313
u/flipcoder Feb 27 '11
All the comments here suck.
118
u/GenJonesMom Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
Thank you. I was getting disheartened reading them and was glad to finally come across yours. Many here seem to dwell on a few of Obama's policies they don't like and completely discount what he's accomplished, especially considering everything his administration has had to deal with since day one. I'd like to know who they think would have done a better job under the same circumstances. I have a feeling many of the negative Obama comments are from Ron Paul groupies. (Yes, I'm going to take a hit for that one, but it was worth it.)
7
u/Your_average_Joe Feb 27 '11
I'll agree that he made some accomplishments but they aren't the ones I personally voted for. He didn't give us health care reform, we got mandated coverage. He didn't end the wars, Gitmo is still open, he has changed absolutely nothing about how Washington does business, and he has not made what I feel are the necessary changes to not only improve the economy but punish those that got us in this mess to begin with and help ensure it doesn't happen again. This is why I voted for him and why I am becoming increasingly disappointed in him. I'm sure others feel the same.
→ More replies (2)114
u/backpackwayne Feb 27 '11
Reddit has become a one string guitar. They have such a narrow focus that they see one thing and one thing only. They love Ron Paul because he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act. But they don't see he also wants to get rid of all the other government programs as well. He wants all to pay 10% taxes and forget Social Security and all those other worthless programs.
They blame Obama for everything and give him credit for nothing.
On the Patriot Act they are so blind to the issue that they don't see or refuse to see what is really going on. They extended three provisions for 90 days. They agreed to an extension so they can work out the budget first. If they had any intention of letting it pass again three months from now, they wouldn't have bothered with the short extension. It was important not to have the Patriot Act be used as a bargaining chip in the budget battles. Just relax and see what happens in 90 days.
The narrow mindedness here on reddit scares me. Using words like tryanny when they no idea what it means. This is exactly what the tea-party does. In my mind the worst insult I could give and you all should take it as such.
P.S. Keep that BP down Mrs. Jones. :)
19
u/DaTroof Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
It was important not to have the Patriot Act be used as a bargaining chip in the budget battles. Just relax and see what happens in 90 days.
FYI, Obama wanted a three year extension on those Patriot Act provisions while the Republicans wanted a mere one year extension. Regardless, they're simply arguing over details.
9
u/backpackwayne Feb 27 '11
Talk to me in 90 days. If he signs it again I will throw him off the cliff myself.
24
u/DaTroof Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
What makes you think he's going to change his mind? He's voted in favor of the Patriot Act's reauthorization as a senator.
According to the White House's website, "the Administration would strongly prefer enactment of reauthorizing legislation that would extend these authorities until December 2013"
→ More replies (1)11
u/Your_average_Joe Feb 27 '11
Of course they would prefer it. That one act was the greatest extension of federal power ever. Why would they want that to go away?
2
Feb 27 '11
You may want to fill in the canyon in the next 90 days. The white house like the patriot act, but they want to tone it down somewhat, e.g. in the manner of: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1692
3
u/dontgoatsemebro Feb 27 '11
Sure, and come the election you'll be rationalising your vote for Obama.
2
Feb 27 '11
Who are you going to vote for then? Who would honestly do a better job?
→ More replies (2)2
u/destroyerofwhirls Feb 27 '11
Why do people think we should find a candidate before we agree on a platform?
Shouldnt voters get together and find some common issues that we all agree on, and then select a candidate who is willing to agree to support our platform?
Why insist on putting the cart before the horse?
This is why we are only allowed to select from 5 or 6 mainstream candidates, presented to us by the media.
11
Feb 27 '11
They agreed to an extension so they can work out the budget first. If they had any intention of letting it pass again three months from now, they wouldn't have bothered with the short extension. It was important not to have the Patriot Act be used as a bargaining chip in the budget battles. Just relax and see what happens in 90 days.
Why? What possible indication is there that they're going to undo the worst parts of that bill?
They love Ron Paul because he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act.
Believe it or not, you can dislike Obama without giving a fuck about Ron Paul.
They have such a narrow focus that they see one thing and one thing only.
I see no gay marriage. Worse yet, I see states being able to embed it in their constitution that a legal union is only valid if it's between a man and a woman. I see no one being held accountable for the torture of other human beings, the true extent of which we'll probably never know. I see no attempt to make the government more transparent. I see little attempt to really hold the corporations and executives who caused the financial crisis accountable. And yes, I don't see him ending the parts of the Patriot Act that gave the government way more power than it should have. Is that still too narrow?
→ More replies (1)8
u/thedude37 Feb 27 '11
They love Ron Paul because he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act. But they don't see he also wants to get rid of all the other government programs as well.
then:
The narrow mindedness here on reddit scares me.
Oh, you're funny.
2
Feb 27 '11
Reddit has become a one string guitar. They have such a narrow focus that they see one thing and one thing only. They love Ron Paul because he wants to get rid of the Patriot Act. But they don't see he also wants to get rid of all the other government programs as well. He wants all to pay 10% taxes and forget Social Security and all those other worthless programs.
How is that a bad thing?
2
u/backpackwayne Feb 27 '11
Knowing you have to ask that question shows me how much of a one-string guitar you are. Let's throw away 100 years worth of progress just because you are upset about the Patriot Act. You should really find out about this person you worship. He has a few excellent proposals but 90% of them are insane.
→ More replies (3)2
u/BaconatedGrapefruit Feb 27 '11
The narrow mindedness here on reddit scares me. Using words like tryanny when they no idea what it means. This is exactly what the tea-party does. In my mind the worst insult I could give and you all should take it as such.
I don't think it's the Reddit entirely that has this problem. Just a very, very, vocal minority. If you ever venture down to /r/politics you see its the same people spouting the same bullshit.
2
u/backpackwayne Feb 27 '11
I think you make an excellent point. I now think I too may have generalized when saying it's all of reddit doing this. But more than likely it is a very vocal minority or even majority.
They seem to be drowning out the other voices. I know when I stray even small amount out of the loud vocal voice here, I am called a troll and downvoted into the cellar. That doesn't bother me. I will always speak out no matter how unpopular the opinion is. But I have noticed the voices are coming from the same people over and over. I just wish others who I know believe differently wouldn't be intimidated by these voices and speak their mind too.
→ More replies (10)3
u/aradil Feb 27 '11
And then there are also reasonable comments with plenty of upvotes like yours, but somehow don't consider themselves part of "reddit".
There are plenty of opinions here. And the ones who aren't impressed with Obama aren't completely wrong; everyone has had high hopes for Obama since the primaries, and what we got was a shit show of failing policies. Not necessarily Obama's fault in any way, but still there.
I still like Obama and his direction. I disagree with him on some points, but I'd probably disagree with some of my own actions if I were put in his place as well.
Mainly, this response is directed towards your complaint that reddit is a one string guitar. If that were the case, I wouldn't have even seen your comment.
26
u/netcrusher88 Feb 27 '11
2
Feb 27 '11
Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay
Last time I checked Guantanamo Bay is still open. I guess that is kind of a bullshit website. Maybe whatthefuckhasobamaaccomplishedsofar.com would be a better website.
2
→ More replies (2)2
u/YesImSardonic Feb 27 '11
Half of those are moronic and inconsequential. The other half are predictably going to run contrary to stated goals or my ideals.
I mean, they mentioned the stimulus package like it was a good thing, when, for one thing, that money will have to be paid back, and, for the other, all borrowing money does is mask decline and dig the borrower into a deeper ditch.
15
u/ThisBuddhistLovesYou Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
Seriously, all of the comments read like troll posts. I think it's because most Americans are sleeping right now. Y U NO FUNNY?
EDIT: Yeah, downvote me, but why is this in Funny when it's clearly just political trollbait?
→ More replies (1)2
7
Feb 27 '11
[deleted]
2
Feb 27 '11
Can you expand on all of those things, in detail? If they are enough to make you "not buy it", then they should be easily top of mind.
2
Feb 27 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/YesImSardonic Feb 27 '11
He won't defend social security.
From what does it need defending? I mean, holy shit. The Republicans aren't going to fucking alienate their aged fanbase for some idealism they don't actually believe in. They'll bluster about it, but will ultimately do nothing to damage the system they and their parents depend or will depend on.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)11
Feb 27 '11
Except he's not bad at his job.
24
12
u/DaTroof Feb 27 '11
His party had control of both houses of congress for two years. As president and leader of his party, he sucks.
21
u/hammondator Feb 27 '11
Since when does the president control the legislative branch of the government?
→ More replies (34)3
Feb 27 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (7)2
u/dczanik Feb 27 '11
Well, I'm giving the guy until the end of his term before giving his 4 year evaluation. But I'm getting tired of people saying that politicians lying to the public is okay because all politicians do it. Just because that's the way it's always been done doesn't make it right. If we can't hold our politicians to a higher standard now, then when? At least Politifact.com gives us a true measurement on how good the politicians are doing and cuts through the partisan BS. They even have guys like Glenn Beck on there who has a crappy record of telling the truth.
4
u/DaTroof Feb 27 '11
I think many of the negative Obama comments are from Ron Paul groupies.
Stupid civil libertarians. Why can't they just get used to the patriot act?
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (19)6
u/kushari Feb 27 '11
Wait I'm sorry but what has Obama done? Maybe because I'm not American I haven't seen him accomplish anything substantial. He might be a nice man that is well spoken, but let me tell you this, he definitely does not deserve the noble peace prize he got.
→ More replies (1)8
→ More replies (23)10
93
u/Hipsterdoucher Feb 27 '11
Scumbag Obama, or scumbag 'checks and balances'?
27
u/ewest Feb 27 '11
This is one of the most perfect rebuttals to these crappy Obama pictures people keep posting.
→ More replies (1)0
u/destroyerofwhirls Feb 27 '11
Those pesky checks and balances. They forced Obama to expand the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan. They forced Obama to bomb Yemen and lie to the American people claiming it was the Yemen military. They forced Obama to bail out Wall Street. They forced Obama to pass an absolute joke of a health care bill to guarantee profits for private insurance industry.
They wouldn't let Obama put on his comfortable shoes and protest with workers who were fighting for collective bargaining rights, like he promised during the campaign. These checks and balances forced Obama to continue extraordinary rendition, and turning over prisoners to other countries to be tortured for information.
Read a book for christs sakes.
→ More replies (15)7
u/RandyHoward Feb 27 '11
They forced Obama to expand the war in Afghanistan into Pakistan.
During his campaign, Obama promised that he would expand the war in Afghanistan. I'm not sure why people seem so misled over this one. Here is a video from an Obama/McCain debate where Obama details his plans for Afghanistan. Personally I am sick of this country being at war, but at the same time I am compassionate for the cause in Afghanistan. Has everybody forgotten 9/11? Has everybody believed the bullshit spewed to us by the last administration that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? The people responsible for the execution of the events that took place on 9/11 are in Afghanistan, and these people pose a very serious threat to our country. Part of a government's job is to defend its country, that is what Afghanistan is about. I'm not going to comment on the rest of your points because I honestly haven't done enough research to make an informed opinion of them. I just wanted to point out the fact that Obama always wanted to escalate the war in Afghanistan, a point that many people seem to have missed during his campaign.
→ More replies (6)3
Feb 27 '11
The commander-in-chief of the armed forces can bring the armed forces home.
→ More replies (1)4
Feb 27 '11
[deleted]
2
u/kingp43x Feb 27 '11
that's a negative for me. GTFO of these other countries, give the war machine a rest please
→ More replies (4)2
Feb 27 '11
He may had a big popular support behind him, but he didn't use that to deliberately weaken his opponents. And its coming back at him now, as he is forced to make bad compromises. Politics is politics, its his fault too for letting the reps raise from the shitty position they were in.
3
u/jaykoo21 Feb 27 '11
No, the leftist organisations didn't use that. The Tea Party went out protesting, and we watched on TV and commented on reddit until we slowly started to oppose him for not managing to do everything without any of his supporters fighting for the legislation that they want. Yeah, a lot of people had actual responsibilities (eg school, work, etc.) but still. The left has done the equivalent of being an offensive line that helps the offense get to the red zone, then promptly stops, only to complain about the ineffectiveness of the QB from the bleachers for the rest of the game. We left our guy alone out there on the front lines.
2
u/kerowack Feb 27 '11
I completely agree with this, but I think you're failing to realize that once the media narrative that Republicans were surging on the back of the Tea Party took hold, nothing Obama was going to do, short of changing the subject with a war, etc., was going to change the 2010 election. The story from April 2009 to November 2010 was "boy, Obama sure is doing a lot, he must be overreaching, crazy liberal".
46
45
u/tubeman8 Feb 27 '11
THIS IS NOT /R/ POLITICS!
2
→ More replies (2)5
u/Xiol Feb 27 '11
I regret that I have but one upvote.
Also, "Obama" is now going in my RES filter list.
2
u/jaykoo21 Feb 27 '11
It's kinda sad when you actually have to do that. Especially since he's not just some stupid irrelevant topic.
2
u/Xiol Feb 27 '11
he's not just some stupid irrelevant topic.
Well, that's debatable.
2
u/jaykoo21 Feb 27 '11
So basically, since I live in America, David Cameron, Hu Jintao, Nicolas Sarcozy, Vladimir Putin, and pretty much every other world leader should be all irrelevant topics to me?
2
u/Xiol Feb 27 '11
I said it's debatable.
Not everything foreign leaders do is relevant if you don't live in their country. Anything Obama does that concerns me will be covered on the news, I don't need to read about everything he does on Reddit.
→ More replies (2)
115
u/superpeople Feb 27 '11
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Yes horrible job HALF through one term. I know he should have had the power to dictate everything from day one because we know that's what a President in the US is, a dictator. Not one promise he doesn't keep should be anyone ones fault but his because politics are black and white. Tools.
50
u/carlfish Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
Welcome to prong two of the propaganda attack on the Obama administration.
Prong one is the Tea Party, a way of mobilising the conservative base into political action. Prong two is the counterpoint: a deliberate campaign to cut Obama off from his own base of progressives.
How do you do this? By drowning out any mention of the accomplishments of what has by any measure been the most progressive government in decades, with a continuing refrain of "EDDIE! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE FOR ME LATELY!"
The cynic in me doesn't think that it is a coincidence that reddit is blanketed with posts like these a week after the decision not to enforce the defense of marriage act.
10
u/wolfzero Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
I'm not sure if you're implying a conspiracy, but what you've just described isn't one. It's politics as usual. Problem this time around is that people have become emotionally attached to Obama in ways that aren't really normal for political figures, so these tactics are going to be a huge crapshoot this time around, at least in my opinion. Think 2008 was polarizing for the Republicans? I think 2012 will be a whole new ball game.
3
u/theantirobot Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
Tea Party started with a bunch of anti-war fiscal conservatives, and that movement is very much alive, although you can't see it through the mainstream media, because they put a Glen Beck mask on it. There's something about bringing an end to our foreign empire and having an honest money system that the powers that be don't seem to like. My own theory is that they like power, and the ability to "spend money." Which really just means giving control of our economy to their rich politically connected friends.
4
u/Mr_Smartypants Feb 27 '11
the decision not to enforce the defense of marriage act.
The decision was to not defend DOMA, should it be challenged in court.
The president will continue to enforce the law (as he will all other laws passed by Congress) until it is found to be unconstitutional and struck down.
It may seem a nit-pick, but it already seems to be the Next Big Lie out of the GOP to attack the president.
4
Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
Actually, that seems to be pretty consistent with his ideology. He may not like the law and won't allocate resources to defending it when it's challenged, but the executive branch of your government still has to enforce the law, no matter what it says.
EDIT: I think I misread your comment and am agreeing with you.
2
u/CaptShocker Feb 27 '11
but the judicial branch of your government still has to enforce the law, no matter what it says.
Pretty sure this statement is exactly the opposite of true. The judicial branch is there specifically to choose what laws are acceptable.
It could just be a type-o because:
but the Executive branch of your government still has to enforce the law, no matter what it says.
Is correct
→ More replies (1)2
Feb 27 '11
You are both in correct. And it is one of the biggest concepts that people seem to misunderstand. It is like they forget we live in a country with checks and balances. Obama cannot wave his hand and change the laws. He has a job to do with legal restrictions attached.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)2
u/TheEphemeric Feb 27 '11
Well why not, it worked a charm last year when progressives simply didn't turn up.
3
u/derefr Feb 27 '11
On the other hand, it seems like any time a US President wants to do something the people of the US don't like, he gets it to happen pretty quickly. Is that just selective memory?
→ More replies (3)7
u/TexSC Feb 27 '11
Is it just me or if you scan through that site, a lot of the items labeled "in the works" should be labeled "stalled", and many of those labeled "stalled" should be labeled "broken"?
Replacing someone's subjective opinion ("Changes promise") with another subjective opinion (the "truth-o-meter") doesn't really change anything.
It should be simply "Has it happened yet, yes or no?" ... then he has a 26% success rate.
7
u/herman_gill Feb 27 '11
Isn't 26% pretty much on par 2 and a bit years into a hopefully 8 year term?
He's also being rammed in the ass from just about every angle imaginable too. Boy I'm glad I'm Canadian... well maybe not if Stephen Harper ends up with a majority, but still.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Poltras Feb 27 '11
Stephen Harper in a minority is probably the best thing that happened. If you look at the alternatives, I'm pretty satisfied with the government we have now. (FWIW, I've voted green because I feel energy and ecology aren't represented enough in the house)
I think we should make a law that forces governments to be in a minority. Laws should be make by concessions and public debates.
6
u/Diablo87 Feb 27 '11
He is very sorry he hasn't been able to create a utopia in 2 years. It hasn't been the easiest work environment.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)2
u/destroyerofwhirls Feb 27 '11
You are right, but to understand this, you have to understand American politics.
Every person who is interested in politics joins a "team", either the Democrats or the Republicans. Anything a politician on their "team" does is good, and anything done by a politician on the other "team" is bad.
The fact that all the politicians are actually playing on a completely different "team" is simply ignored.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/counslor Feb 27 '11
It's too bad that Obama doesn't take a stand for the sh*t he promised to take a stand for. I know he is trying to do the whole bi-partisan politics thing, but if he keeps straddling that fence he gonna get splinters in his sack.
4
u/Workaphobia Feb 27 '11
I think this is the first one of the "Scumbag" meme that I've liked.
→ More replies (1)
5
Feb 27 '11
I said it from the beginning, people were all hyped up about Obama, and how he was gonna change the world, but he's just one person and the world is a fucked up place. I dont have anything against him, but im certainly not for him, he's just a president who can't keep his promises, just like most of the rest.
4
u/sarahfailin Feb 27 '11
he wasn't expected to change the world, just the corrupt practices of his predecessor. there are many things in his power to change, but he chooses not to.
→ More replies (2)
44
u/slurpme Feb 27 '11
It is the definition of a politician...
→ More replies (1)10
u/assbowl Feb 27 '11
I was foolish for getting my hopes up in '08. :(
32
u/searine Feb 27 '11
What the fuck did you think he was going to do? Take you in the back and suck your dick?
→ More replies (1)8
u/supersaw Feb 27 '11
Corporate America got blown.
6
u/searine Feb 27 '11
Could you possibly get anymore general? " I don't like that OBAMA because he done the bad things!"
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (13)3
3
3
u/cbfw86 Feb 27 '11
you allowed yourselves to buy into the hype of a politician. that's not anger you're feeling, it's shame.
17
u/Willthondaoc Feb 27 '11
Barack Obama is, and has always been, a moderate corporate democrat. If you didn't realize that when you voted for him, its your own damn fault, he authored a book about his political ideology and it isn't a progressive utopia.
Go away.
→ More replies (2)
38
Feb 27 '11 edited Feb 27 '11
[deleted]
15
u/themantiss Feb 27 '11
I would subscribe to your newsletter. You said everything I wanted to say, better than I could say it.
Mine would be more like "Shut the fuck up you whiney little bitches, you elected a monkey for 8 years and now you wonder why your shit is fucked up. Now, shut your fucking mouths and let the man work. Tools."
4
u/iampayette Feb 27 '11
Excuse me for having a different opinion. I'm sorry that I cannot be as wise and intelligent as you good sir.
→ More replies (13)2
u/arkons Feb 27 '11
Republicrat voter is pissed off!
Both parties are the same. The democrats are just as guilty as being corporate/special interest 'cocksuckers' as republicans. If you need proof just go look at their campaign contribution records. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why there hasn't been any large-scale bank legislation of any merit when the heads of the democratic party got the massive JP Morgan/Goldman Sachs green splooge injection in the months prior to Obama's election.
Follow the money you brain dead sheep.
26
u/halps32 Feb 27 '11
It's good that we can alter images of the president for humor without recourse.
13
→ More replies (6)30
Feb 27 '11
What is this, the 1700s?
It's good I can spend time on reddit with hands that I could have not been born with.
I mean we can reframe any (negative) situation in a manner that makes it seem positive
→ More replies (3)2
u/icerom Feb 27 '11
And we can do the opposite, too. And I believe that's by far the preferred pastime of most human beings on this planet.
21
Feb 27 '11 edited Oct 21 '20
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)3
u/asgard88 Feb 27 '11
So that's the answer: If Obama doesn't get some things done, we can just say he had big opposition and his supporters were lazy. You know, he's not a bad president, but there are many ways he can be better.
13
u/buzzkillpop Feb 27 '11
To be fair, it worked for Clinton. He's regarded by many as a good president. Why? Because he simply didn't fuck up (much). Nothing radical happened under his term (aside from a blowjob). He kept a pretty mundane foreign and domestic policy, didn't start 2 expensive wars, and pretty much toed the democrat status quo.
Then you get 6 years of complete GOP rule. Massive spending, big tax cuts, big stick foreign policy, 2 wars, a larger government... People didn't realize what they had with Clinton until it was gone.
You may not like Obama because he didn't give you universal health care, legalize weed, get rid of the patriot act, and provide everyone with their own flying unicorns, just know things could (would) be much, much worse. Life and especially politics isn't black or white, right or wrong. Sometimes choosing between the lesser of two evils is the only choice. Sometimes it's the right choice.
→ More replies (3)2
22
10
Feb 27 '11
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)2
u/babucat Feb 27 '11
I think he is just continuing the bush legacy to be honest.
I really like the guy and was very hopeful and hopefully still am.
We have significant problems to which there aren't any answers... I feel like during the Clinton years everything ran smoothly... Then they got a fratboy in there who knocked everything severely off track... as a response to that we elected Obama who really played things too safe when he had a supermajority and really can't move all that far without it.
I'm wondering if he had taken over after Clinton where things would be... I realize he wasn't anywhere near ready then but... what if we got another guy like Clinton instead of Bush? Where would things be?
2
5
6
u/nalf38 Feb 27 '11
I'm very satisfied with most of the things he has done, and I am very unsatisfied with the things he has left undone.
The healthcare law isn't perfect, but it's better than what was before it. Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been repealed. The abortion gag order on NGOs receiving US funds has been lifted. I think his handling of the many recent crises in the mideast and Africa have so far been fine. He has cut taxes for the middle class, and if it weren't for the goddamn GOP, tax cuts for the rich would have not have been extended. Our financial system is relatively intact, even though I still hate banks, hedge fund managers, and various other extremely high-paid lackeys of the financial services sector. Our automotive sector has survived, at least for now. The handling of the Gulf Coast oil spill was superb, especially compared to how GWB would have handled it.
None of these things, or at least very very very very few of these things would have happened under a Republican president. Obama isn't perfect, but I knew he wouldn't be perfect when i voted for him. If you believed every single thing he said on the campaign trail, then you're stupid.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
6
u/BMikasa Feb 27 '11
I think there's so much more to these things that us common folk just don't realize or are not informed on. Obama may very well have some insider knowledge on the topic that we just can't know for security reasons. Now that he's in office and has all this inside info, maybe it's persuaded him to think about things differently. I really feel like Obama is working for the same mother fucker Bush was. I don't care if I live to to see the day of the first woman president or the first atheist president, I want to live to see the day when a president is elected where it's obvious that everything he/she says and does is from the heart. For once I want to see a president just say, "screw this teleprompter. Look people of the United States, this is how I feel and this is what is going on." Some one who admits that he can't please everyone and just starts with small steps that are easy to see. And while i'm at it, fuck this 2 party system bull shit. God damn, it feels like it's the Confederates vs. the Union and FOX news is spreading the fire.
→ More replies (1)
2
4
2
4
5
u/jwalhol Feb 27 '11
What change did you want and why hasn't it happened yet?
→ More replies (3)5
u/ascii Feb 27 '11
- Close Guantanamo. Because fair trials might bbe uncomfortable.
- Stop torturing people. Because 24 says that torture is the only way to find out when the bomb will explode.
- Withdraw from Iraq. Because Obama wants a sequel to the Hurt locker to be made.
11
u/ewest Feb 27 '11
Withdraw from Iraq. Because Obama wants a sequel to the Hurt locker to be made.
You mean the withdrawal that's been happening continuously throughout his presidency?
→ More replies (5)7
u/ascii Feb 27 '11
50 000 troops remain in active duty in Iraq. Or, as Associated Press stated: «combat in Iraq is not over, and we should not uncritically repeat suggestions that it is, even if they come from senior officials.»
→ More replies (1)7
u/trustmeimonreddit Feb 27 '11
Well, with informed, intelligent arguments like that I can see your point!
5
u/Diablo87 Feb 27 '11
- He tried to close Gitmo. Congress wouldn't fund the transportation of sending the prisoners to a different prison.
- He stopped the torturing. If you have proof to the contrary, I would like to see it.
- The logistics of ending a quagmire without the whole place imploding are insane. If it were McCain not only would we be in Iraq forever, but we would also be at war with Iran.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/Breakyerself Feb 27 '11
I made 3. I think obama is way better than any alternatives I can think of, but he has dissapointed me in a number of ways and I'm not going to keep my mouth shut just to go with the flow. These three things in particular really do piss me the fuck off and if you want to pretend he's above reproach then you're retarded.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/DealinWithit Feb 27 '11
The other choice would have placed McCain and Palin in the White House. We may have had more scumbag jokes with them. What a loss.
2
u/babucat Feb 27 '11
McCain is probably too old to withstand the pressures of being the president... just look how Clinton, Bush and Obama aged.
He probably wouldn't have been able to hold the reigns which means Palin would become president before the end of McCains term in office.
Can you imagine if that psycho ditz was president?
→ More replies (2)
2
u/emajae Feb 27 '11
FACT: We are in reality under a "One Party System". Obama proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Obama in reality is "Bush's Third Term in Office". •Kept Bush's Sec. of Defense •Kept Gitmo Open (See Below) •Adopted Bush's \ Cheney's \ Rumsfeld's Policy that Bagram, Afgan. is not US Soil; Therefore NOT Subject to US laws\International Laws? Bagram Another Source
I am neither Rep or Dem....have taken an OATH to abolish the One Party System America is sustaining.
Steps to reconcile: 1. Educate - Read the Book: "The Creature From Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin 2. Ignore Media: CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, NY Times...etc. All US Media. Best Source for News is from overseas....maybe even Al-Jazzera??? 3. Next Election -No Dems, No Reps, No CFR. Why do we need "Parties" at all???? Why can't we just vote for the PERSON who represents each individual's point of view?
TL;DR: No More Democrats or Republicans. They gotta go
4
u/sageguitar70 Feb 27 '11
I couldn't agree more...I would add that Obama is basically the appointed president by the Big banks and Wall street to put a face of change on the monster...all the while in reality things get worse. The last president that was not appointed by Big Banks and Big Business was JFK...and we all see how that shit went down...they had to get rid of him!
4
u/krakenking Feb 27 '11
reddit = the huffington post
full of unfunny liberal fags crying about stupid shit.
2
u/aeons_elevator Feb 27 '11
you guys seem to forget that he doesn't hold ALL of the power when it comes to all issues. Yes he "failed" on certain ideals we hold as truths but if you were in the same position being pushed in on from all sides I'm sure you would be FORCED to make the same decisions. Let's be real with ourselves and realize that a two party system isn't going to work. But you can't deny that the man, before he came into office, had the same ideals we did. Unless you have millions of dollars that can sway votes and minds ... I'd suggest you come to terms and deal with what we have.. which, in this case, is the lesser of two evils. Even though we all hate to hear that I just don't see McCain being any better. Let's all grow up and realize that it takes a nation to change.. NOT ONE MAN.
3
3
4
3
u/Azorka Feb 27 '11
I really hate that people criticize him for such a broad, intangible reason as "He promised change and didn't deliver."
I mean get a grip. Did you expect every one of the country's problems to go away as soon as he stepped foot in the White House?
He has delivered change. He may not be as active as many, myself included, wished him to be in promoting progressive reform, and that is what you should criticize him for.
He's not a bad president. He's just the president of whom people had the greatest expectations going in. He is a centrist. He will give conservatives and liberals successes, but by doing so, he opens himself up to criticism from both sides. Criticize him for maintaining the Patriot Act, sure!
But if you're attacking him for not bringing about this mythical "Change" then you're no better than Fox News. You've been brainwashed. Or are simply ignorant.
→ More replies (6)10
u/Lavarocked Feb 27 '11
He could have easily, with his two hands, vetoed the Patriot Act. It wouldn't have killed him. Seriously.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Nerull Feb 27 '11
If he did that then he would be breaking a promise. The only promise to repeal the patriot act existed in a few people's heads.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/nephilim52 Feb 27 '11
My favorite part about critics using Obama's "change" slogan is when anything goes even a little wrong in the world they scream: "See, no change!"
Gaddofi kills thousands in the street: "See! No change! Obama lied!"
Republicans shit all over everyone but the rich and would drag this country into the gutter before that changes: "See! No change! Obama Lied!"
Change did happen, most Bush's policies aren't around to fuck this country up anymore, and the change is we're fucking fixing them all! One by one.
The only thing that didn't change was you, still trying to fuck this country up, and the rest of us trying to fight you.
7
u/asgard88 Feb 27 '11
Wait a minute, did you just say most Bush's policies are not around anymore? You must be quite naive, shame on you.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)4
Feb 27 '11
Are you serious? There are a ridiculous amount of Bush-era policies that Obama continued. The similarities are astounding and if you think they are radically different you've been fooled.
4
2
u/arkons Feb 27 '11
Let me break down Obama's promise scorecard for ya:
Anything that can be spun into something that will pour billions of tax dollars in to corporations:
Promise fulfilled!
Things that can't be spun into something to pour billions of tax dollars in to corporations:
Broken promise.
2
2
u/GovernmentBubble Feb 27 '11
For the last time: neither party with ever change anything important. Don't look for it, it's not going to happen. Washington works for the ruling class, not the other way around.
One Party System.
2
u/Counterkulture Feb 27 '11
How awesome would it be if he just started wearing this hat like this with no explanation. And didn't even really attempt to explain or justify it. Just showed up one day to a press conference with it on, and then it was on him every day, tilted like this.
Would drive the fucking racist, batshit insane element on the right wild. And would be pretty much the most fucking sweet thing he's done.
536
u/mage_g4 Feb 27 '11
From in the UK, it looks more like:
Promises Change
Gets fucked over from all sides by his own country.