The Obama Administration v2.

[Morgoth]

I deleted Purplehawk's post yesterday or the day before (memory's a bit odd today) where she agreed with the comparison of Bush to Ahmadinejad. Not far back we had to remove multiple posts from left-leaning members linking Bush to Hitler. Throughout Bush's years we had many saying he was trying to control people through the Patriot Act or warrentless wire-tapping and other so-called McCarthy-esque witch hunts. How did it go: "You're with the President or against him".

Now, we're getting Obama the Fascist. Obama the Socialist. You're unpatriotic if you don't support him. So the right-wing has taken on the mantle of labeling the President in the same baseless way that the left-wing were doing during Bush's years in office. So the same hymn from a different hymn-sheet.

Yet, it occurs to me that a lot of you don't really know what those labels truly mean. Dictionary definitions don't do those terms justice. I think you'd do yourselves a great service by actually living under a regime you suppose the US is becoming for a year or so. Then come back and tell us what you think of the US? I live in a country of socialized health-care. I wouldn't say it was perfect but we're not a country ruled by dictators, fascists or whatever. [[Incompetent fools I'll accept]]. The point being that whatever the sitting government of the day do, you're able to do something about it at the ballot boxes. Fascists won't give you that option.

But just how surprised are you that a Democratic President is proposing these changes to health care provision? It's no more surprising to me than a Republican president wanting to privatize social security and being accused of shafting poor people in the process. You've got the Democrats & Republicans with traditional policy areas that have been part of the political arena for years and each government has come & gone and the US still prevails as a democracy. Things change, but you're not suffering under the hideous regimes you believe is coming to pass.

I'd like to see this constant broad, often baseless labeling end. I certainly don't want to see fascism = Obama again in this thread. I think you're getting to the level of Bush = Hitler lines, which was quite the trying time for staff on here to deal with. If you can't get off the train, get out this thread. Okay? Thanks.

[Klio]

I hope it's OK following up Morgoth's serious post with something I found very funny....


There are labels, here, too, but I hope everyone here can take the 'nerds vs. jocks' battle indicated here in good humour, and I thought the final message about labels of this kind not making that much sense is a good one.

What's most important, I found it hilarious.... perhaps because (sadly) I got far too many of the nerdish references.....




Looks like Obama found it hilarious, too.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by hemhem20X6

Maybe you're referring to that report about extremism--as I recall, the "lone wolves" have come out to kill, so it wasn't about conservatives--rather, it was about those crazy people who decide to kill those who disagree with them--and the report thought it likely that those people would be right wing extremists, as far as I know, and the acts of violence so far have been committed by right wing extremists. Certainly, if a left-wing extremist assassinated someone, it would be condemned by the left wing--because the fringe should not define the group as a whole.

I think that's why President Bush deployed troops to the States a month before the election to deal with "civil unrest." When I asked about it, I was directed to the DHS report then in effect, which describes the exact same threat.

Originally Posted by Morgoth

Now, we're getting Obama the Fascist. Obama the Socialist. You're unpatriotic if you don't support him. So the right-wing has taken on the mantle of labeling the President in the same baseless way that the left-wing were doing during Bush's years in office. So the same hymn from a different hymn-sheet.

Not quite. I'm not aware of anyone on the left impugning the patriotism of people who disagree with the President's agenda. Indeed, there are loads of Democrats out there fussing about this policy or that. I guess that's what a "big tent" party looks like - a quarrelsome lot.

Today is the 100th anniversary of Fathers' Day. In honor of the occasion, President Obama has penned an op-ed for Parade Magazine, urging fathers to "Step up." Here's a snip:

President Barack Obama In many ways, I came to understand the importance of fatherhood through its absence—both in my life and in the lives of others. I came to understand that the hole a man leaves when he abandons his responsibility to his children is one that no government can fill. We can do everything possible to provide good jobs and good schools and safe streets for our kids, but it will never be enough to fully make up the difference. That is why we need fathers to step up, to realize that their job does not end at conception; that what makes you a man is not the ability to have a child but the courage to raise one.

The White House has also released this video:



Having had the privilege of seeing him with Malia and Sasha during the madness of a presidential campaign, and more recently with the family settled in the White House, I think he's got "Daddy" down pat. I was blessed with a wonderful father myself, and later married a man who became another father (and grandfather) to die for, so I know just how important dads are.

Happy Fathers' Day, guys!

[leah49]

Originally Posted by Lord Godric

Before I start with the rest of your post, I'd like to show you how Obama is not a fascist by your own definition.

I respect Morgoth's post so we need to drop this or we'll both get in trouble. I never called Obama anything. I just gave definitions and showed how some things Obama does fit into the definition.
I am sick of having to explain myself and then have the other side tell me they don't have to explain themselves to me. Thank you, LG, for at least taking the time to explain something. That's more than I got from anyone else. Heck, I even got one post telling me I was being unreasonable for wanting that! I don't agree with a lot of what you say, but we can't carry this on due to Morgoth's post. I did write up a huge response to what you posted, but I have to delete it. I have it saved if you want me to owl it to you.

I know we don't live in a socialist country. I don't think anyone criticizing Obama believes that we do. We do think what Obama does could lead to socialism. We believe that we are not the republic that we pretend to be. I don't like that our opinions are getting downplayed because we don't actually live in a socialist country. I'm very thank ful that we don't and I am very thankful that we don't. I hope to high heaven that it never happens. It very well could happen.

[Klio]

Originally Posted by leah49

We do think what Obama does could lead to socialism. We believe that we are not the republic that we pretend to be. I don't like that our opinions are getting downplayed because we don't actually live in a socialist country. I'm very thank ful that we don't and I am very thankful that we don't. I hope to high heaven that it never happens. It very well could happen.

(my emohases)
Who is 'we' in this case?

There are different 'we's in this paragraph. Some are, I think 'we' as in 'Americans'. I understand those. But who is the 'we' I emphasised? I am not sure about that, and I am curious.

I am not aware that this squares up with official GOP line, either - so I am a bit mystified which apparently marginalised group you are identifying with here.

[Alastor]

In this thread the question is not who. What, if anything, Obama and his administration has done to support those views on the other hand is.

[Midnightsfire]

Originally Posted by Alastor

In this thread the question is not who. What, if anything, Obama and his administration has done to support those views on the other hand is.

Very little.
Moderate Republicans should be pleased.

The "left" has been a bit disappointed. Obama has been far more moderate than the "left" thought he'd be. Ironically, this disappointment is also felt by the "right," since he has given them virtually no fodder to throw at the "ebil liberuls."

The "right" has pretty much attacked Obama for being a democrat. And that's it. Just because of a label. Past smear attacks here are without any real substance.
Indeed, the lack of left-wing outrage here is revealing. It seems Obama supporters are more moderate than what they were attacked for; "radicalism." Or "fascism."

I do differentiate between terms; Republican, Conservative, right-wing; Democrat, Liberal, left-wing.

[purplehawk]

I think you nailed that one, Midnight.

[leah49]

Originally Posted by Klio

(my emohases)
Who is 'we' in this case?

There are different 'we's in this paragraph. Some are, I think 'we' as in 'Americans'. I understand those. But who is the 'we' I emphasised? I am not sure about that, and I am curious.

I am not aware that this squares up with official GOP line, either - so I am a bit mystified which apparently marginalised group you are identifying with here.

The We you emphasized is Americans.

Originally Posted by Alastor

In this thread the question is not who. What, if anything, Obama and his administration has done to support those views on the other hand is.

What views? The ones us conservatives hold? Well, he's created czars like the car czar, ownership of GMC, bailing out the car industry and banks. Going to other countries, like Muslim areas, and apologizing, thinking he needs to apologize for America. He walks around like he's still on the campaign trail. He just has this appearance that he wants to like him so he'll do anything to get that whether actually in his or his country's best interest or not. He won't take a proper stance on things if it'll hurt his image outside the US. Last time I checked he's not running their countries.

This has nothing to do with the above, but I just wonder why he uses the word czar?

[KDOG]

In regards to Obama's response to the situation in Iran, I think he's doing quite well. Its annoying me that the GOP is so hell bent on opposing everything he does. I am by no means a fan of Obama but I am pleased with how he is handling this. Hopefully he keeps it up.

[Redhart]

You know, KDOG, and that's okay. I remember actually like Bush Sr. on foreign affairs, even though I disliked his domestic policies. I'm not all that fond of the President's stance on immigration, but do like his health reform ideas.

And, that is the way it usually goes with administrations for most Americans. The more local issue you get for me, the more conservative I am. There are very few Americans that are all right or all left.

I, too, like how President Obama is dealing with Iran right now.

I think we can find many of us have common ground in certain areas, even though we may differ in others. I really would like to get away from the "us" and "them" mentality.

To me, when it comes to international politics, having a "chess player" who is looking at the whole, long range picture rather than reacting to single, individual events, seems to me to be an asset ...being able to manuever and change as world events changes and powers ebb and flow in a huge, complex international system.

I have never been one to care for reactionary foreign affairs for most situations. Albeit, sometimes that is unavoidable in a crisis situations (ie: 9/11, Pearl Harbor, if Korea launches a missile at Hawaii), but feel that our current administration, the houses and Americans would pull together as they always do when such things happen, to meet the crisis quickly and decisively.

[Sherlock Holmes]

If anyone has a specific Obama Administration issue to talk about, please do so. Generalities will just get the thread closed.

[leah49]

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but I don't understand how Obama's reaction to Iran is a chess move.

[SSJ_Jup81]

Originally Posted by leah49

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but I don't understand how Obama's reaction to Iran is a chess move.

Out of curiosity, have you ever played the game of Chess? What Obama is doing now in regards to a sensitive issue such as Iran, kind of shows how he's biding as well as planning. He's approaching the situation carefully, which is somethign that's constantly done in Chess. If you charge right in without a plan, you usually end up losing your pieces, leaving the King open for capture, but if you plan everything out, you usually keep your power pieces (Rook, Bishop, Queen, Knight; the pawns are pretty much the sacrificial ones) and your King safe. By doing this, you have the advantage.

Obama seems to be looking at both sides of the situation, something else generally done in Chess. You move based on what your opponent does, and you predict what your opponent may do. Based on that, that's how you react.

We're not on the best terms with Iran or that part of the world. Approaching the situation carefully is a very wise move. It's like setting up a play in Chess (my favorite using the Queen and two Rooks, or either the Queen and the Bishops). You step in when there's an opening. Heading right in with just the Queen (the most powerful piece on the board) will just get it captured since *** thinking there was just to charge right in. Not come up with a strategy.

That aside, what do you feel Obama should do regarding Iran?

[leah49]

Honestly, I don't know what Obama should do in Iran, but he should not in any case do anything that looks like he could possibly be supporting the current government. I just don't see how what he's doing is a "chess move" as it's not really doing anything. Do you have proof that Obama is looking at both sides and doing something? That's not a cynical question or anything of the sort, it's a genuine question.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by leah49

Maybe someone can explain this to me, but I don't understand how Obama's reaction to Iran is a chess move.

I'm sure someone other than me will provide a different view, but I only see it as a chess move in part of his greater strategy to sit down with Khamanei and Ahmadinejad (for what purpose I have no idea as neither Khamanei or Ahmadinejad have any intention of giving up their nuclear ambitions and Iran doesn't need nuclear energy for power generation). Obama seems, in my opinion, to believe that the only option is for him to sit with Khamanei and Ahmadinejad and his comments, or lack thereof, on the violence following the election indicate to me that he still wants to pursue that meeting no matter what.

Unfortunately, again, as I see it, the chess board just got upended and Obama hasn't figured that out yet and is still waiting to set his piece down. Certainly, in my opinion, saying that there is little difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, considering the events of the past week, is, in my opinion, a bad move.

[Morgoth]

Closing this thread. Bringing you all a more up-to-date version, which will have a question devoted to the issue of healthcare and whether Obama's plans are socalism in design, and is that good/bad etc.