This question is towards those who support him. I just need a fresh air that people here aren't just supporting him blindly because he is Democrat or whatever. There probably must be something, a policy, implemented by him that you disagree with, unless he's made no mistakes as President (I would be shocked).

So those of you who support the President, generally, was there any policy he implemented that you think was wrong? :shrug:

Republicans keep your nonsense to yourself please. This thread is not meant for bashing, I'm just trying to keep my faith in the community that its not absolutely biased.

I will give one as a starter: His administration continued the Patriot Act. I totally disagree with him on that.

Bigger government. U.S now almost needs a total do-over.

It's a long list, and probably incomplete:


• Indefinite detention
• Failure to close Guantanamo
• Assassination of American citizens
• Refusal to investigate and potentially prosecute officials involved in torture
• Hiding government liability as state secrets
• Insufficient economic stimulus
• No public option; forcing Americans onto private insurance rolls
• Insufficient financial reforms
• Extending Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy

And so on. That will do for now.

Part of the problem is that in choosing reconciliation with Republicans—whether we call it bi- or post-partisanship—he also had to choose to backtrack on a lot of his hope and change promises.

And while much of the president's political strategy makes sense, I think he has overplayed it, being too willing to betray himself in order to simply get something done. Yes, he needs the help of an intransigently useless Republican Party, but political analysts and common voters alike are not wrong to wonder if he waited too long before making even a tepid stand on principle against conservative malice.

Neither are idealists wrong to accuse that Obama has betrayed his own platform and, thus, his own support. But more rational analysis suggests that the biggest problem with the Obama presidency so far has been Republicans, who have put the wellbeing of the nation in the back seat. We've known for a long time that the GOP had no intention of working with the president on behalf of the United States of America. As such, in some cases Obama's failures are forgivable; I'm not certain how he could have resolved Guantanamo not only lacking support, but facing deliberate Congressional opposition. I don't think he could have gotten a sufficient stimulus out of congressional Republicans. I get that the public option wasn't going to happen; I just wish he could have proven the point by putting up some kind of a fight.

There were, and still are, other hopes about some of his policy failures. Some hoped he was playing a longer strategy against state secrets, torture, and indefinite detention; unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. To the other, while some criticized his slow movement on civil rights issues, the repeal of DADT validated his approach, and once he had a hook into DoMA, he tacked to the proper outlook; his duty to enforce the law starts with the "supreme law of the land", and his refusal to defend an unconstitutional law in court is exactly correct.

Win some, lose some. Everyone would prefer to win more often than lose, but in that sense, I simply wish Obama had kicked off his bedroom slippers and started playing the game a bit earlier, and with greater passion.

He has played to the bipartisan/postpartisan desire, and we see what that got us all. The question is whether he waited too long, for his supporters, the swing bloc, and the nation in general, to make the point.

Although I agree that most of what Obama wanted as part of the 'Change' he campaigned for was hampered by the Republicans, or more accurately him waiting first and then getting stopped by Republicans.

Some of the policies you listed:
Indefinite Detention
Failure to close Guantanamo
Assassination of American Citizens (been in the news lately)

Weren't these part of his policies that he promoted or extended, and weren't part of 'compromise' because of Republicans?

I find assassination of American Citizens to be an unconstitutional policy, what are your thoughts?

I find assassination of American Citizens to be an unconstitutional policy, what are your thoughts?

So are you saying that Al Qaeda should really step up it's recruitment of Americans and station them in places like Yemen such that they can essentially operate entirely in the open?

Yeah, great plan.

So are you saying that Al Qaeda should really step up it's recruitment of Americans and station them in places like Yemen such that they can essentially operate entirely in the open?

Yeah, great plan.

Or America can amend the Constitution :eek:. And what do you mean 'entirely in the open', no one is arguing against their capture and being tried. So stop with the pathetic and illogical exaggerations.

Note I only said it was 'unconstitutional', so it wouldn't be if you simply amended the Constitution. Don't make it sound like there is no way but to break the law :D

I just need a fresh air that people here aren't just supporting him blindly because he is Democrat or whatever.

I see no respectable reason that anyone should answer to such a patronizing, self-serving, unsupported perspective.

How about you give the forum some fresh air that you aren't just going around looking to pigeonhole everyone as a knave or fool and so relate to them from some perch of arrogated supremacy?

"Prove to me that you aren't sheeple!"

or

"Obama supporters, eviscerate your own candidate to prove to this Republican that you aren't stupid!"

People have been going on about all the stuff on Tiassa's list for years now. What rock have you been living under?

Lol :D I defended Obama in the Obama file. ;)

Or America can amend the Constitution :eek:.

Yeah, amendments are easy and quick solutions to Terrorists.

NOT


And what do you mean 'entirely in the open', no one is arguing against their capture and being tried. So stop with the pathetic and illogical exaggerations.

Really?
Yemen has large areas under Militant control, as do other countries and then there are countries with no Extradition treaties, so yeah, if being an American gets you a pass then you could most definately operate in the open in a lot of places.


Note I only said it was 'unconstitutional', so it wouldn't be if you simply amended the Constitution. Don't make it sound like there is no way but to break the law :D

Except it really isn't against the Constitution, that's just you basic misunderstanding of the 5th Amendment.

Does the 5th Amendment give exceptions of how US citizens are to be treated? The 'misunderstanding' only comes because you simply want to kill them and don't really care what the Constitution says.

If the nation agreed with the change, it would be relatively quick. If not, then it would take time. Which basically means America doesn't accept such a policy, and thus remains unconstitutional- if you just don't want to follow laws so you can do what you want. Just say so :D

Does the 5th Amendment give exceptions of how US citizens are to be treated?

Why yes it does.
Ever wonder why this wasn't an issue during the Civil War?
You know when virtually everyone killed by the Union was still an American citizen (since the Union did not accept the secessions as being legal).


The 'misunderstanding' only comes because you simply want to kill them and don't really care what the Constitution says

Why not at all.
I just took the time to read it.


If the nation agreed with the change, it would be relatively quick. If not, then it would take time. Which basically means America doesn't accept such a policy, and thus remains unconstitutional- if you just don't want to follow laws so you can do what you want. Just say so :D

No it wouldn't
But still, that begs the question.
An Amendment hasn't been offered because one isn't needed.

Arthur

Why yes it does.

I don't think that exception applies but that is a matter of opinion, so I'll leave it at that.


An Amendment hasn't been offered because one isn't needed.

More like no one cares about amending the Constitution any more because they don't give a shit about it, sadly. They needed an amendment to ban alcohol, they needed an amendment to re-allow it. But they have a war on drugs without any amendment. LMAO.

Because one wasn't needed.

. . .since we're talking "easy" constitutional amendments . . . . how about one that requires all citizens to fork-over ALL of their income to the feds . . . and the feds will then return to them (citizens) what the feds think is "fair". (read "sarcasm" here!_

My suggestion? . . . . CLEAN THE HOUSE!!!
. . . and the Senate
. . . . and the White House

I don't think that exception applies but that is a matter of opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

Specifically, it's a matter of the Supreme Court's opinion.


More like no one cares about amending the Constitution any more because they don't give a shit about it, sadly.

They would so care, if any of the bodies empowered to act on the basis of the Constitution agreed with your reading of it. But they do not, and so there is no issue.

They would so care, if any of the bodies empowered to act on the basis of the Constitution agreed with your reading of it. But they do not, and so there is no issue.

Why did they amend the Constitution for prohibiting alcohol? Couldn't they simply legislate, I mean its heck of a easier process to pass a bill then to amend the Constitution.

If they needed the Amendment because thats what they felt was required.How can they then ban drugs without amending the Constitution? I know they just reinterpreted the Constitution from the previous generation so they didn't have to go through that process..

All 3 Branches of government has made the Constitution into toilet paper.

Mostly I completely disagree with everything. I feel like the best way for success is a aristocratic society were the elite citizens are just that, elite. They are the best of the best picked through some sort of flawless system. These guys choose the dictator and evaluate his every move, they are the only ones who can remove him from power. The elite citizens can be removed from power by a vote by the citizens who have passed the voting literacy test, the vote called on by the dictator who will get a vote. If the dictator does a good job the, EC's are happy, and if the EC's remain in power that means the people are happy. When it comes to war the dictator will call on a vote by his generals if that vote passes it will be brought to the EC's who will come to a conclusion if they think war is necessary, until they come to a consensus no act of war will be made.

All 3 Branches of government has made the Constitution into toilet paper.

And don't forget the states. They ratified the Amendments, after all.

And don't forget the states. They ratified the Amendments, after all.

Amendments are a process that is part of the Constitution itself. The fact is previously they had needed an amendment to ban a substance (alcohol), they then repealed it. But now so many drugs (substances) are banned without any Amendment whatsoever. What a huge change in interpretation. The commerce clause is the 'government's god clause' now. :shrug:

Amendments are a process that is part of the Constitution itself. The fact is previously they had needed an amendment to ban a substance (alcohol), they then repealed it. But now so many drugs (substances) are banned without any Amendment whatsoever. What a huge change in interpretation. The commerce clause is the 'government's god clause' now. :shrug:

It has more to do with how the laws came about.

Narcotics weren't originally produced here, so the govt could make them illegal to import, and did so.

As to Marijuana, 46 or 48 states made it illegal on their own, so they could have easily passed an amendment but apparently didn't feel the need to.

And you can see the difference now, between Fed regulations and Amendments, because if a anti-MJ amendment had been passed, as they did with Alcohol, then you wouldn't have states that are making MJ essentially legal for use within that state.

Good outline on how the laws came to be.

http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/harrison.cannabis.05.html

Arthur

This question is towards those who support him. I just need a fresh air that people here aren't just supporting him blindly because he is Democrat or whatever. There probably must be something, a policy, implemented by him that you disagree with, unless he's made no mistakes as President (I would be shocked).

So those of you who support the President, generally, was there any policy he implemented that you think was wrong? :shrug:

Republicans keep your nonsense to yourself please. This thread is not meant for bashing, I'm just trying to keep my faith in the community that its not absolutely biased.

I will give one as a starter: His administration continued the Patriot Act. I totally disagree with him on that.

You don't need just fresh air, you need oxygen.
There is no aspect of reform that wouldn't need the entire attention of an eight year double-term to tackle. I'm talking eight years focused just on each: Economy, Housing Crunch, Jobs, War on Terror, Foreign Policy and World Public Relations, Upgrades on many Fronts, Constitutional Modernization, Human Rights, Presidential Powers Analysis, Congressional Powers Analysis, Health Care Reform, Healthy Food Supply, ETC...

Excluding ETC, I mentioned 13.
That's 13 X 8 years of attention each =
104 years to solve the countries problems (excluding the ETCs)*

You ask too much of even Supermen.

*(Rough best case estimate. Some issues may take 10-20 years to stabilize and properly repair--entire focus on that issue alone)

No reason why we have to work on these serially.

The democrats and President Obama put too much stock into their money laundering scams. This is causing problems with the economy.

The first stimulus was suppose to be for infrastructure spending and shovel ready jobs. But few jobs and projects were done with nearly a trillion dollars. The money did not go where the sales pitch said. I am assume this second job scam will do the same and should not be supported unless there is a checks and balance.

The first scam put that money into government and unions to protect existing jobs instead of creating new jobs for all. The tax payer then indirectly pays the union dues which are then kicked back to democratic politians. The money bundlers see the need for a large infusion of kickback to compensate for lack of performance. It takes money to scam the public through mass media.

The unions command centers are big businesses that handles billions of dollars, but are given tax free status like a charity or religion. They are not a charity, since union members make good wages. So it has to be more of a religious exemption. But the separation of church and state should not allow campaign contributions. Or if not a religion they should have to pay taxes on dues collected like a business. But because of the money laundering scam, the democrats made up a third type of charity/religion for kickbacks and their mass media manipulation.

I think President Obama needs to move to the center, like former President Clinton and separate himself from these scams. Then he can make better decision that will help all instead of just democratic cronies.

No reason why we have to work on these serially.
Interrelated issues would seem easily self-correcting, others more complex, distant in repair, and prone to cause unforeseen side-issues.
This does not equate to a quicker time of repair. Only a careful focus on the unwinding of knots. Or the permanent leaving of knots behind. Leave the bridges to decay. Save a dollar and change America to resemble a different honorable, morale-boosting strategy.

The democrats and President Obama put too much stock into their money laundering scams. This is causing problems with the economy.

The first stimulus was suppose to be for infrastructure spending and shovel ready jobs. But few jobs and projects were done with nearly a trillion dollars. The money did not go where the sales pitch said. I am assume this second job scam will do the same and should not be supported unless there is a checks and balance.

The first scam put that money into government and unions to protect existing jobs instead of creating new jobs for all. The tax payer then indirectly pays the union dues which are then kicked back to democratic politians. The money bundlers see the need for a large infusion of kickback to compensate for lack of performance. It takes money to scam the public through mass media.

The unions command centers are big businesses that handles billions of dollars, but are given tax free status like a charity or religion. They are not a charity, since union members make good wages. So it has to be more of a religious exemption. But the separation of church and state should not allow campaign contributions. Or if not a religion they should have to pay taxes on dues collected like a business. But because of the money laundering scam, the democrats made up a third type of charity/religion for kickbacks and their mass media manipulation.

I think President Obama needs to move to the center, like former President Clinton and separate himself from these scams. Then he can make better decision that will help all instead of just democratic cronies.

Political tripe worthy of less than an eleven word reply.

Interrelated issues would seem easily self-correcting, others more complex, distant in repair, and prone to cause unforeseen side-issues.
This does not equate to a quicker time of repair. Only a careful focus on the unwinding of knots. Or the permanent leaving of knots behind. Leave the bridges to decay. Save a dollar and change America to resemble a different honorable, morale-boosting strategy.

You didn't actually answer the question.
You said it would take 100+ years, but that's only because you dealt with the problems in a serial manner.
But that makes no sense.
The key problems we have today won't be the same key problems we will have 50 or 75 years from now.

Amendments are a process that is part of the Constitution itself.

Yes, but you obviously think they're part of the problem, too.

You didn't actually answer the question.
You said it would take 100+ years, but that's only because you dealt with the problems in a serial manner.
But that makes no sense.
The key problems we have today won't be the same key problems we will have 50 or 75 years from now.

If I read you as you intended, that could be taken as a "walk away from the problem response" as well. If a certain paradigm failure results in a reboot, many lives will have to be ...changed drastically, as such forced and chaotic changes would be expected.
Such a system failure, based on the "oh well, the peasants died, we'll have to try that again with a new deemed class experiment", has little credibility to be realized. I guess we need not discuss such.
I guess some of our pesky problems could just "go away" and not exist in fifty years.
They could just as well pile up and strangle us. There's no telling at this juncture.

I don't share your sugar-coated optimism.

If I read you as you intended, that could be taken as a "walk away from the problem response" as well.

No, it's simply asking you why you think we can't work on these problems in parallel and also pointing out that your time line based on tackling them serially makes no sense since 50+ years out, the problems on your list are not likely to be the key problems of the day.


I don't share your sugar-coated optimism.

Huh?
I haven't expressed any opinion about solving the problems except to point out that working on them serially makes no sense.

That very obvious approach is hardly the same as "sugar coated optimisim".

Parallel problem-solving is of course the way it has to be accomplished. Unfortunately, for those doing the work and taking the blame for the slow progress in moving forward, can only lose the job to a replacement that can do no better.
By disregarding the performance issues at hand with our current leadership, one with a correct perspective would leave those in charge to continue, another four years, with a minimized focus-distraction occurrence, that an "administration change" would cause at this time. This brings our focus back to the Obama OP subject. And easily explains why I'm voting for Obama for another term. His parallel problem-solving methods are the best than can be expected.

Yes, but you obviously think they're part of the problem, too.

No, I simply pointed out at as previously understood they had needed an amendment to ban a substance (alcohol), now they ban so many drugs without using it. In fact I'm saying they have abandoned the amendment process which they still needed (like alcohol) but they've found a new way to interpret it so they can bypass the Constitution most of the time without any need for amending it. Hence its toilet paper.

No, I simply pointed out at as previously understood they had needed an amendment to ban a substance (alcohol), now they ban so many drugs without using it.

I am referring to your dispute (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2827794&postcount=43) with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. You know, remember? To not be discriminated against for the color of one's skin is "an ideal not a right"?

Your words.


In fact I'm saying they have abandoned the amendment process which they still needed (like alcohol) but they've found a new way to interpret it so they can bypass the Constitution most of the time without any need for amending it.

Quite clearly, as you demonstrated with your refusal of Amendments XIV and XV, you have a dubious understanding of how the Constitution works.

I am referring to your dispute (http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2827794&postcount=43) with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. You know, remember? To not be discriminated against for the color of one's skin is "an ideal not a right"?

Your words.

Quite clearly, as you demonstrated with your refusal of Amendments XIV and XV, you have a dubious understanding of how the Constitution works.

Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are in relationship to Federal and State government with the people. I actually said many many times, whether your eyes were open or not, that there can be no discrimination based on anything when its between people and the government. So again read for once :shrug:

The discussion was if people (NOT GOVERNMENT) could discriminate other people. So your use of the Amendments is- well- oblivious of this fact or your lack of understanding of whom those Amendments apply to.

The main Obama policy I am disappointed about was the auto industry bailout. I really want very small, very simple, very low maintenance, and very inexpensive cars and the bailout kept the status quo going.

I think he is doing well overall. I have to go back to Nixon to get to a president that I think was better.

The main Obama policy I am disappointed about was the auto industry bailout. I really want very small, very simple, very low maintenance, and very inexpensive cars and the bailout kept the status quo going.

Really?

http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/vehicles/browseByBrand/baseball_cards/chevrolet/aveo_5dr.html?price=25000&brand=all&type=sedancoupehybrid_electric&appState=list

http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/vehicles/browseByBrand/baseball_cards/chevrolet/cruze.html?price=25000&brand=all&type=sedancoupehybrid_electric&appState=list

and then there is the VOLT

http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/vehicles/browseByBrand/baseball_cards/chevrolet/volt.html?price=45000&brand=all&type=hybrid_electric&appState=list

obama is doing a good job:)

Really?

http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/vehicles/browseByBrand/baseball_cards/chevrolet/aveo_5dr.html?price=25000&brand=all&type=sedancoupehybrid_electric&appState=list

I want a price under $3000. Something like the Bug-E, but mass produced reliable, and cheap.


http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/vehicles/browseByBrand/baseball_cards/chevrolet/cruze.html?price=25000&brand=all&type=sedancoupehybrid_electric&appState=list

Way not inexpensive IMO. I'd like to see people forget about all the safety stuff, too. Spend so much time in a car that accident safety is that conscious, then I think staying home and meditating might be a good idea.



and then there is the VOLT


http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/vehicles/browseByBrand/baseball_cards/chevrolet/volt.html?price=45000&brand=all&type=hybrid_electric&appState=list

Way, way not inexpensive, IMO. If things don't get more reasonable, I expect to see more people leaving themselves stuck with inconvenient public transportation or bicycles. Bicycles are pretty good, though. I use mine almost all the time.

I want a price under $3000. Something like the Bug-E, but mass produced reliable, and cheap.

Pretty funny.

You first say you want a CAR but then you post a picture of what is essentially a motorcycle.

Then you say you want it for under $3,000 but the vehicle you post is a KIT and comes without all the parts (fasteners or batteries) and yet the KIT price is nearly $6,000.

(I also question the safety of the vehicle since not only does it have no wipers for visibility in the rain, it has two front wheels but the brakes are controlled independently. If in a panic situation you squeeze just one brake lever the result is not likely to be pretty)

So in comparison, the car I posted

http://www.gm.com/content/gmcom/home/vehicles/browseByBrand/baseball_cards/chevrolet/aveo_5dr.html?price=25000&brand=all&type=sedancoupehybrid_electric&appState=list

At $12,000 is a much better deal as it in fact a car and it seats FIVE in an Enclosed/heated/air conditioned space and with a trunk for luggage instead of ONE person out in the elements and no trunk at all.
It also comes with all those SAFETY features you think aren't necessary, including 10 air bags and windshield wipers and 4 wheel brakes controlled by one pedal.
It gets 35 miles per gallon (which is up to 175 passenger miles per gallon)
It comes with a 60,000 mile warranty vs no warranty at all.

GM will also start making the Electric version of this ~late next year.

http://spark.chevrolet.com/geneva-v1/en_US/flash/index.htm

Arthur