Are we actually going to see change in America?

G

Gee-Perwin

Specialist
I posted this on the Ventrella cartoon post:

Didn't Obama vote for the bailout? Isn't he now pushing for $25 billion of that money to go to the Big 3 in the auto industry?

When he's president does he plan to shut down Guantanamo? Will he restore habeas corpus? Will he stop warrentless wiretapping? Is he going to work to get rid of the Patriot Act?

That would be change I could believe in. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Obama voters--what type of change are you looking for in this country? What do you expect Obama to change? I'd love to know what you all think. :)
 
I was expecting the latter...Obama faced with the difficult task of taping the Bill of Rights back together. Hoping his legacy would be at least more prone to the people's rights and welfare than to those at the top 3 percent of incomes than that of his opponent. He would be more likely to oppose holding detainees without trial in Guantanamo Bay and I see it not lasting through his first term in office.

And doesn't the PATRIOT Act expire soon anyway?

Not that I voted...I wasn't 18.
 
He would probably repeal it in favor of the version he cosponsored back in '06...the SAFE Act which is designed to protect civil liberties and a citizen's right to privacy including restrictions on the "roving wiretaps" to require electronic surveillance warrants contain specific information about the identity of the target or the place being wiretapped, and requiring that surveillance of a place only be conducted when a suspect is present at that place.

At least it sounds better...I don't think he'd want to link any of his policies in the mind of Americans to those of the previous (and disasterous) administration.

My two copper.

~J
 
You will definitely see change. Heck, you would have seen it if McCain were elected too, especially concerning the US's use of torture under Bush.

Mostly you will see changes in foreign policy, with a renewed emphasis on building relations with other countries instead of bullying them, insulting them by renaming French Fries as "Freedom Fries" and telling them that if they're not with us 100%, they are against us.

You'll see an acknowledgment of treaties that Bush ignored concerning torture and global warming.

You'll see a removal of policies that prohibited foreign aid recipients working to fight AIDS and other diseases from being able to discuss birth control methods.

There will be a renewed emphasis on Afghanistan and capturing bin Laden and less so on Iraq, who has a budget surplus while we're still pouring money into it.

And of course you'll see other changes, such as rescinding many of Bush's unconstitutional "signing statements" which boiled down to "I am not vetoing this law but I am stating that I, as President, do not have to obey it."

Will there be peace and love forever, with unicorns prancing next to hopping bunnies? Of course not. There will be many things he will not be able to accomplish, and many things I am sure I and others will disagree with him on -- but you will definitely see a major change. After all, Bush brought about major change in his eight years as well -- most of it bad.
 
Foreign policy is the one issue that I've spent the most time reading and studying in the past couple years. It's the issue that concerns me more than any other. I look back to what Jefferson said, “...peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” I also look at how America has considered itself the policemen of the world, or the defenders of democracy everywhere. We have very strict Constitutional rules concerning going to war. Yet the last war that we actually followed The Constitution and declared war was WWII. I'm really curious to see what Obama will do concerning undeclared and/or preemptive wars. I know where McCain stood on these issues--he voted for the Iraq war. Obama continued to vote for funding of the war. Will Obama use his powers to go to war with another country whether or not Congress declares war? Will he make any effort to bring home troops overseas? I don't know, but I have a good idea. I'll just have to wait and see what unfolds over the next four years.

Since WWII we have had bases in countries like Germany & Japan with US soldiers stationed there. Today we have soldiers and bases in something like 130 different countries! Places like Okinawa, Japan where our bases have caused much grief for the people who are born & raised there (there are a lot of interesting books on this specific topic). A real change in foreign policy isn't just being nicer to other countries. A true change in our policies overseas would be to end this empire that costs America trillions. This empire that has caused so much damage and problems for so many of these countries we occupy. This empire that is bankrupting America.

I thought it was pretty cool that the US was able to vote a black dude into the White House. Slavery is the worst thing this country embraced, and we never truly saw equal rights until a handful of decades ago. I understand that events like the moon landing or people like MLK help inspire a generation to succeed. We need heroes like that. I know this will be one of those events. But my generation really could care less about skin color. I know some people still do, but the majority of people I grew up with who are my age and younger (I'm 28) never cared much about the whole black/white/gay/whatever issue. If I don't like someone it's probably because he or she is an idiot. That seems to work. So at this point I really could care less that Obama is black. I'm more concerned about his policies and what he plans to do as President. Lets hope the rest of America feels this way.
 
Gee-Perwin said:
But my generation really could care less about skin color. I know some people still do, but the majority of people I grew up with who are my age and younger (I'm 28) never cared much about the whole black/white/gay/whatever issue. If I don't like someone it's probably because he or she is an idiot. That seems to work. So at this point I really could care less that Obama is black. I'm more concerned about his policies and what he plans to do as President. Lets hope the rest of America feels this way.
Click to expand...

I think that's the case -- the problem is that many of the reporters and commentators are older, and race still matters to them, just like these older people care about homosexuality. The good thing is that there is now a generation that doesn't care about those sorts of things, and that is very encouraging.

On 60 Minutes tonight, he confirmed his committment to do some of the things I mentioned above:

The president-elect confirmed reports that he intends to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, and "make sure we don't torture" as "part and parcel of an effort to regain America's moral stature in the world."

Obama also said he plans to put al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden in the crosshairs.

"I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al-Qaida," Obama said. "He is not just a symbol, he's also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/1 ... 44004.html
 
I honestly am just going to sit back and wait for the state election stuff....I will be intrigued to see if a president can cause as much change as he says he will cause. From what I understand most change happens at the state level.
 
Tzydl Zhitelava said:
I honestly am just going to sit back and wait for the state election stuff....I will be intrigued to see if a president can cause as much change as he says he will cause. From what I understand most change happens at the state level.
Click to expand...

That's why I said foreign policy is where you will see the most change, since that is an area the states have no power over and the President has a lot of power...
 
WARNING THIS MAY BE CONTROVERSIAL ETC....

i would love to see foreign policy change in some areas...I heard a rumor that saudi arabia was happy that obama became president and honestly i would rather have a president that makes peace treaties (as long as they don't compromise freedoms we all enjoy) instead of going to war...b ut i also want a president that puts the blame on the RIGHT PEOPLE...a war on terror does not mean bombing places because we "believe there may be someone sleeping in that town that is an alqueda member" or something silly like that...hopefully with enough policy we can prevent a war or two..don't get me wrong i realize we will always be warring but...jeepers already ya know???
 
I agree that foreign policy should be an important change.

We need to be seen not as a janitor of the world that can clean up everyone's messes and then dissappear until another mess is created, but instead as a country that is willing to help but cannot help everyone everywhere at all times.

We need to focus more on ourselves, cleaning up oue own messes like the housing market, health care, the economy, homosexual rights (which I might add is starting to look like America is on the brink of another Civil Rights movement), oil consumption, corrupt politicians, corrupt businesses, and other issues.

Will all these problems be solved in Obama's first term?

Probably not.

this is not a reflection on his experience, but this is a reflection on how grevious these problems are and how they are all intertwined.

Even one man with a great support staff and a cooperating Senate and House (good luck seeing that happen since they all have their own agendas) can't hope to fix all the problems.

Therefore Obama must perform a triage, selecting the aspects of America that are hurting the most and fixing them first.

The big three I see are in order:
1) The economy
2) Foreign policy
3) Health care

These definitly need to be fixed in his term.

(End Political Rant)

Jim
 
constitutional declarations of war...fan
geneva conventions (as written, not as reported)...fan
Suicidal people fighting a war hidden amongst the civilian population and claiming no state, wearing no uniform, but willing to use Ambulances as gun trucks...not a fan
Something to consider....

js
 
Simon said:
Suicidal people fighting a war hidden amongst the civilian population and claiming no state, wearing no uniform, but willing to use Ambulances as gun trucks...not a fan
Something to consider....

js
Click to expand...

Attacking Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda was the right move. That is who attacked us on 9/11, and that is who we needed to go after. Congress authorized this attack, but obviously this was blundered when we stopped concentrating on Bin Laden.

We invaded Iraq--a sovereign nation with no air force, no navy, and zero threat to America. We went in under the lie of "weapons of mass destruction." We were told how horrible Saddam Hussein was like it's our job to cleanse a country of it's problems. Now we have an occupation and we're dealing with irrational people who are happy we're there so they can blow up our kids outside of America. Ask yourself this--what would you do if another country invaded America? Wouldn't you be willing to sacrifice it all to defend your home and your family? I'm not saying I agree with the other side, but we ignore their reasons for fighting our occupation at our own cost.

This is what happens when we occupy countries. It happened in Lebanon when we were trying to play referee between Lebanon & Israel back in the early 80's. We don't have the Constitutional authority to be the policemen of the world. We don't have the Constitutional authority to be building hundreds of bases in something like 130 different countries. That's not what a true republic does. That is what an Empire does.
 
I was going to post a quote from Team America: World Police, but there are more profanities than I would care to filter out.
 
but then you're basically saying all of afghanistan is al queda (how do you spell that anyway? JEESH). i guess i'm more of a fan of secret assassinations instead of bombing whole cities. unless a uniformed army attacks me and written on their uniform is the flag of their country and it says VIVE LA AFGHANISTAN on their arms i guess i'm just not up for disciplining the entire country for a large group of them being wacknuts. I'm more for a small elite force living in afghanistan for a while finding all the al queda people and killing them in their sleep.
 
Tzydl Zhitelava said:
but then you're basically saying all of afghanistan is al queda (how do you spell that anyway? JEESH). i guess i'm more of a fan of secret assassinations instead of bombing whole cities. unless a uniformed army attacks me and written on their uniform is the flag of their country and it says VIVE LA AFGHANISTAN on their arms i guess i'm just not up for disciplining the entire country for a large group of them being wacknuts. I'm more for a small elite force living in afghanistan for a while finding all the al queda people and killing them in their sleep.
Click to expand...


The country is as guilty as the people in it.....you are guilty if you harbor (SP?) criminals...
 
I guess I would have to agree to disagree with that one...america harbors criminals all the time...that would mean the bombing of the two towers was justified due to us harboring those criminals...no nation should be punished for the crimes of a few..but then thats just my personal opinion. Back to the topic....Obama has a very large plate in front of him.
 
Gee-Perwin said:
Simon said:
Suicidal people fighting a war hidden amongst the civilian population and claiming no state, wearing no uniform, but willing to use Ambulances as gun trucks...not a fan
Something to consider....

js
Click to expand...

Attacking Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda was the right move. That is who attacked us on 9/11, and that is who we needed to go after. Congress authorized this attack, but obviously this was blundered when we stopped concentrating on Bin Laden.

We invaded Iraq--a sovereign nation with no air force, no navy, and zero threat to America. We went in under the lie of "weapons of mass destruction." We were told how horrible Saddam Hussein was like it's our job to cleanse a country of it's problems. Now we have an occupation and we're dealing with irrational people who are happy we're there so they can blow up our kids outside of America. Ask yourself this--what would you do if another country invaded America? Wouldn't you be willing to sacrifice it all to defend your home and your family? I'm not saying I agree with the other side, but we ignore their reasons for fighting our occupation at our own cost.

This is what happens when we occupy countries. It happened in Lebanon when we were trying to play referee between Lebanon & Israel back in the early 80's. We don't have the Constitutional authority to be the policemen of the world. We don't have the Constitutional authority to be building hundreds of bases in something like 130 different countries. That's not what a true republic does. That is what an Empire does.
Click to expand...

Um, we tried the whole isolationist thing in the early 20th Century several times. It didn't work. And that was in a time where people couldn't hop a plane and be here in a few hours, in a time without massive telecommunications where they could instruct secret cells and teach people how to build bombs via the internet. If it didn't work in 1910 and 1920 and 1930, what makes you think it's going to work now?

Have you talked to people who have been to Iraq? I mean actual soldiers who have had interaction with the people there? It's not just a bunch of terrorists who want to blow up Americans. There are many, many good people there who want to lead good, decent lives...like everyone in the U.S. has a chance to lead. But their kids have to worry about getting blown up on the way to school. And it was worse under Hussein, unless you were of the "correct" religious sect. But I guess we should just do nothing while a mad dictator kills hundreds of thousands of people. Oh wait, am I talking about 1942 or 2002? Hmmmm. No parallels there. No one thought Hitler was a threat either until it was too late and millions upon millions of people were dead. Imagine if someone would have stood up to him in 1932 instead of waiting until the **** came down on their soil.

It's all nice to have a pollyanna view of "Let's not be the world's policemen." But you know what? We have been for the last 100 years...and the world's saviors as well. There is no hiding in our isolated continent anymore.

Of course people will disagree about where and how we should help on a global scale. But help we must. The world has become too small to just mind our own business. It was too small in 1917, let alone 2008.

A Saudi tanker was just taken yesterday by Somalia pirates, with $100 million in crude on it. There are European, Russian and one American ship out there patrolling for pirates. Should we pull out of there too? Should we let Somalian warlords and pirates steal and kill, from other countries and their own people? We tried just sending them food and helping "peacefully." And the warlords killed their own people to steal the food out of their hands and attacked Red Cross workers.

The bottom line is, don't other people in the world deserve a chance at a good and decent life that probably everyone here has a chance at? You can bet there are millions of kids (billions?) that have a lot more to worry about than arguing politics on a message board...oh wait, only 35% of the people in the world have electricity...that's 4.5 billion people without electricity, let alone internet access. Let's not help them either.

Scott
 
I think we'll see change.

A lot of blatant abuses of power are going to get curbstomped.

We will not be completely out of Iraq anytime during Obama's first term, but the majority of our forces will be. If it descends into chaos, most of the American public will point at how much we put into the country and say "It's on their own hands now."

Obama will have to spend immense amounts of political capital and energy trying to get the United States back on track and pray that the Republicans go along with it- if they don't, we'll all suffer in the end.

If we're lucky, we'll see the country start ticking back up sometime in the next 4-5 years or so. As it stands, we're like an engine that's been run at 200 percent of capacity until it seized up. Some parts are going to have to be replaced, everything needs massive maintence, and we're all going to have to stop trying to drive 150 MPH in a 75 zone.
 
I am not an isolationist, but I think we need to pick our fights carefully.

Afghanistan is where al Quada is hiding and we need to be there looking for them and getting them. I have no problem with that. I want bin Laden caught after all! That should have always been our #1 goal, and I am glad Obama has stated that. (Bush hasn't used the words "bin Laden" in years.)

While it is true that Sadaam was a bad guy, there are lots of bad guys all over the world and we don't have the people or resources to go after them all. I shed no tears over the guy, but attacking Iraq caused us to lose sight of the real enemy in Afghanistan, and when the Iraq war was based on lies ("Sadaam is connected to 9/11, he has weapons of mass destruction") then it's hard to forgive. Justified wars never need lies. The ends don't justify the means.

Iraq at the moment has a budget surplus because of their oil. Meanwhile, we're spending billions over there giving all their people health care and schools while we have uninsured people here in America. And don't get me started on no-bid contracts to Blackwater and other groups that are not overseen by any agency in America and whose members are not answerable in court for anything they do! I want to leave Iraq slowly, to make sure the people there are safe and that they can take care of themselves, but I want to leave.

Once more, no one should ever have the impression that Obama will save us all and we'll have peace all over the world with him. That's just foolish. But I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that we would be best served by continuing Bush's failed policies.

What we need is a sensible foreign policy, with the US as the good guys (good guys don't torture, they don't launch pre-emptive attacks, they don't ignore allies and enemies and say things like "you're either with us or against us"). That's something we've been lacking for 8 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top