No, I'd much prefer to see public works that re-invest in the country's infrastructure, much like the Interstate network did. The rail system is terribly delapodated, yet still remains one of the cheapest ways to transport bulk goods. An overhaul and network expansion would generate countless jobs and keep the US up with Western Europe.

Wikipedia wrote:

High-speed rail in the United States is very limited compared to Western Europe. Amtrak, the only nationwide passenger rail carrier in the United States, has operated Acela Express trains between Boston and Washington, D.C. since 2001. These trains tilt into curves along the track, reaching a top speed of 150 mph (240 km/h). However, this maximum speed is not really considered fast enough for Acela to be genuinely called high-speed technology. The scheduled transit time for the 5:00 am departure from Washington, D.C., arriving in Boston South Station on Acela Express service is roughly 6 hours and 36 minutes. Subtracting a fifteen minute scheduled layover in New York City, the average speed is 68 mph (109 km/h) for the 450 mi (720 km) trip.

It is possible to trace the development of long-distance rail transport back to the streamliners that criss-crossed the United States in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s which, in turn, can be traced further back to the competing companies operating different routes between London and Scotland, and to railways in Germany and France. However, several factors contributed to the stagnation of rail passenger transport in the United States, a decline which occurred just as Europe and Japan were pushing forward with new technologies. Little investment has been made in high-speed rail infrastructure. In the Northeast Corridor, rail travel is time and price competitive with air travel, but other routes travel at highway speeds, putting rail in direct competition with buses and private automobiles. Long-distance travel is currently dominated by airlines, but given continued population growth and congestion at airports and on highways, there has been a resurgence of interest in high-speed rail in the United States in recent decades. Several corridors are being examined for potential high-speed service, either at the federal or state level.

proposed high speed corridors

Meanwhile the top commercial speed of a TGV is 200mph, and in controled testing conditions, 357mph. Even averaging 200mph, theoretically, you could reach LA from New York in 12 hours. Currently, Amtrak schedules the trip as 69 hours, after 3 transfers, 6 hours of which are at rest.

Matt Holck

I think renewable energy would be better for the economy

Grudaire

11:11 wrote: »

http://change.gov/americaserves/

Now, that's from 'the horse's mouth', as it were. We're looking at Obama wanting to create a military group made of teenagers and older people to police the United States. He's already on the way to doing it.

The following really don't scare me that much:

* a Classroom Corps to help underserved schools
* a Health Corps to serve in the nation's clinics and hospitals
* a Clean Energy Corps to achieve the goal of energy independence
* a Veterans Corps to support the Americans who serve by standing in harm's way

Jinx N3D

11:11 wrote: »

I started to get a bit worried when I saw the 'victory' speech. People were looking at him, seriously, like a messiah...some sort of God. There are many churches around the States that do call him a messiah and all the rest of it.
11:11

I'd like you to concider that many of the people you viewed on the televsion during the Victory Speech may not have been held captive by a messiah worship syndrome. You might have been viewing the very real reactions of people who once believe it was an impossibility for a "person of color" to be elected, by a majority "white" nation, President of the USA. Talk about "shock and awe!"

I appreciate your concerns of a government taking control of the minds of the youth of the USA, however, at this point and time, to liken President Obama to such a diabolical creature as Hitler is beyond rude. He may be a Globalist, perhaps even socialist, but he has never shown himself to be a facist; yet. :eek:

IMO, I think the expectations of many "Americans," the DNC, and the many nations of the world weighs heavily on the shoulders of this young leader. I'll be praying for his safety and sanity.

Overheal

I'm genuinely startled...

DublinWriter

Enoch Powell once said that all political careers end in failure.

I can't see how Obama will be the first politician ever in the history of the world to break this rule.

the_syco

Húrin wrote: »

In fairness he has said that he will close Guantanamo Bay

Wonder where'll "New Guantanamo Bay" be...?

Agamemnon

Some people will be disappointed with Obama's presidency because his campaign was rather vague in places, leading more idealistic voters to see what they wanted to see.

Overall though, I think he will do a good job. The main issue will be the economy - if he can stop the rot during his first term, he is guaranteed to be re-elected. Looking at recent history, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were two of the most popular presidents, legendary figures to their respective parties. Both of them inherited poor economic conditions when they took office, both of them were able to turn it around and both of them won second terms.

oscarBravo

11:11 wrote: »

I have been giving considerable thought to the next president of the United States of America, and like most people was taken back by him in general.

"Most people"? Riight.

Obama's keywords have always been "Change", "Hope" and "Believe". Now, when his campaign first started people went nuts. They thought that change is finally here, and that Obama will make everything right. But I have noticed that Obama never says what he will change, what to hope for and what to believe in.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention.

Or, more likely, you carefully filtered out anything that didn't tie in with your pre-conceptions. After all, once you've decided to equate someone with Hitler, there's not much point actually, y'know, listening to anything they say, is there?

Nodin

the_syco wrote: »

Wonder where'll "New Guantanamo Bay" be...?

Moyross. No fences either. I still say thats inhumane though.

Nodin

Agamemnon wrote: »

Some people will be disappointed with Obama's presidency because his campaign was rather vague in places, leading more idealistic voters to see what they wanted to see.

Overall though, I think he will do a good job. The main issue will be the economy - if he can stop the rot during his first term, he is guaranteed to be re-elected. Looking at recent history, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were two of the most popular presidents, legendary figures to their respective parties. Both of them inherited poor economic conditions when they took office, both of them were able to turn it around and both of them won second terms.

Indeed, his vague waffle reminds me of Reagan in a way - a different style, but still bereft of much content. However he is obviously a highly intelligent man, and unlikely to blunder about the world 'as a wild ass in the garden'. Certainly if one state can help repair the world economy its the US, and he's easilt the best man to be in the chair of the choices available.

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

After all, once you've decided to equate someone with Hitler, there's not much point actually, y'know, listening to anything they say, is there?

Where was the outrage when people here were comparing George W Bush to Hitler? Oh yeah... there was none.

There’s that old saying from George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." So why not allow and have a civilized discussion about the comparisons of Obama to Hitler? Isn’t that what this forum is all about?

Here is a excellent quote I read recently regarding other efforts to disallow any type of comparisons of Obama to Hitler.
"Finally, when someone writes in a newspaper opinion piece that another viewpoint should be banned from appearing, that person's post sounds far more like the Nazi era where opposition was dealt with violence and papers dared not to breathe a word of complaint or suggest that anything that the leadership was up to was perhaps not the best for their country. Be very careful when you wish for censorship of any kind as you may one day get your wishes."

oscarBravo

I'm not censoring, I'm disagreeing.

Comparing almost anyone to Hitler is so mindbendingly stupid (not to mention intellectually lazy) that it spawned Godwin's Law. But if you really, really must compare someone to Hitler, should it be on the basis of invading countries and locking people up in prison camps or... um... giving a good speech?

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

But if you really, really must compare someone to Hitler, should it be on the basis of invading countries and locking people up in prison camps or

For one, a big difference...
In England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by the United States. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

For one, a big difference...
In England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by the United States. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

In other words, comparing GWB to Hitler on that basis would be a pretty stupid thing to do, right? I'm pretty sure that was my point.

But, seeing as we're agreeing, you will no doubt agree that comparing Barack Obama to Hitler because the man is a dab hand at speechifyin' is not just stupid, but epically stupid?

Pocono Joe

Compare GWB to Hitler all you want. I'm use to it here. Open discussion is a good thing.

When I heard Barack Obama throughout the campaign basically saying that he is going to solve all our problems just by electing him, or when he stated "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," I will admit it scared me. And I wouldn’t dismiss that kind of talk as simply “speechifyin'.” I would rather characterize it as dangerous speech. But I wouldn’t use them to serve as a genuine comparison to Hitler, but rather as an alarm for people to wake up and stop the hagiography. Buying blindly into someone’s (especially a very powerful someone) rhetoric can be quite dangerous. And by that you can make a comparison if you wish.

And you bring up Godwin's Law. Would it be “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy” to argue that because the 'Hitler Factor' has been done so many times before in elections, that people no longer think it credible? Therefore the shock value is gone, and the resistance to the Hitler Factor could eventually become a dangerous thing for people. Without the discussion, how would people recognize another Hitler type politician in the future if people considered making the comparison “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy.”

Personally, I plan on giving Obama the same chance that Democrats gave George W Bush when he took office back in 2000 (sound fair enough?)

oscarBravo

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Compare GWB to Hitler all you want. I'm use to it here. Open discussion is a good thing.

Open discussion requires paying attention to what other people are saying. I'm saying that comparing anyone to Hitler is a pretty stupid thing to do. I've said it more than once.

When I heard Barack Obama throughout the campaign basically saying that he is going to solve all our problems just by electing him...

Except that he never said that, or implied it any more than is required of anyone running for executive office. It's sort of expected of candidates that they'll tell the electorate that they'll solve their problems.

...or when he stated "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," I will admit it scared me. And I wouldn’t dismiss that kind of talk as simply “speechifyin'.” I would rather characterize it as dangerous speech. But I wouldn’t use them to serve as a genuine comparison to Hitler, but rather as an alarm for people to wake up and stop the hagiography. Buying blindly into someone’s (especially a very powerful someone) rhetoric can be quite dangerous. And by that you can make a comparison if you wish.

I don't wish to do so. I think that if you have to stoop so low as to try to draw tenuous comparisons of that kind, you're running out of mud to sling. But that's just me.

And you bring up Godwin's Law. Would it be “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy” to argue that because the 'Hitler Factor' has been done so many times before in elections, that people no longer think it credible? Therefore the shock value is gone, and the resistance to the Hitler Factor could eventually become a dangerous thing for people. Without the discussion, how would people recognize another Hitler type politician in the future if people considered making the comparison “mindbendingly stupid” or “intellectually lazy.”

Oh, I don't know. Maybe wait for them to, y'know, dismantle democracy, or invade a neighbouring country, or blame all the country's woes on a particular ethnic group, that sort of thing. I think I'd be looking for actual signs of, like, evil or something.

But maybe I'm naive. Maybe we should decry any politician that can actually inspire the respect of large numbers of people, just in case they might turn out to be a mass-murder at some later point in their careers.

Seriously: can't you see how utterly bizarre and grotesque your line of reasoning is to someone who hasn't pre-emptively decided that Obama is some sort of terrifying antichrist figure?

Personally, I plan on giving Obama the same chance that Democrats gave George W Bush when he took office back in 2000 (sound fair enough?)

Your prerogative. Moral high ground is overrated, after all.

Sounds like the Republicans plan to adopt precisely the attitude our own Fianna Fáil take whenever they end up in opposition: make the government's life as difficult as possible, in every way imaginable, even if it's to the country's detriment: after all, by far the most important thing is being in power, and all other considerations are secondary.

Pocono Joe

oscarBravo wrote: »

Moral high ground is overrated, after all.

Sounds like the Republicans plan to adopt precisely the attitude our own Fianna Fáil take whenever they end up in opposition: make the government's life as difficult as possible, in every way imaginable, even if it's to the country's detriment: after all, by far the most important thing is being in power, and all other considerations are secondary.

Moral high ground and a few bucks will buy me a cup of Starbucks coffee.

And no, I’m just one of the 58 million voters who haven’t sampled the Kool-Aid. I’ve heard his plans, and I think most of them aren't good for America.

Also, the Rebublicans pretty much have absolutely no say anymore... didn't you see what Nancy Pelosi recently did? (Almost Hitleresque I'd say :rolleyes:)

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

For one, a big difference...
In England, at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of 'empire building' by the United States. He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

Which is waffle really, as his ex COS was on CH4 news last night referring to the way the US likes to cover its occasional bit of imperial adventuring by spouting about freedom, human rights and the like. Thus 60 or so of Iraq's 83 oil fields are under foreign control, with a percentage split of revenue of the type not seen since the 1930's and the British Empire in the region, with strategically placed bases in one of the most important areas of the planet, should the need arise to expand influence (or 'spread democracy and human rights').

(He was actually asked in Switzerland, by an ex-Bishop of Canterbury, btw).

Matt Holck

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Compare GWB to Hitler all you want. I'm use to it here. Open discussion is a good thing.

ummm...
GWB was the stooge for the dumb joke on late night comedy
Hitler had the youth marching in the streets and shooting slogan
Nope I can't, sorry

When I heard Barack Obama throughout the campaign basically saying that he is going to solve all our problems just by electing him, or when he stated "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," I will admit it scared me.

I'm not sure I'd feel safe if my neighbors were ready to fight

The Raven.

I must say that if I was one of the young persons living in America at present, I’d be scared too. On September 11 2008, Obama had this to say:

‘And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.’

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act

I doubt if he will be going anytime soon.

Overheal

The Raven. wrote: »

I must say that if I was one of the young persons living in America at present, I’d be scared too. On September 11 2008, Obama had this to say:

‘And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.’

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_National_Service_Act

I doubt if he will be going anytime soon.

Cherry Picking?

Obama's entire service program proposal quickly became controversial, largely for being mistaken as a call for a national paramilitary force, though the proposal's only reference to military service was to volunteer participation in regular U.S. Armed Forces, as one activity that would qualify for inclusion under the program's umbrella.

The program being to promote education. Federal assistance to schools contingent to school districts establishing service programs.

Also, given conscription's history in the United States, I can't say I'm worried it will be happening anytime soon, and I fall within the age. This bill seems very weakly supported, even within the democratic party, and Nixon's removal of the vietnam draft was historic. Not soon to be forgotten by anybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States#End_of_conscription

As for his Change - Obama already has my vote. He can take his sweet time for all I care at this point. I'll choose to re-evaluate what change he has brought in 2012 - it hardly seems a worthwhile argument now when he hasnt even put his socks in the presidential suite.

The Raven.

No, I wasn’t ‘Cherry Picking’. Quoting part of an article and supplying the link, rather than posting the entire thing, is what we are supposed to do here. I specifically quoted Obama’s own words, which I find scary, and somewhat at odds with the 'service program proposal'.

If these are the kind of ‘changes’ he intends, then I would argue that it is very important to discuss these issues, sooner rather than later. After all, it was Obama who initiated this discussion, long before he even knew he would occupy the presidential suite.

lostexpectation

he may attack sudan
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/air-force-wraps.html

Manic Moran

He may do pretty much whatever the hell he wants, he's the President!

I honestly don't expect any radical changes to pretty much anything in the first couple of weeks.

NTM

40crush41

Húrin wrote: »

Americans are so... ideological.

I am, you're right.
And so here is a man who is speaking differently.
The words -if government is big or small is not the question, but if it works, where the answer is yes, then we will proceed, where the answer is no, we will cut the program- caught my attention.
Hopefully this will be carried out. As my sister said -it is not the theory anymore of what works, but what does work.

MisterAnarchy

Manic Moran wrote: »

He may do pretty much whatever the hell he wants, he's the President!

NTM

The President is not as powerful as many people think.
He can do a lot if congress backs him and pretty much nothing if they don't.

Overheal

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

The President is not as powerful as many people think.
He can do a lot if congress backs him and pretty much nothing if they don't.

The last 2 years were enough evidence of that.