Obama: The New George Bush

[SOAKER]

I agree its funny...And I don't see how it's a hypocritical statement....Personally I'd like to see this laundry list of discrepancies, but I doubt el figero will list em, cause it's nonsense, just like he won't provide any evidence to support the theory of global warming. Maybe next, in his infinite wisom that has been bestowed upon him by notable grad students at a local christian university, he will tell us of the true meaning of christianity and what Emmanuel is all about

[SOAKER]

i've been past al gore's brentwood estate.. or what someone told me is al gore's estate.... its nuts

and this guy preaches class warfare and this environmental stuff

 

Yea? Im going to Nashville next week, I'll be sure to drive by. Been to Crawford, TX.

Yea it's laughable that these nut job leftists somehow think this guy is genuinely concerned about the future of our planet and the environment. Guess they're wearing political beer goggles. Hey I'm all for independent energy, clean burning fuel, recycling water, etc. That shit is expensive to build, but at least it gets you off of the grid and out of the government control.

[El Mamerro]

No, I DID like it, it's just that it's a bit out of place with the other claims that are at least somewhat defensible.

 

I'd also like to note that if we only held our support for people who practice what they preach very strictly, we'd each be supporting an awfully small amount of people in the world. There's plenty of ammunition to go after Gore on a number of issues without ever having to touch the "preach ≠ practice" argument, which frankly pretty much everyone is guilty of to some level and really doesn't hold up as a valid argument against the core of the message.

 

Too many people subscribe to the following faulty logic to reach an overall conclusion on the subject:

 

1) Gore believes climate change is happening.

2) Gore believes we should conduct ourselves in an environmentally friendly way.

3) Gore does not conduct himself in an environmentally friendly way.

--------------------

Therefore, climate change is not happening.

 

 

By the way SOAKER, AOD went ahead and listed some of that laundry list. You can go ahead and tell him if it's nonsense or not.

[SOAKER]

Nah see I agree with aod observations and he actuallly listed some but you did not. If you understood anything about Christianity you'd understand that it's not about being a perfect person. So, anyhow the logic you propose is in error becuase this is not the basis of the argument I'm making . Gore is a profiteer and is helping pass laws that attempt to change the way we live, yet his lifestyle is that of that which needs to change. The enviromentalist ideology is based on these principles which he so conveniently violates. Besides this is not what I've said, you see I've provided countless papers, documents and research, many of which are either written by or supported by notable scientists, not Grad students, that dispute the THEORY of climate change

[El Mamerro]

Add "Christianity is about being a perfect person" to the list of things I've said, according to you, that have yet to be pointed out in my posts.

 

Listen, I'm happy you've found some stuff on the Internet, I really am. I'm just saying, sit down with some legit climatologists and discuss the subject in person, pick their brains, and let us know how it goes.

[SOAKER]

You brought up religion and suggested that Christian politicians are hypocrites.

 

Look I'm glad you talked to some college kids about the weather, I really 'am... I'm just saying pick up a journal, read an article, watch a documentary, talk to some professors, pick their brains, and let us know how it goes.

 

You missed the point about there being a political aspect to this I guess. Gore money oil taxes...shit like that...here let me show you a picture that might give you some introspective insight into the subject.

[SOAKER]

[El Mamerro]

You brought up religion and suggested that Christian politicians are hypocrites.

 

I did. I did not, however, imply that Christianity was about being perfect, or that these people are hypocrites because they fail at being perfect.

 

 

 

 

Look I'm glad you talked to some college kids about the weather, I really 'am... I'm just saying pick up a journal, read an article, watch a documentary, talk to some professors, pick their brains, and let us know how it goes.

 

I already did all of those. Meanwhile, you have not.

 

 

 

 

You missed the point about there being a political aspect to this I guess. Gore money oil taxes...shit like that...here let me show you a picture that might give you some introspective insight into the subject.

 

Not denying the political aspect to this at all. If you wanna stick to complaining about the politicizing of this issue and the way its being handled, then rock and roll, valid discussion and I may even agree with you on some points. But since you wanna pepper your argument with pick n' choose articles that relate to the science behind climate change, I'm gonna take issue with that particular point, because however you wanna put it, however many marginally valid articles you can scrounge up online, science is simply not on your side, buddy.

[SOAKER]

Once again you've said NOTHING about climate change, provided no evidence to substantiate your opinion, nor have you discussed the politics involved. You fail tounderstand that what I've gave evidence to is that Gore has lied about alot of the science, blatantly lied and it's not arguable. The point being made is that he has lied to market his business and for personal gain. Suggesting online information is inherently flawed is a mute point, because were online so giving evidence to an opinion is going to be, guess what? Online. Besides, this is a discussion, treat it as such.

 

Science is on both sides of the argument, and considering the enormous amount of wealth being generated by "your" side I find it suspect.

[SOAKER]

Here is a scholarly article and a book that offer some insight into the politics surrounding this issue. I've only briefly read these and I'm not saying their the truth or not. Like you said, neither of us are scientists so all we can do is read the summations and critiques of the findings and attempt to interpret them. These readings address the politicization of the theory of climate change.

 

http://www.csupomona.edu/~zywang/lindzen.pdf

 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=8HzBjbAaOVcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=global+waming+the+inconvenient+lie&ots=mB5qdCASrI&sig=TtcujHMPLh2KN8MpCticbLyBDK0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

Just as the Bush administration misconstrued the findings of the intelligence in Iraq, and manipulated the truth to wage a war that lined the pockets of corporations, Gore and his cronies have lied and manipulated the truth behind climate change for similar motives. Both have undermined the democratic process and both are based on creating hysteria and fear. Obama has endorsed the same agenda as Gore.

[El Mamerro]

You fail to understand that no matter how much kicking and whining you do about being shown evidence here, it's not gonna change the fact that science, with few detractors and exceptions, supports climate change. I'm not gonna post links for you, this topic has been discussed here before and we've all been through that and it's a giant waste of time cause you're not gonna change your mind through links alone.

 

All I'm asking you to do is to sit down with real scientists in the field and discuss the subject. That's all. Online information is not inherently flawed, but online information combined with live discussion with real scientists is inherently superior to online information alone. Links won't change your mind, so I won't do that, but discussing with scientists may just work, so I ask you to try it out.

 

Also, it's completely preposterous to claim only "my" side profits from pushing "our" agenda, and completely ignore the profiting from "your" side, who has been profiting for ages, who desperately wants to keep the status quo, and who will continue to fight to keep things as they are. Don't get it wrong, "your" side is still on top and dominating, and making more money than "mine" right now.

 

It's obvious to me by now that your stance against the evidence of climate change stems more from the dislike of the liberal mindset that supports it and sometimes even exaggerates it, and thus you lean to believe the exceptions and detractors instead of the mountains of evidence presented by the large bulk of the scientific community.

[lord_casek]

Can we get back to the original idea of this thread? No more posters, climate discussion, etc?

 

Obama popularity below 50 percent for first time: poll

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091118/ts_alt_afp/uspoliticsobama

[SOAKER]

I don't support anyside. But once again you've failed to argue regarding the subject. You spoke with students not scientists so stop trying to suggest you have explored the science . Besides that's not the point of my argument. The thread is Obama the new Bush. As you suggest, and I agree with, and have indicated, politicians have been profiting from these scare tactics. There is truth in the science in support of and that which is in opposition to the theory of global warming. The fabrication and manipulation of these facts or data for control and profit is undeniable. You even suggested this in a previous post. Providing links to books, data, journals, editorials, is appropriate regardless if you find it to be valid.

[Decyferon]

I think Obama was always going to suffer from a huge loss of support, he had swing voters and new voters coming out for him and they may not be as aware of how long that changes to running a country can take, because they haven't seen any real dramatic changes to the country they have lost faith and his popularity has taken a downturn, the same can be said for a lot of people their expectations of change was so dramatic especially as the first black president etc etc now it just seems like endless debates on healthcare and republican press picking up on so many things whether trivial or not.

 

I still think he was a better choice than the alternative of McCain and Palin.

[lord_casek]

I think Obama was always going to suffer from a huge loss of support, he had swing voters and new voters coming out for him and they may not be as aware of how long that changes to running a country can take, because they haven't seen any real dramatic changes to the country they have lost faith and his popularity has taken a downturn, the same can be said for a lot of people their expectations of change was so dramatic especially as the first black president etc etc now it just seems like endless debates on healthcare and republican press picking up on so many things whether trivial or not.

 

I still think he was a better choice than the alternative of McCain and Palin.

 

 

I think that people are waking up to the fact that he's not a Messiah and his promises were

that of a politician. Weak and baseless.

 

As for the McSame comment, I'm afraid I have to agree and disagree. As much as it pains me to say this, McCain would have been better b/c his evil is out in the open. We would have been quick to dole out justice and impeach, imprison, etc.

 

I hope people get that statement and don't mistake it for supporting McCain.

[Decyferon]

Oh I get you Casek, that is the problem with all politicians you have to take the good with the bad I would personally prefer an independant non affiliated person to run a country, then they have the option of choosing their policies based on merit rather than say a political 'left/right' bias.

 

I don't really think you will see huge changes in Obama's term simply because it is hard to make major changes withiin a very short time, I think towards the end of his term you will see the changes being implemented having been debated and argued and refined through the houses. But people definitely thought he was some messiah who on his first day would click his fingers and make America better, and they are disillusioned now that hasn't happened.

[SOAKER]

Even the proposed changes in health care won't take effect until 2014.

[lord_casek]

Oh I get you Casek, that is the problem with all politicians you have to take the good with the bad I would personally prefer an independant non affiliated person to run a country, then they have the option of choosing their policies based on merit rather than say a political 'left/right' bias.

 

I don't really think you will see huge changes in Obama's term simply because it is hard to make major changes withiin a very short time, I think towards the end of his term you will see the changes being implemented having been debated and argued and refined through the houses. But people definitely thought he was some messiah who on his first day would click his fingers and make America better, and they are disillusioned now that hasn't happened.

 

 

I think that people are scared. Jail time for not having insurance, etc. is just damn right scary. I think that we, as a country, have been disillusioned for a long time running.

 

The "change" that was promised isn't "change" at all. It's Bush era bills on steroids. Just

my humble opinion.

[El Mamerro]

You spoke with students not scientists so stop trying to suggest you have explored the science

 

 

Grad students, professors, and NASA JPL scientists. Go back and read.

 

I'm also lumping Phd's and post-docs in the "grad student" category. But who cares, open-minded discussion with students > narrow-minded internet research.

[angelofdeath]

if you look at it constitutionally, the president cant change as much as everyone thinks he can. sure he has the bully pulpit, he can push people around, make deals to get shit through congress...etc. but look at what he was saying he would do when he was campaigning.

 

the only promise he could really live up to, without any other people 'getting in the way' is the war. he could start bringing the troops home TOMORROW. he could refuse to enforce patriot act provisions, military commission act, essentially cease the war on drugs, he could disband the ATF, etc. i dont know why he doesnt concentrate on shit he CAN do, instead of worrying about some stupid inefficient boondoggles like healthcare and global warming crap. we all know atleast 50% + of any govt spending is wasted, squandered and doesnt accomplish the job at hand. everything the government does is based on the fact that they MUST fail, in order to increase the budget. the incentives are totally backwards than that of the market. in the market, if you satisfy your customers, you make money. in the government, if you dont satisfy your 'customers' you make money. no budget increases are given to operations in govt that do what they are supposed to. they are only given out if you FAIL. have they ever seen a budget they didnt need to increase?

 

i cant wait till yall get your healthcare you want. as hl mencken said.... democracy is people knowing what they want and they deserve to get it good and hard.

[Mainframe]

if you look at it constitutionally, the president cant change as much as everyone thinks he can. sure he has the bully pulpit, he can push people around, make deals to get shit through congress...etc. but look at what he was saying he would do when he was campaigning.

 

I think this fact is being overlooked by a lot of people. We all learned about checks and balances in elementary school, and yet everyone expected Obama to be able to hammer through sweeping changes the second he got into office. He IS like Bush in that they both have had to come to terms with the reality of the institution of the presidency, which for the most part requires slow, careful compromise to get things done.

 

I think what promises Obama did make while campaigning were taken and blown all out of proportional by the media and by his supporters. People projected their own beliefs and desires into the Obama campaign, but from the very beginning he has been more of a brooding, moderate intellectual type, not a vicious firebrand ready to change the world. I can remember articles from 2006 that painted him in a more moderate light, and this is the way I've viewed him the entire time. I didn't even vote though.

 

the only promise he could really live up to, without any other people 'getting in the way' is the war. he could start bringing the troops home TOMORROW. he could refuse to enforce patriot act provisions, military commission act, essentially cease the war on drugs, he could disband the ATF, etc. i dont know why he doesnt concentrate on shit he CAN do, instead of worrying about some stupid inefficient boondoggles like healthcare and global warming crap.

 

Well, he never promised to pull out of Afghanistan, and to my knowledge he already pulled lots of troops out of Iraq, and is looking for ways to pull out of Afghanistan without totally fucking the place up. He also pulled the DEA off medical marijuana users/dispensers, which is a pretty huge deal where I live. Also healthcare and global warming aren't "stupid inefficient boondoggles" in my mind, but that's another argument entirely.

 

To be clear, I'm not a major Obama supporter, but I think he's a pretty smart guy and he's still getting the hang of the presidency. I just think a lot of criticism in here is very unfair.

[angelofdeath]

 

Well, he never promised to pull out of Afghanistan, and to my knowledge he already pulled lots of troops out of Iraq, and is looking for ways to pull out of Afghanistan without totally fucking the place up. He also pulled the DEA off medical marijuana users/dispensers, which is a pretty huge deal where I live. Also healthcare and global warming aren't "stupid inefficient boondoggles" in my mind, but that's another argument entirely.

 

To be clear, I'm not a major Obama supporter, but I think he's a pretty smart guy and he's still getting the hang of the presidency. I just think a lot of criticism in here is very unfair.

 

i watched a youtube video of him campaigning last week where he said he was going to 'bring all the troops home!' to cheers and shouts.

he pulled troops out of iraq, put them in 'stan and replaced all the troops he pulled out with contractors. that is not bringing anyone home. unless you are a politician.

 

i still stand by what i said 100% if he wanted to, he could do ALOT. he has it within his capacity to bring the troops home NOW. he can basically render the patriot act and other things like that null and void by refusing to enforce them.

 

i do give him some respect for pulling the DEA off of medical marijuana facilities, but we'll see what really happens with all this. he could cease the entire war on drugs if he wanted to. as andrew jackson said in response to a supreme court ruling...'well he has made his decision, now let them enforce it.'

 

these are the only things i could possibly find common ground with the guy on, and he is no different than bush on the war. so i really dont have common ground with him on anything. his socialism, class warfare rhetoric and policies, anti gun stance.. are all hideous and trample what little liberty americans have left.

[SOAKER]

Grad students, professors, and NASA JPL scientists. Go back and read.

 

I'm also lumping Phd's and post-docs in the "grad student" category. But who cares, open-minded discussion with students > narrow-minded internet research.

 

Reiterating what you said and changing it is no different than me editing a post of mine, which you arrogantly suggested was hypocritical. Personally I don't care if you were endowed with some infinite wisdom from god. You still have failed to provide anything that is substantial to back your opinion. Just implying that you spoke with someone and they told you you were right does not make it so. The fact that you KEEP coming back to this point is becoming annoyingly redundant. Taking my statements out of context is not helping you prove any point either. If you haven't noticed the subject has shifted slightly back to what the thread was intended for. the Obama administration and the similarities between the Bush administration. If you read one of the last statements I made in response to you I appealed to your argument that there was the possibility for political corruption with this issue. It seems strange that you would accept the opinion of some students or professors (as if your really going around some campus that your not a member of and interviewing all of these professors about this issue). The fact is that there a great deal of professors, scientists, PHD's or what have you, that contest the theory of global warming. Providing evidence based on college articles, or books, etc that are written by Phd's and post-docs in the "grad student" is not narrow minded. How could you suggest it to be so when you supposed opinion is based off of similar sources.

[El Mamerro]

Because when you have an open discussion with a real person, you can do these amazing things like ask questions, provide feedback, explore various angles, and in essence reach a better understanding of an issue than you ever would by just passively reading and absorbing information and taking it at face value.

 

Look dude, don't bother arguing this any more. Stick to the political aspect and lay off the science. There's pleeeeeenty to be argued about and discussed about what political motives are doing to the issue without having to delve into discrediting the science of it. It diminishes your argument greatly when you do so.

[SOAKER]

Once again, the last several posts spoke to the political aspect of this issue, so WTF are talking about? To discuss the politics and falacies of the propaganda requires delving into the science. At no point did I point to science being the basis for my argument. As you've suggested you disgree with my opinion, but that is all you've said. Everything you've said is baseless and has just been an attempt to discredit my opinion without actually backing what you've said. As a matter of fact you're the one that brought up science by claiming you've been bestowed with this knowledge by osmosis. Actually reading and researching different sides to an issue from credible sources carries more weight than talking to few people at a school

 

But, I digress. It seems your ability to objectively view this discussion or to see the failure of your logic has won. The fear mongering and politicization of environmentalism has also won you over. The trampling of our freedoms seems not to concern you.

[SOAKER]

i watched a youtube video of him campaigning last week where he said he was going to 'bring all the troops home!' to cheers and shouts.

he pulled troops out of iraq, put them in 'stan and replaced all the troops he pulled out with contractors. that is not bringing anyone home. unless you are a politician.

 

i still stand by what i said 100% if he wanted to, he could do ALOT. he has it within his capacity to bring the troops home NOW. he can basically render the patriot act and other things like that null and void by refusing to enforce them.

 

i do give him some respect for pulling the DEA off of medical marijuana facilities, but we'll see what really happens with all this. he could cease the entire war on drugs if he wanted to. as andrew jackson said in response to a supreme court ruling...'well he has made his decision, now let them enforce it.'

 

these are the only things i could possibly find common ground with the guy on, and he is no different than bush on the war. so i really dont have common ground with him on anything. his socialism, class warfare rhetoric and policies, anti gun stance.. are all hideous and trample what little liberty americans have left.

 

 

AMEN TO THAT!!

[Mainframe]

i watched a youtube video of him campaigning last week where he said he was going to 'bring all the troops home!' to cheers and shouts.

he pulled troops out of iraq, put them in 'stan and replaced all the troops he pulled out with contractors. that is not bringing anyone home. unless you are a politician.

 

I think the ultimate goal is probably still to bring them all home, but he can't (and shouldn't) just snap his fingers and make that happen immediately. He inherited a mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I don't think he wants to do anything rash to fuck the region up even more by pulling out and leaving a power vacuum. I'm not a military expert, but I think Obama is trying to take the advice of his experts and do what he thinks will work out the best; he's not just applying some abstract ideal to the situation. The situation is pretty complicated.

 

i still stand by what i said 100% if he wanted to, he could do ALOT. he has it within his capacity to bring the troops home NOW. he can basically render the patriot act and other things like that null and void by refusing to enforce them.

 

Well do you really want a president who simply does things because he can? You're just saying he has the power to do some things YOU want him to do, and doesn't. Good for him, I'm glad he doesn't take rash, unilateral action on issues. He should take other perspectives into account and weigh the pros and cons, since his decisions are very important, and we don't live in a dictatorship. Remember the Ents...

 

i do give him some respect for pulling the DEA off of medical marijuana facilities, but we'll see what really happens with all this. he could cease the entire war on drugs if he wanted to. as andrew jackson said in response to a supreme court ruling...'well he has made his decision, now let them enforce it.'

 

I agree that the entire war on drugs should end. But I understand it would be a hugely controversial and probably unpopular decision. Ending federal prosecution of medical marijuana was a long time coming. But our government acts slowly, and other drugs are still a much thornier issue.

 

these are the only things i could possibly find common ground with the guy on, and he is no different than bush on the war.

 

Remember, Bush started both wars. Obama inherited a very delicate situation. HUGE difference there.

 

so i really dont have common ground with him on anything. his socialism, class warfare rhetoric and policies, anti gun stance.. are all hideous and trample what little liberty americans have left.

 

Well you're bringing a whole suite of preconceived notions to the table here that I can't even begin to address. I'm tempted to say this echoes Fox News, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[lord_casek]

Mainframe: I've said it before, and I will say it again: Afghanistan is for the opium. Our troops are guarding the fields. Before the "invasion", the Taliban had virtually stopped the trade....now it's quadrupled.

 

Something like 90% estimated....

[SOAKER]

AOD sentiments to not echo the views of a media empire. These fears and views are based on protecting the constitutional freedoms we possess. And they are very real, not preconceived notions. When we won the war with Britain we established these rights to protect our individual freedoms, and Bush and Obama have slowly chipped away at them. Lets remember something here, Bush did not start a war. Congress must give authorization for this to happen, and thats what took place. And the war in Afghanistan had EVERY member of congress back it, to include Obama. The president has limited executive power, which in just about every case can be overridden by Congress, so it's not as if he just wages war like the dictators of so many nations in this world.

 

Obama campaigned on refocusing the war to Afghanistan. The war on drugs is not just a domestic issue, and as a matter of fact several DEA agents were just killed in Afghanistan of all places. Talk about imperialism. I don't think AOD is suggesting that Obama just do these things with the snap of a finger, nor do I think he is in favor of these things. Rather he is pointing out that Obama campaigned on these issues, and the notion of change. Yet he has not made these changes and apparently conservatives are not the only ones that are becoming increasingly skeptical of this guy and lack of integrity. I was somewhat impressed with the interview Obama did with Major Garrett from Fox News. He danced around the issues as could be expected, but he seemed to be honest.

[jib25]

Soaker.. do you ever manage to get out from this thread and just go and paint? Please don't tell me you think Palin has potential.