Originally posted by grover
First of to SGTchas... just because I disagree with you does not make me any less of a patriot.
Several tories in the first American Revolution made the same claim, including the "prior service" claim from service during the French and Indian
War, in the service of the crown. Didn't make then un-tories.
Now in regards to Obama... no administration that I have experienced yet makes a total and complete break with their predecessors policies... they
tend to carry them over and then change them over time... its called continuity and its important because it prevents the wild policy swings we would
experience if they did.
Then he should have campaigned on continuity, not change. I've noticed several wild policy swings, however. Maybe you haven't noticed them.
I did and will defend him though from all the extremism and hate I see spewed at him from the right though as a matter of principle. I believe in
judging a man or woman on their works not their words or their race, religion, family background or sexual preference. I mouthed my contempt for bush
minor and cheney the dick because I felt that they had earned it... not simply because they are conservatives and Republicans.
I'll defend NO man simply because he's under attack. He might be under attack for good reason. As you said, a man should be judged by his works, not
his words, and the Obama's works have been found wanting. I voiced my contempt for the Bushies as well, because as you said, they earned it. Matter
of fact, they were the specific reason I finally broke with the Republican party. I hate that you confuse neocons with conservatives, but everyone is
entitled to their own opinion. Neocons are NOT conservatives, by any stretch of the imagination.
In regards to Obama's works. I vehemently disagree with him on his bank policy and would like to see him toss Giethner out on his ear. I agree that
bad banks regardless of size should be allowed to fail. I also believe that no institution should be allowed to get so large their failure would so
adversely affect the overall national economy. I think he should be as hard as rock on the big banks and I do not think the tarp money should be
rolled over... I do not want the big banks to think of it as an equity line to bail out their sorry asses out when they need it. Use the money to pay
down the deficit.
OK. These are his works you DISAGREE with. Which of his works do you AGREE with, that you think he merits your defense?
At the same time I also understand that the bank bailout was on his plate when he was sworn in and ya gotta play what you're delt. As for auto...
they came a beggin... he did not seek them out... I understand that if they crashed the overall effect on the economy would be probably worse than the
banks because it is not just a matter of the companies themselves but their suppliers and their suppliers suppliers etc.
A bank bailout was on his plate. A done deal that he had nothing to do with. That doesn't mean he had to continue the tradition, and throw away yet
more good money after bad. In that sense, no, he DIDN'T have to play what he was dealt. He wasn't dealt the subsequent bailouts after he was sworn
So what if the Auto makers came beggin'? That don't mean they had to get what they were begging for. He may not have sought them out, but neither
did he have to cave in to them. Bankruptcy laws are in place for a reason. Use them.
You truly believe that had the big 3 failed, no more autos would have been produced or repaired in the US? I unconditionally deny the claim that a big
3 failure would have collapsed the US economy, and all the suppliers. They have the product, a demand somewhere would have been found, probably in the
ashes of the "Big Three".
In either case, auto or the banks if we are going to bail them out to the tune of billions then we should have a stake in them... to hell with just
giving them the money... hold their balls to the fire by holding a share in them. Great do it. Anything less is a give away.
"If" is a mighty big word, isn't it? I'll give you another "if". If the Obama had just let them suffer the normal consequences of their
misdeeds, we wouldn't be having this philosophical debate on whether Socialism or Fascism, or whatever "ism" you prefer to call government
ownership of production, is or is not the American way.
In regards to the stimulas package... to date I have no problem with it. If it proves to be a failure then I may change my opinion but for now wait
I have a major problem with it, as will generations yet unborn.
I am all for health care reform and I have no problem sticking it to the HMO's, insurance and drug companies.... they have been ripping us off for
long enough. But I want to see something fair and that works come out of it... not more bullhooey like the medicare drug plan.
I'm all for the government staying out of my business as much as they can. Governmental takeover of health care is NOT "healthcare reform", as it
has been labelled. It's just a forced change in who I have to entrust my healthcare to. Governments should govern, not wipe my nose and tell me to
take my medicine, whether I want to or not.
I would like to see us out of Iraq and hope it happens...
Me too. We shouldn't have bitten THAT off to begin with. We already had one war going on, without needing to jump into another one that was
unnecessary at the time. Hussein was already buttoned up. We could have erased him later, when we weren't already tied up.
Afghanistan/Pakistan are damned if you do, damned if you don't nations and there are no easy answers. Close Gitmo and haul the guilty ones off to the
super max prisons but give them their day in court and free the ones there that are innocent.
Afghanistan DOES have easy answers, it just takes hard decisions to get to them. You're in favor of granting US citizenship rights to foreign enemy
combatants? Not familiar with the Geneva Convention, and protocols of war? Maybe you think ALL wars should be fought by police instead of soldiers? I
must admit, this argument has always mistified me. Why should we grant the rights and privelidges of a US citizenship on folks who seek to destroy us,
as they've stated?
Personally I would like to see all overseas bases closed and our troops brought home and an end to foriegn aid except in times of disaster but I am a
realist enough to know it's not going to happen.
Me too. Leave 'em to their own devices, and bring our troops home. All except the ones actively engaged in a war. There's a reason those guys are
there. I'm with you on ending foreign aid, too. Right now, it appears that we can't even afford to aid ourselves, due to government mismanagement,
and we have no business sending money there when it's needed so badly here.
Overall I have to say that five months in office is nothing and too short of a time to judge the man a success or a failure.
Ask me again in a year.
I will, assuming that the Obama hasn't completely collapsed us, and I can find you to ask. A lot can happen in a year's time. Do you mean a year
from now, or a year from the inauguration? How much time do you want to give him to destroy us?
Oh and ALL politicians lie... its in their DNA.
I couldn't agree with you more. I'm not sure they HAVE DNA, though. Wouldn't that mean they'd have to be mortal like the rest of us?
[edit on 2009/6/20 by nenothtu]