Oh look, another thing I dislike about Obama

  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 16, 2009 11:19 PM GMT
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ns/politics-white_house

    Seriously, can we please stop defending stuff like this?
  • EricLA

    Posts: 3461

    Jun 17, 2009 1:04 AM GMT
    I agree, we should criticize Obama on this. And that heinous brief defending DOMA. And not doing anything on DADT. And continuing to allow gay Arabic translators to be discharged. And a ton of things. We need to be vocal and impatient and send emails and letters and make calls to the White House and Congress.

    That said, I wouldn't take back my vote. I still feel that we are -- and will be -- better off under Obama than we would have been under McCain/Palin.

    But if Obama thinks I'm just going to sit back and wait patiently while he makes bad decisions, he's got another thing coming.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 17, 2009 1:21 AM GMT
    calibro saidSeriously, can we please stop defending stuff like this?


    Who you calling we? It's a free country, criticize who you want.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 1:28 AM GMT
    DCEric said
    calibro saidSeriously, can we please stop defending stuff like this?


    Who you calling we? It's a free country, criticize who you want.


    I must have missed the part where calibro was suggesting that defending Obama be made illegal.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jun 17, 2009 1:31 AM GMT
    People who say anything that remotely resembles anything but 100 support and approval of President Obama tend to be called names.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 17, 2009 1:34 AM GMT
    RuggerATX said
    DCEric said
    calibro saidSeriously, can we please stop defending stuff like this?


    Who you calling we? It's a free country, criticize who you want.


    I must have missed the part where calibro was suggesting that defending Obama be made illegal.


    Well, he asked if we could stop defending Obama. I was clarifing that he could criticize, and didn't need the RJ communities permission.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 1:38 AM GMT
    wow... at least with the republicans this wouldn't be such a disappointment.

    with that said, i'm not regretting my vote. however, how many election promises does he want to break within the month.
  • OutdoorAdvent...

    Posts: 361

    Jun 17, 2009 1:52 AM GMT
    I spent four days just before the election working for Obama in New Hampshire, though Kucinich was my dog in the fight. (Edwards was my second choice, Richardson my third.) Yeah, of course, Obama is better than Bush and McCain, but that's a pretty low bar to set.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 1:59 AM GMT
    jackofhearts46 saidwow... at least with the republicans this wouldn't be such a disappointment.

    with that said, i'm not regretting my vote. however, how many election promises does he want to break within the month.


    And this is all after he issues a Proclamation stating his support of the LGBT community. With friends like this....

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/542348/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 2:17 AM GMT
    The issues are no joke of course, but I find it hilarious how quickly the "love" for Obama has faded on RJ. 10 months ago he was the savior of the world that was going to fix all evil and wrong doing. He made campaign promises and broke them once elected. That's what politicians do. I think he is learning that actually being in charge and making tough decisions is not as easy as campaigning and giving speeches.
  • Tiller66

    Posts: 380

    Jun 17, 2009 2:41 AM GMT
    I for one NEVER said I love Obama and even though I did vote for him I'm still going to be critical of him when he does nothing to even seem like he will even try to attempt to start keeping his promisies he made.And I don't belive that one of his campain promisises was to make June LBGT Pride month, I think as a community wether you participate or took care of that YEARS ago.And as far as his overhauling of the health care system I belive that they'er alot of studies saying that DADT and DOMA comtribute to health issues and performence issues in the military.I will be watching and if by his 2nd year he does'nt do something of substance he will not get my vote againicon_evil.gif
  • Devon_Fury

    Posts: 69

    Jun 17, 2009 5:02 AM GMT
    A little US gov't refresher for those who forgot:
    1) The Executive branch does that- it executes the law; whereas the judicial branch serves out justice under it. The executive branch therefore has a duty to uphold the laws of the land until they are determined to be unconstitutional by the judiciary. Checks and balances at work.
    2) To bring a federal law into question in a court of law one must have STANDING (i.e. you must be affected by the law directly and able to prove that your rights have been abridged).

    the filing by the DOJ in CA states that the claimants have weak or no standing to bring suit against the US and DOMA. The DOJ is doing their job, like it or not. It could also be easily construed as either the DOJ putting out an argument the court will reject and therefore vet and validate the claimants standing therein bolstering any decision or it could be seen as the DOJ waiting for an airtight suit that will bring down DOMA in one fell swoop.

    Don't discount the players based on individual moves.
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 17, 2009 5:06 AM GMT
    Devon_Fury saidA little US gov't refresher for those who forgot:
    1) The Executive branch does that- it executes the law; whereas the judicial branch serves out justice under it. The executive branch therefore has a duty to uphold the laws of the land until they are determined to be unconstitutional by the judiciary. Checks and balances at work.
    2) To bring a federal law into question in a court of law one must have STANDING (i.e. you must be affected by the law directly and able to prove that your rights have been abridged).

    the filing by the DOJ in CA states that the claimants have weak or no standing to bring suit against the US and DOMA. The DOJ is doing their job, like it or not. It could also be easily construed as either the DOJ putting out an argument the court will reject and therefore vet and validate the claimants standing therein bolstering any decision or it could be seen as the DOJ waiting for an airtight suit that will bring down DOMA in one fell swoop.

    Don't discount the players based on individual moves.


    Except that has nothing to do with my post about obama refusing to disclose his visitor logs. And second, the judiciary already ruled, twice, that he has to turn them over, so why isn't he abiding by your points you're so vehemently making?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 5:41 AM GMT
    I'll go put on another pot O' tea, then.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 6:03 AM GMT
    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 17, 2009 11:00 AM GMT
    Now .......

    This is what is called Lazy Assed Journalism at work
    What This MSNBC story Doesn't say is that the blocked access to the WH visitors list is a holdover from the Bush White House

    It wasn't an order from the Obama team
    Not that it makes it right but it changes it a bit
    Way to go MSNBC ... don't hold yer breath for that Peabody yet
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 4:26 PM GMT
    DCEric said
    RuggerATX said
    DCEric said
    calibro saidSeriously, can we please stop defending stuff like this?


    Who you calling we? It's a free country, criticize who you want.


    I must have missed the part where calibro was suggesting that defending Obama be made illegal.


    Well, he asked if we could stop defending Obama. I was clarifing that he could criticize, and didn't need the RJ communities permission.


    But what does the 1st amendment have to do with it? After all, RJ doesn't enact our laws.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jun 17, 2009 8:24 PM GMT
    Rugger: Simply put. I wasn't being nearly as serious as you thought I was.
  • MercuryMax

    Posts: 713

    Jun 17, 2009 8:26 PM GMT
    I love Obama..I think he's great...icon_redface.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 8:28 PM GMT
    MercuryMax saidI love Obama..I think he's great...icon_redface.gif


    You have to say that, don´t you? Or is he no longer your boss any more?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 8:29 PM GMT
    DCEric saidRugger: Simply put. I wasn't being nearly as serious as you thought I was.


    OK. I just bristle whenever I see "free country" used out of context. Thanks for being cool about it.
  • MercuryMax

    Posts: 713

    Jun 17, 2009 8:34 PM GMT
    Lostboy said
    MercuryMax saidI love Obama..I think he's great...icon_redface.gif


    You have to say that, don´t you? Or is he no longer your boss any more?


    No longer my boss....so i say it freely, beside most of my coworkers in the military hate him...and i think they're stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 8:42 PM GMT
    never, never, NEVER!!!!!!icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
  • calibro

    Posts: 8888

    Jun 17, 2009 9:06 PM GMT
    GQjock saidNow .......

    This is what is called Lazy Assed Journalism at work
    What This MSNBC story Doesn't say is that the blocked access to the WH visitors list is a holdover from the Bush White House

    It wasn't an order from the Obama team
    Not that it makes it right but it changes it a bit
    Way to go MSNBC ... don't hold yer breath for that Peabody yet


    Yes, but it was his decision to continue the appeal instead of abiding by the judge who ruled twice to turn them over. This isn't law, it's an executive privilege citing, so Obama can do away with it by word of mouth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2009 9:30 PM GMT
    is anyone still surprised by any of this?

    Obama's transparency = Bush's secrecy with a new face
    Obama's "peace" = expansion of Bush's wars across the Middle East and Central Asia
    Obama's restoration of civil liberties = continuing illegal wiretapping, immunity for telecoms complicit in unconstitutional and illegal activities, NON-repeal of Patriot Acts I and II
    Obama's end of torture policy = continuing rendition flights, NOT repealing the Military Commissions Act (which legalizes torture, which Obama voted for as a senator), protection of Bush regime criminals who wrote torture memos which said that it was legal to, and i quote, "crush the testicles of a small child in a vice in front of his parents to extract information"
    Obama's economic solution = save the banks from the crisis they created, privatizing the profits to the banks, while socializing the risk to the people, committing a class war against the American working class

    Oh, but wait, it's "only been 5 months", we shouldn't judge him by his actions, but simply by his rhetoric of intentions.

    When will people learn, i wonder, that politicians say one thing, lie through their teeth with a smile on their face, and then do another? Obama is no exception. If anything, the last 5 months if proof that Obama works for the same Wall Street interests as Bush, Clinton before him, Bush before him, Reagan before him, and on and on.

    America is an empire of capital - the leading hegemon in the international system since World War II, projecting its economic power and control over the entire world, and using military force when nations did not submit to Western economic imperialism.

    America is an empire run by and for the national, and in past decades, international corporate and banking elite. It's political leaders are there to lie to the public, preserving the illusion that there is "democracy" and choice between parties, whereas both parties, and their leading figureheads serve the same interests.

    Politics is theatre, remember that YOU are the audience. Real power is not exercised through the ballot, it's an illusion.

    If Obama was really intending to create the amazing change he promised, and be the "saviour" so many thought he was, what's he waiting for?

    Oh right, it's only been 5 months. I'm sorry, but never has a President come in at such a pinnacle moment of crisis internationally - both economically and politically, with the global financial crisis, and major regional wars which threaten to destabilize entire regions and erupt in wider war, possibly even global war. In this type of circumstance, you don't WAIT to undertake drastic changes in the right direction. You simply take action.

    And regarding his economic "stimulus", which doesnt serve to create any jobs in the real economy, and in fact, acts as a stimulus for banks to continue dangerous and highly destabilizing speculation practices (which is why the stock market went up as job losses continued to increase and as nothing is being produced). $700 billion is not going to save a nation that is $47 trillion in total debt, that continues to increase and spend (more than Bush) on annual military expenditures (at $800 billion), and with a derivatives market bubble worth $681 trillion dollars waiting to pop.

    The problem is that the actions being undertaken by the Obama administrations economic kingpins are there to save the banks, pass the check to the people, while the banks dash from the dinner table. The problem is that the people won't realize this until the bankers are out the door, and they are sitting there with no money in their pockets, and a massive debt in front of them. Why else are the very same architects of the financial crisis the ones appointed to Obama's administration to clean up the mess? To ensure that they continue working as they have always worked, in service to the financial industry.

    The bankers have their guys in the White House, Treasury Department, Federal Reserve System, and are going to ensure that they win, while everyone else loses.

    I just hope the Obama bubble bursts before the debt and derivatives bubbles burst, because then it's too late to affect any meaningful "change".

    The system is coming crashing down no matter what anyone does at this point, it is so far gone, any delay is just that, a delay. The issue is on how to lessen the blow for the people, and reorganize the system so it doesnt happen again, while making those responsible accountable. Obama is actively saving the banks, at the expense of each and every one of you.

    I wonder, when it all comes crashing down, will you say, "well... it's just been [insert number of] months, don't criticize him [for his actions]"