hokie4redskins Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Wow, I figured it would take at least a good six months before the American public realized they've been bamboozled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Glad some people's eyes have been opened. And like I've said before, I didn't support or vote for him as POTUS, but we as a nation need him to suceed. He has overtuned policy, just to say "I WIN" (not that he is the only one though)...and now gone against what he said, NUMEROUS times, about not having lobbyist in his admin. I had a convo w/ a co worker, who is an absolute supporter, but someone who doesn't really pay attention to the specifics. THAT concerns me. Go ahead and support someone, but you really shoudl know WHY you are supporting them. I'm not saying everyone who voted for him did so cause he's black, but I know for a fact that is why she did, and many others. Not sure what that has to do with anything really - what difference does it make at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Wow, I figured it would take at least a good six months before the American public realized they've been bamboozled. Nah, honestly I'd give the man a b/C+ for his first week in office. In many respects, it's more important to get people you think are the right people and the best people. This is superficial stuff (I hope) and mostly a PR black eye. He's had a mixed week. Some good and some bad. I'm not a fan of the Gitmo closing mainly because I think it is being done as a PR stunt, I'm pleased that we've already sent a top dog over to the Middle East and I thought his "We're not your enemies interview" was a good propaganda step, I'm not pleased that he's done this back and forth dance with the lobbiest, but I think it is a good thing, I like that the FDA just approved a stem cell study , and I also think it is good that he is moving so aggressively, so early on green issues, Afghanistan and elsewhere. As for the stimulus, I'm wary of it, but it was something he built his campaign around, said he wanted to do quickly and it is in motion. Decent marks for only his first week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Not sure what that has to do with anything really - what difference does it make at this point? Maybe the point I have been trying to make for a while now, from those of us who actually want change and had a shred of hope left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 He's had a mixed week. Some good and some bad. I'm not a fan of the Gitmo closing mainly because I think it is being done as a PR stunt,. yeah, those of us in SD who have TWO bases being mentioned for relocation of these prisoners dont think its a PR stunt. theyre pissed and so am I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Maybe the point I have been trying to make for a while now, from those of us who actually want change and had a shred of hope left? I was more referring to the people she was referring to that only voted for Obama based on "X" or "Y" reason. There are sheep in every election - not sure what difference it makes to complain about it at this point or what those people's lack of knowledge has to do with these lobbyists. I've already said earlier in the thread that I'm not happy about this - but I'm in wait and see mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 yeah, those of us in SD who have TWO bases being mentioned for relocation of these prisoners dont think its a PR stunt. theyre pissed and so am I. PR stunt in the sense that the message of closing GITMO is more important than the actual closing of GITMO. It's to say, "We're turning the page. No more torture." Gitmo actually serves a very useful purpose and in my opinion it is being closed for shallow and incorrect reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 PR stunt in the sense that the message of closing GITMO is more important than the actual closing of GITMO. It's to say, "We're turning the page. No more torture." Gitmo actually serves a very useful purpose and in my opinion it is being closed for shallow and incorrect reasons.Actually, "no lobbyists in my administration" is really the same kind of PR stunt. It is certainly a bad thing if people are joining government only to make money as lobbyists later, or if lobbyists are joining government only to funnel money to their former clients, but there is nothing inherently wrong with lobbyists moving to government or vice-versa. In fact, it's likely that people who are experts in a particular branch of government will be both very good lobbyists and very good government officials. A capitalist system virtually demands that those kinds of people make as much money as they can as lobbyists when they get the chance.For appearances sake though, keeping lobbyists out of the administration is important. Just like closing Gitmo. A bold rule with no exceptions is a great political statement, although it might not always be the best actual solution... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Meet the new boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 Not sure what that has to do with anything really - what difference does it make at this point? I have always agreed that skin color doesn't matter, but my point wasn't that and sorry if it came across that way. My point is that no one, regardless of party affliation, or skin color, should blindly support someone. I would say the same thing about someone who voted republic "just because they are republican" without really knowing what that person stands for, or what their past work history is. The example I posted about, this particular person, can't tell me one thing that Obama is proposing or doing, just that, "He is the change we need." I'm advocating that people truly educate themselves on someone they vote for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McD5 Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Wow, I figured it would take at least a good six months before the American public realized they've been bamboozled. :rotflmao: Anyone who was stupid enough to believe even 20% of the stuff he promised deserves a rude awakening. There are about to be a lot of sad people. "Never fall in love with a politician. Fall in love with political ideas, but never with a politician. They will always fail you." Geez....but that inaugural ball was so much fun! Beyonce rocked the house! Am I wrong to assume that we won't see a word of this on any network television news program, msnbc, or the Daily Show?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 and I also think it is good that he is moving so aggressively, so early on green issues,. ??? really....how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I have always agreed that skin color doesn't matter, but my point wasn't that and sorry if it came across that way. My point is that no one, regardless of party affliation, or skin color, should blindly support someone. I would say the same thing about someone who voted republic "just because they are republican" without really knowing what that person stands for, or what their past work history is. The example I posted about, this particular person, can't tell me one thing that Obama is proposing or doing, just that, "He is the change we need." I'm advocating that people truly educate themselves on someone they vote for. Agreed, unfortunately the a lot of people don't - whether it be voting based completely on party affiliation/skin color/gender. My only point was that it is possible to like/support a President and not agree with things that he does 100% of the time. I'd be happy to just have a President that I like more things than not at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 Actually, "no lobbyists in my administration" is really the same kind of PR stunt. It is certainly a bad thing if people are joining government only to make money as lobbyists later, or if lobbyists are joining government only to funnel money to their former clients, but there is nothing inherently wrong with lobbyists moving to government or vice-versa. In fact, it's likely that people who are experts in a particular branch of government will be both very good lobbyists and very good government officials. A capitalist system virtually demands that those kinds of people make as much money as they can as lobbyists when they get the chance.For appearances sake though, keeping lobbyists out of the administration is important. Just like closing Gitmo. A bold rule with no exceptions is a great political statement, although it might not always be the best actual solution... If I may add something here....I think the real issue isn't whether or not he has lobbiest in his admin, its the fact that he stated more than once that it wouldn't happen. So to me, the point is about him keeping his word, not necessarily the action itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 Agreed, unfortunately the a lot of people don't - whether it be voting based completely on party affiliation/skin color/gender.My only point was that it is possible to like/support a President and not agree with things that he does 100% of the time. I'd be happy to just have a President that I like more things than not at this point. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heisenberg Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 "jmu depression" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 If I may add something here....I think the real issue isn't whether or not he has lobbiest in his admin, its the fact that he stated more than once that it wouldn't happen. So to me, the point is about him keeping his word, not necessarily the action itself.Which is why it's very similar to closing Guantanamo. He is closing Guantanamo to keep a campaign promise, and for appearances sake, although it may not be the best decision for the purposes of national security.He is doing the opposite on lobbyists, where he is breaking a campaign promise, and doing something that looks bad on the surface, because he thinks it's the best thing to do for the purpose of helping Treasury navigate the financial crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 For appearances sake though, keeping lobbyists out of the administration is important. Just like closing Gitmo. A bold rule with no exceptions is a great political statement, although it might not always be the best actual solution... I don't disagree and I've argued similar things... although the way they did it they gave themselves a black eye. It'll heal, but for a week or two his enemies get to preen and say, "I told you so" ??? really....how? First week, Stimulus package fixed and launched to Congress, Middle East interview and Mitchell launched, Gitmo closed, a green initiative explained, and a few other things. For seven days, that's a pretty healthy ammount of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted January 29, 2009 Author Share Posted January 29, 2009 burgold, do you have the specifics on the "green" stuff, that is what my question was about. Cause I could have sworn I saw that he hasn't done much(but talk) on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I think he talked about how he was incorporating a number of green items into the stimulus bill in last Thursday's speech. You could be right though. A lot of his action has so far been rhetorical which doesn't bother me because at this point I figure you have to set the stage and prep everyone for what's coming... not to mention most of what he wants has to go through Congress. So, even if he wants it yesterday... he would have to wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Actually, "no lobbyists in my administration" is really the same kind of PR stunt. It is certainly a bad thing if people are joining government only to make money as lobbyists later, or if lobbyists are joining government only to funnel money to their former clients, but there is nothing inherently wrong with lobbyists moving to government or vice-versa. In fact, it's likely that people who are experts in a particular branch of government will be both very good lobbyists and very good government officials. A capitalist system virtually demands that those kinds of people make as much money as they can as lobbyists when they get the chance.For appearances sake though, keeping lobbyists out of the administration is important. Just like closing Gitmo. A bold rule with no exceptions is a great political statement, although it might not always be the best actual solution... BS. A bold rule that you campaign on as being "different" than the other guy because you certainly aren't as experienced. And then you break your VERY own rule before the ink even dries on your signature. In fact both Lynn and this guy break the very exceptions that he laid out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I think he talked about how he was incorporating a number of green items into the stimulus bill in last Thursday's speech. You could be right though. A lot of his action has so far been rhetorical which doesn't bother me because at this point I figure you have to set the stage and prep everyone for what's coming... not to mention most of what he wants has to go through Congress. So, even if he wants it yesterday... he would have to wait. He has set aside a number of Presidential directives regarding the EPA ect,don't know about greenies,but they usually eat that crap up. While we pay:rolleyes: So a couple black eyes so far is not so bad,course the kick to the crotch is coming shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 I don't disagree and I've argued similar things... although the way they did it they gave themselves a black eye. It'll heal, but for a week or two his enemies get to preen and say, "I told you so" Well I certainly don't consider myself an Obama enemy. And I am not saying "told you so". So should we consider if he is going to actually follow all the other rules he laid out? What next? Pay raise for White House Staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 29, 2009 Share Posted January 29, 2009 Well I certainly don't consider myself an Obama enemy. And I am not saying "told you so". So should we consider if he is going to actually follow all the other rules he laid out? What next? Pay raise for White House Staff? You should know by now that I'm fond of dramatic language. I think there's a big something in what you posted. Obama spent his first week on a bunch of big symbolism. Pay cut for White House staff. Nice symbolic gesture. Closing Gitmo. Well-intentioned/Stupid symbolic gesture. Even the rush to the stimulus and stimulus itself is symbolic as well as action. The speech to the Middle East was another symbolic moment. No lobbiests was a symbolic gesture that was stupid because he broke it almost before the ink dried. He's spending a lot of time in these first seven days setting the mood. That's not necessarily a bad thing, this is, afterall, the overture to a three act symphony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 DjTj, you implying that lobbyists are some of the most competent policy makers in our society? What a bunch of degenerates we turned out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.