Obama's broken promises: A checklist

Wow, I just read a post in here saying that your afraid that Al Queda will invade the US, are you mad? They may have 100000 insurgents at most, and with todays technology, there is no way they could possibly beat the US military on US soil when they don't have the support of most of the US. Sure they knocked down a few buildings, but that doesn't mean that they want to invade you, they want to destroy you! If anything they will try to Nuke you.

As far as broken promises go, the man can't do everything himself, I am glad that he is closing Gitmo, it is a good decision, I don't care who you are or what you have done, everyone deserves their day in court. More than that, he is HUMAN, everyone has made a promise which they could not keep, especially politicians. In short, you have the right to complain, but you really shouldn't complain about everything someone does.

[QUOTE="links136"][QUOTE="mysterylobster"] Considering the fact that I despise Bush for betraying conservatives, yes, I have some idea. There's really no point in going over those things again, while with Obama, you have various people in the media not doing their job. mysterylobster

so you judge a 4 year long term after 10 days?

That's obvious enough, you've been made your judgement on Obama ever since Mccain lost.

[QUOTE="mysterylobster"][QUOTE="links136"]

so you judge a 4 year long term after 10 days?

ice144

That's obvious enough, you've been made your judgement on Obama ever since Mccain lost.

He's been the President for 10 days. Honestly, we know you don't like him, but atleast give him a chance and wait until the end of his Presidency to bring out the checklist.

ragek1ll589

to have discussions and the people there are so effin' whiney.

Let's keep it real here, OP. Go ahead and admit that you don't want Obama to be President because he's black.

I know it's true!

[QUOTE="ragek1ll589"]

He's been the President for 10 days. Honestly, we know you don't like him, but atleast give him a chance and wait until the end of his Presidency to bring out the checklist.

Xylophone_90

to have discussions and the people there are so effin' whiney.

[QUOTE="Xylophone_90"][QUOTE="ragek1ll589"]

He's been the President for 10 days. Honestly, we know you don't like him, but atleast give him a chance and wait until the end of his Presidency to bring out the checklist.

mysterylobster

to have discussions and the people there are so effin' whiney.

Really? I just joined today! Is there another Xylophone? Or do you already just like my posts? Well, i'll take that as a compliment either way!

Give the man a break. We are talking about a character with a laundry list that includes pretty much all contemporary geopolitics and finances. Talk to me in 6 months time. Heck, maybe even 4 years time.BiancaDK

[QUOTE="BiancaDK"]Give the man a break. We are talking about a character with a laundry list that includes pretty much all contemporary geopolitics and finances. Talk to me in 6 months time. Heck, maybe even 4 years time.Lisaanne30

I agree with the OP. We should impeach him and hang him by his toes for failing in his presidency after all this time. Rush was correct as usual. videogamer456

[QUOTE="videogamer456"]I agree with the OP. We should impeach him and hang him by his toes for failing in his presidency after all this time. Rush was correct as usual. Vandalvideo

Lying about WMD, or falsifying intelligence? videogamer456

[QUOTE="videogamer456"] Lying about WMD, or falsifying intelligence? Vandalvideo

It's just as much of a lie if Bush hadn't confirmed the intelligence and forced this country into a war it cannot win as it would have been if the intelligence had been forged outright.

It's just as much of a lie if Bush hadn't confirmed the intelligence and forced this country into a war it cannot win as it would have been if the intelligence had been forged outright. tycoonmike

And as for the TC:

Do you honestly think that McCain would have been any better? Obama and McCain may be different in most every way possible, but there is one similarity, they are both politicians who are well-versed in the art of doublespeak. Had McCain been elected, I can guarantee that, like his predecessors, he would have started to break campaign promises.

This is one of the primary reasons why I encourage anyone who'll listen to vote for third party candidates. It's usually within such parties like the Libertarians, the Greens, the Conservatives, and the Constitutionalists that you find the best men and women for the job.

And as for the TC:

Do you honestly think that McCain would have been any better? Obama and McCain may be different in most every way possible, but there is one similarity, they are both politicians who are well-versed in the art of doublespeak. Had McCain been elected, I can guarantee that, like his predecessors, he would have started to break campaign promises.

This is one of the primary reasons why I encourage anyone who'll listen to vote for third party candidates. It's usually within such parties like the Libertarians, the Greens, the Conservatives, and the Constitutionalists that you find the best men and women for the job.

tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]It's just as much of a lie if Bush hadn't confirmed the intelligence and forced this country into a war it cannot win as it would have been if the intelligence had been forged outright. Vandalvideo

Whose is it, then? The CIA? The FBI? The NSA? If it were any of those organisations, then they sure as hell were asleep at the wheel. The fact that it did came out that the intelligence was bogus proves how foolish Bush was in trusting it. It was bogus in the first place and, had he actually made an attempt to be objective, he could have saved thousands of American lives.

Hindsight may be 20/20, but that doesn't make the man any more immune to the deaths of servicemen and women.

Whose is it, then? The CIA? The FBI? The NSA? If it were any of those organisations, then they sure as hell were asleep at the wheel. The fact that it did came out that the intelligence was bogus proves how foolish Bush was in trusting it. It was bogus in the first place and, had he actually made an attempt to be objective, he could have saved thousands of American lives.Hindsight may be 20/20, but that doesn't make the man any more immune to the deaths of servicemen and women. tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And as for the TC:

Do you honestly think that McCain would have been any better? Obama and McCain may be different in most every way possible, but there is one similarity, they are both politicians who are well-versed in the art of doublespeak. Had McCain been elected, I can guarantee that, like his predecessors, he would have started to break campaign promises.

This is one of the primary reasons why I encourage anyone who'll listen to vote for third party candidates. It's usually within such parties like the Libertarians, the Greens, the Conservatives, and the Constitutionalists that you find the best men and women for the job.

-Sun_Tzu-

And that idealism is such a bad thing? At least they want to change the world, whereas the Democrats and Republicans are only looking to preserve the status quo, IE: a two-party oligarchy that has continued unabated since the late 19th century.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And as for the TC:

Do you honestly think that McCain would have been any better? Obama and McCain may be different in most every way possible, but there is one similarity, they are both politicians who are well-versed in the art of doublespeak. Had McCain been elected, I can guarantee that, like his predecessors, he would have started to break campaign promises.

This is one of the primary reasons why I encourage anyone who'll listen to vote for third party candidates. It's usually within such parties like the Libertarians, the Greens, the Conservatives, and the Constitutionalists that you find the best men and women for the job.

tycoonmike

And that idealism is such a bad thing? At least they want to change the world, whereas the Democrats and Republicans are only looking to preserve the status quo, IE: a two-party oligarchy that has continued unabated since the late 19th century.

[QUOTE="R0cky_Racc00n"]And how many other presidents keep all their promises as soon as they move in? Give the guy some time before judging him. It's obvious you just don't like him for what ever reason and aren't going to stop with this.mysterylobster

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Whose is it, then? The CIA? The FBI? The NSA? If it were any of those organisations, then they sure as hell were asleep at the wheel. The fact that it did came out that the intelligence was bogus proves how foolish Bush was in trusting it. It was bogus in the first place and, had he actually made an attempt to be objective, he could have saved thousands of American lives.Hindsight may be 20/20, but that doesn't make the man any more immune to the deaths of servicemen and women. Vandalvideo

"Some of the greatest minds of the intelligence world?" They bunged up a report that cost thousands of American, British, and Iraqi lives! If anything, it shows how incompetent these great minds are, and how doubly incompetent Bush was for not wanting to get independent confirmation from another intelligence organisation, like the Australian DIGO or the Swiss DAP. Indeed, if these great minds from MI6 and the CIA were so great, why couldn't they stop the 9/11 attacks?

"Some of the greatest minds of the intelligence world?" They bunged up a report that cost thousands of American, British, and Iraqi lives! If anything, it shows how incompetent these great minds are, and how doubly incompetent Bush was for not wanting to get independent confirmation from another intelligence organisation, like the Australian DIGO or the Swiss DAP. Indeed, if these great minds from MI6 and the CIA were so great, why couldn't they stop the 9/11 attacks? tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] The problem I have with third parties is that they are so idealistic. And Obama and McCain aren't really that different politically. -Sun_Tzu-

And that idealism is such a bad thing? At least they want to change the world, whereas the Democrats and Republicans are only looking to preserve the status quo, IE: a two-party oligarchy that has continued unabated since the late 19th century.

You have it reversed. The worst attribute a politician could have is the inability to know when to stop compromising. That's the problem with both the Democrats and Republicans: they are so malleable that as soon as a lobbyist comes forth with some hair-brained scheme they jump on the bandwagon. If anything, the people who stick to their guns and don't waver are best because they will actually bring some change to bear and won't comprimise their beliefs because of some idiot lobbyists who want a piece of the governmental action.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]"Some of the greatest minds of the intelligence world?" They bunged up a report that cost thousands of American, British, and Iraqi lives! If anything, it shows how incompetent these great minds are, and how doubly incompetent Bush was for not wanting to get independent confirmation from another intelligence organisation, like the Australian DIGO or the Swiss DAP. Indeed, if these great minds from MI6 and the CIA were so great, why couldn't they stop the 9/11 attacks? Vandalvideo

Well then explain how your precious MI6 wasn't able to provide intelligence to counteract the 9/11 attacks. Could it possibly be because they were resting on their laurels?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And that idealism is such a bad thing? At least they want to change the world, whereas the Democrats and Republicans are only looking to preserve the status quo, IE: a two-party oligarchy that has continued unabated since the late 19th century.

tycoonmike

You have it reversed. The worst attribute a politician could have is the inability to know when to stop compromising. That's the problem with both the Democrats and Republicans: they are so malleable that as soon as a lobbyist comes forth with some hair-brained scheme they jump on the bandwagon. If anything, the people who stick to their guns and don't waver are best because they will actually bring some change to bear and won't comprimise their beliefs because of some idiot lobbyists who want a piece of the governmental action.

Well then explain how your precious MI6 wasn't able to provide intelligence to counteract the 9/11 attacks. Could it possibly be because they were resting on their laurels? tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Well then explain how your precious MI6 wasn't able to provide intelligence to counteract the 9/11 attacks. Could it possibly be because they were resting on their laurels? Vandalvideo

And it is that possibility of screwing up, no matter how infallible the organisation's results, that should lead people down the path of skepticism. If we suddenly start giving credence to every single thing that could possibly be construed as a threat to national security, without first independently confirming the supposed threat, we will end up living in an Orwellian state.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Idealism itself is fine. But most of these third parties are so caught up in their respective ideologies that they leave themselves no room to compromise. The worst attribute a politician could ever have is the inability to compromise. -Sun_Tzu-

You have it reversed. The worst attribute a politician could have is the inability to know when to stop compromising. That's the problem with both the Democrats and Republicans: they are so malleable that as soon as a lobbyist comes forth with some hair-brained scheme they jump on the bandwagon. If anything, the people who stick to their guns and don't waver are best because they will actually bring some change to bear and won't comprimise their beliefs because of some idiot lobbyists who want a piece of the governmental action.

And having a government run by lobbyists is any better?

And it is that possibility of screwing up, no matter how infallible the organisation's results, that should lead people down the path of skepticism. If we suddenly start giving credence to every single thing that could possibly be construed as a threat to national security, without first independently confirming the supposed threat, we will end up living in an Orwellian state. tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]And it is that possibility of screwing up, no matter how infallible the organisation's results, that should lead people down the path of skepticism. If we suddenly start giving credence to every single thing that could possibly be construed as a threat to national security, without first independently confirming the supposed threat, we will end up living in an Orwellian state. Vandalvideo

No, but there are about fifty other countries, ranging from France to Japan, with the ability to independently confirm the results of such an intelligence survey.

Unless of course these countries, if asked, were to say "We couldn't possibly doubt the word of the almighty MI6" :|

No, but there are about fifty other countries, ranging from France to Japan, with the ability to independently confirm the results of such an intelligence survey. :| tycoonmike

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

You have it reversed. The worst attribute a politician could have is the inability to know when to stop compromising. That's the problem with both the Democrats and Republicans: they are so malleable that as soon as a lobbyist comes forth with some hair-brained scheme they jump on the bandwagon. If anything, the people who stick to their guns and don't waver are best because they will actually bring some change to bear and won't comprimise their beliefs because of some idiot lobbyists who want a piece of the governmental action.

tycoonmike

And having a government run by lobbyists is any better?

The U.S. was built on compromises, and if it wasn't for negotiations and accommodations the U.S. would of either become a tyrannical monarchy or a weak confederacy of individual states.

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]No, but there are about fifty other countries, ranging from France to Japan, with the ability to independently confirm the results of such an intelligence survey. :| Vandalvideo

Notice how I said, "Ranging FROM France TO Japan." I never said that neither Pakistan nor India didn't have that capability. In either case, though, it just shows how stupid Bush was for not trying to get a third opinion, perhaps from a neutral party.

Notice how I said, "Ranging FROM France TO Japan." I never said that neither Pakistan nor India didn't have that capability. In either case, though, it just shows how stupid Bush was for not trying to get a third opinion, perhaps from a neutral party.tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] What are you talking about? If everyone were to just "stick to their guns" like you have proposed, nothing would ever get done. All you get when people are "stickin' to their guns" is endless bickering back and forth that never leads to any action. -Sun_Tzu-

And having a government run by lobbyists is any better?

The U.S. was built on compromises, and if it wasn't for negotiations and accommodations the U.S. would of either become a tyrannical monarchy or a weak confederacy of individual states.

Who holds the money holds the power. If you gain influence in the government, you run the government because you can pressure senators and presidents with the power of the almighty dollar. A politician who is capable of compromise is a politician that can and will get bent over backwards by the lobbyists.

And yes, I do believe that lobbyists are the devil incarnate.

whats this?! a politcian...lieing?! :o

what it have been so different with mccain?

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]Notice how I said, "Ranging FROM France TO Japan." I never said that neither Pakistan nor India didn't have that capability. In either case, though, it just shows how stupid Bush was for not trying to get a third opinion, perhaps from a neutral party.Vandalvideo

I can't, but then again, can you provide undeniable evidence to say he did? And I don't mean the representatives in the UN, they don't count.

I can't, but then again, can you provide undeniable evidence to say he did? And I don't mean the representatives in the UN, they don't count. tycoonmike

[QUOTE="tycoonmike"]I can't, but then again, can you provide undeniable evidence to say he did? And I don't mean the representatives in the UN, they don't count. Vandalvideo

Ok, then. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I find it kind of odd that we have a country whose president wanted to finish daddy's war, another country which is basically the first country's cronie, and a third country who's hated by half of the middle east claiming that some country that couldn't make an ICBM to save its collective life is making biological and chemical weapons. I can't help but feel suspicious that there's some sort of bias involved.

As I said in the second post back, I believe, couldn't all three of them have gotten a fourth opinion from a NEUTRAL party?

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="tycoonmike"]

And having a government run by lobbyists is any better?

tycoonmike

The U.S. was built on compromises, and if it wasn't for negotiations and accommodations the U.S. would of either become a tyrannical monarchy or a weak confederacy of individual states.

Who holds the money holds the power. If you gain influence in the government, you run the government because you can pressure senators and presidents with the power of the almighty dollar. A politician who is capable of compromise is a politician that will get bent over backwards by the lobbyists.

And yes, I do believe that lobbyists are the devil incarnate.

A politician who is capable of compromise will always bend over backwards for lobbyists? That is the most absurd statement I've ever heard and is just a baseless claim. Notice how I said responsible compromising and not brash submission? -Sun_Tzu-

Then why are there these controversies about pork spending and pointless attachments to bills that all of five people read about on page 12B of section E in the newspaper?