Is Obama just really Bush II?

Captain America said:

I would ask you to look at the obstruction and resistance to the changes he has tried to impliment and notice who the obstructionists are. A quarterback can't win a game by himself. First, Americans vote him in to do what he said he would do. Then they vote in the people, not much later later, who make that job all but impossible. I blame the people, and the obstructionists they voted in to congress, more than I blame the president.

I hope next term he has learned his lesson and quits even trying to work with the right side of the aisle. To hell with them. If we give him enough people in congress next elections, he can tell the whining malcontents to go to hell. That is, if he grows a bigger nutsack by then. There is NO point in trying to appease or negotiate with those charletons. Ramrod it through. **** 'em.

Click to expand...

On some issues, he has run into serious opposition, such as Gitmo, but other issues, like deportations, assassinations, and crackdowns on medical dispensaries are within his control. Obama has not shown change or leadership on these issue. Do Republicans deserve blame as well, of course, but not everything can be blamed on them.

DrunkenAsparagus said:

On some issues, he has run into serious opposition, such as Gitmo, but other issues, like deportations, assassinations, and crackdowns on medical dispensaries are within his control. Obama has not shown change or leadership on these issue. Do Republicans deserve blame as well, of course, but not everything can be blamed on them.

Click to expand...

I'm sure your right. But I would be delighted to see what Obama could do minus the regressive Tea Party types shunting the majority will of America.

Captain America said:

You MUST tell me your stock brokers name.

Click to expand...

Oh stop it Captain...The symphony was so delightful tonight though I may just give you a few shares. That is after we do a few rounds at the country club, if you can endure the riff raff they hired to do the improvements. Daphne always chastises me to be more tolerant of the working class and I always tell her, well if they could speak english better than we may be able to see eye to eye. Oh, but enough nonesense, we do wish to see you soon Captain...would be a pleasure. Tah tah...

Awesome! said:

Oh stop it Captain...The symphony was so delightful tonight though I may just give you a few shares. That is after we do a few rounds at the country club, if you can endure the riff raff they hired to do the improvements. Daphne always chastises me to be more tolerant of the working class and I always tell her, well if they could speak english better than we may be able to see eye to eye. Oh, but enough nonesense, we do wish to see you soon Captain...would be a pleasure. Tah tah...

Click to expand...

Why yes darling! Please remember to bring the Grey Poupon. Ciao!

specklebang said:

Bush was easily the worst President ever.

Click to expand...

Really?

Worse than the presidents who sent 500,000 Americans to their deaths fighting a civil war that they were too cowardly to prevent?
Worse then the president who turned a recession into the Great Depression by signing a bill he knew would eviscerate the economy?

Bush was bad, no questions about that. But the worst? Hardly.

Paschendale said:

He's certainly an improvement over Bush, but not nearly as much of one as I would have liked. There's a lot that Bush did that I would have liked Obama to oppose, but to some degree, a president kinda has to support his predecessors, or else every successive president will spend half their time just undoing what the past ones did. I would have loved to have seen a grand scale attack on a lot of the war on terror, closing of Gitmo, and a real look at the Patriot Act and attempts to get it repealed. Seems like a lot of people can get behind repealing laws that keep poor people healthy, but stopping warrantless surveillance on American citizens? Hell no. He's a moderate in an increasingly un-moderate country. And it would be damn nice to have a real liberal in office.

Click to expand...

Maybe he didnt revisit the Patriot Act because he LIKES it. He has EXPANDED many of those provisions...not repealed them> He has EXPANDED black-ops prison activity in Afghanistan. On top of the things he has let the liberal left down on he has been completely vacant with regard to foreign policy, the green energy companies are bombing left and right (with no accountability...but hey...they DID make large campaign contributions), gas and oil prices are skyrocketing, unemployment is still beyond critical and in fact only reported as low as it is because people are no longer eligible for benefits...

Bush light? If only.

Hey...he does throw a mean party and can vacation plan like a ****ing BEAST though...so...he has that going for him...

Don't forget, the conservatives are all jealous that our "liberal" President has a Nobel Peace Prize.:2razz:

A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report - "Which Path to Persia?" [3] - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region."
"The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. "

Asia Times Online :: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"But the most obvious test of the president's claim that we're not really engaged in an act of war is to ask: What if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's say a coalition of foreign forces was bombing American cities and killing our citizens with the intent to overthrow our political leadership. How would we respond to an argument by one party to that assault that their use of unmanned weapons to kill Americans shouldn't be deemed an engagement of hostilities with us? Merely to pose the question is to understand the utter preposterousness of the administration's position. The administration's real goal, since it almost certainly would have received congressional approval for war in Libya had it sought it from the beginning, appears to be to extend the principle that when it comes to war and "national security" (increasingly broadly defined), the executive branch should be unconstrained to act as it sees fit. As James Fallows has written, "after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him."

Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger
Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger | Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly[/

Kane said:

Don't forget, the conservatives are all jealous that our "liberal" President has a Nobel Peace Prize.:2razz:

A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report - "Which Path to Persia?" [3] - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region."
"The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. "

Asia Times Online :: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"But the most obvious test of the president's claim that we're not really engaged in an act of war is to ask: What if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's say a coalition of foreign forces was bombing American cities and killing our citizens with the intent to overthrow our political leadership. How would we respond to an argument by one party to that assault that their use of unmanned weapons to kill Americans shouldn't be deemed an engagement of hostilities with us? Merely to pose the question is to understand the utter preposterousness of the administration's position. The administration's real goal, since it almost certainly would have received congressional approval for war in Libya had it sought it from the beginning, appears to be to extend the principle that when it comes to war and "national security" (increasingly broadly defined), the executive branch should be unconstrained to act as it sees fit. As James Fallows has written, "after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him."

Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger
Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger | Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly[/

Click to expand...

What did he do to deserve that again? Oh, nothing? Like he's done the vast majority of his presidency? Oh, cool.

Your Star said:

Sadly, he is Bush light.

Click to expand...

Bush on steroids

Kane said:

Don't forget, the conservatives are all jealous that our "liberal" President has a Nobel Peace Prize.:2razz:

A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"The blueprint for this project is essentially a report produced by the neo-conservative Brookings Institute for regime change in Iran in 2009. The report - "Which Path to Persia?" [3] - continues to be the generic strategic approach for US-led regime change in the region."
"The authors of these reports include, among others, John Hannah and Martin Indyk, both former senior neo-conservative officials from the George W Bush/Dick Cheney administration, and both advocates for regime change in Syria. "

Asia Times Online :: A mistaken case for Syrian regime change

"But the most obvious test of the president's claim that we're not really engaged in an act of war is to ask: What if the shoe were on the other foot? Let's say a coalition of foreign forces was bombing American cities and killing our citizens with the intent to overthrow our political leadership. How would we respond to an argument by one party to that assault that their use of unmanned weapons to kill Americans shouldn't be deemed an engagement of hostilities with us? Merely to pose the question is to understand the utter preposterousness of the administration's position. The administration's real goal, since it almost certainly would have received congressional approval for war in Libya had it sought it from the beginning, appears to be to extend the principle that when it comes to war and "national security" (increasingly broadly defined), the executive branch should be unconstrained to act as it sees fit. As James Fallows has written, "after three months of combat, and after several decades of drift toward unilateral Executive Branch action on matters of war and peace, Obama is doing a disservice to the nation, history, and himself by insisting that the decision should be left strictly to him."

Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger
Obama and Libya: From hopemonger to warmonger | Jonathan Weiler | Independent Weekly[/

Click to expand...

The Brookings Institute is now considered neoconservative? Now I have seen everything.

All of the funders and most of the contributors to neoconservative thought have been connected to other think tanks (AEI, Heritage), but not generally Brookings or RAND (minus Wohlstetter)

Obama has reversed some of Bush's policies, but his big policy changes, the stimulus package and Obamacare, aren't reversals. He didn't turn the ship around. We're going the same direction, only much faster. Bush was Obama Light. Other Bush policies that were supposedly hated, have been left alone and forgotten.
warrantless wiretaps? check
Gitmo? check
Patriot Act? check

DiAnna said:

If I cared enough to spend more time on this topic, I could probably fill the entire page... but I don't care enough. Bottom line with me is a slight +... but damned slight. I would say he disappointed me, but since he's nothing more than a professional campaigner with a great smile, I had no real expectation of him in the first place.

Click to expand...

Cheer up and consider the alternative, McCain and Palin. This year, the alternative isn't any better.

Captain America said:

Other than that, he is EXACTLY like Bush.

Click to expand...

Not hardly...

I also forgot to mention another similarity where Obama's lack of action in the oil spill disaster can be compared to Bush's lack of action at Katrina.

Justice For All said:

I mean look at the evidence and similarities of what Obama has done-

1.He continues wars in the middle east and will likely attack Iran if elected another term
2. Like Bush passed a expensive healthcare bill (Bush's was medicare part D)
3. Passed into law a act for military drones to patrol our own skies while keeping the patriot act. (obviously Bush passed the Patriot Act)
4. Continues to pile on debt like Bush
5. Does nothing about immigration like Bush
6. Continues tax breaks for the rich, case in point he is now wanting to take the corporate tax from 34% to 28%.



That being said I think the republican canidates for 2012 would be Bush III to 99th power, except for Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

On many fronts Obama is just a Bush clone.

There are differences between the two, but overall I'd call the differences in actually policy to be minor. The biggest thing I can think of is repealing DADT, which I give Obama props for. But on foreign policy, Obama has largely followed Bush's blueprint. His tone might be different, but we're still nation building and still pursuing a policy of active interventionism. Both of them spent money like water. Both of them have used to war on terror to expand the power of government at the cost of civil liberties. Obamacare was his baby, but I honestly believe if Bush had another term or if McCain had been elected we would've got something not too terribly different. Precise details would've been different, but we would've got more government involvement and oversight into healthcare no matter who was in the oval office in '08. One area where Obama has really disappointed me was the drug war. I didn't expect him to push for decriminalization or legalization just due to political realities, but I did think he'd back off from prosecuting medical marijuana in particular and put less emphasis on the whole war on drugs in general.

Obama is Bush on steroids.

/thread

My apologies. I meant to say the worst President in my lifetime. The first President I remember was Eisenhower.

obvious Child said:

Really?

Worse than the presidents who sent 500,000 Americans to their deaths fighting a civil war that they were too cowardly to prevent?
Worse then the president who turned a recession into the Great Depression by signing a bill he knew would eviscerate the economy?

Bush was bad, no questions about that. But the worst? Hardly.

Click to expand...

He has done the exact opposite on the economy, and saying that he will declare war on iran is 100% speculation.

The fact of the matter is: These hired guns (not true liberals?) in the talk radio and TV news don't care about society, won't retract false reporting, and only care about exploiting your fears and hatreds for profit. Liberals in talk radio are going way out their way to avoid Obamas Libya invasion, and the Middle East uprisings, 9/11 Truth, war on terror issues in general, and how the Democratic Party rubber stamps George W. Bush's defense policy all the time. TALK ABOUT IGNORING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM! There is SERIOUS DAMAGE CONTROL going on at liberal talk radio.

The Left Gatekeepers (May 4, 2008)


"I love this level of humanity and hearing intelligent voices casually discussing meaningful topics of sociopolitical concern.

NPR has always been so effing phony and sold-out and KPFA and Pacifica, well, for years Democrats have been trying to water that down. So, they've got these pro-MoveOn, pro-reform-Democratic-Party-from-within-instead-of-build-a-strong-Left-party, Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club Democrats that have been pushing KPFA towards NPR-isation for at least a decade. But thanks to the dedication of grassroots listeners, they've been stymied to some extent. The grassroots people never seem to have as much cash or power-bureaucrats on their side, but they have the power of truth and conviction of their side.

Now, this Media Roots radio broadcast is truly refreshing and such an antidote to the uptight variety of intellectual radio that used to be the only conception I had of what radical radio can be. Thank you for giving listeners alternatives.

May terrestrial radio pick this up and broadcast it far and wide in people's cars and kitchens."

MEDIAROOTS



C-SPAN Callers School Terror War Profiteers Cheerleader On Underwear Bomber Fairy Tale

Revolutionary Politics::Revolutionary Politics : C-SPAN Callers School Terror War Profiteers Cheerleader On Underwear Bomber Fairy Tale

Captain America said:

I'm sure your right. But I would be delighted to see what Obama could do minus the regressive Tea Party types shunting the majority will of America.

Click to expand...

On some issues, he'd probably be worse. He's increased black ops and made little effort to change Bush's policies. He has allowed provisions of the Patriot Act to expand, and at least George Bush asked Congress for the A'OK before pursuing military action in another country. You cannot say the same for Obama's support for the resistance in Libya. The guy might have been sidetracked by Tea Party types, but at best he has shown very little leadership on most civil liberties issues, if he is not outright hostile toward them. Perhaps if the Left kept up the same support for these things as they did when Bush was President, they could counteract these Tea Party types.

danarhea said:

Obama is Bush on steroids.

Click to expand...

Yup.

The TV debates never let Ron Paul talk about the endless wars that bankrupted America the last 10 years, just like back in the 80's when Reagan bankrupted the U.S. Treasury with huge deficits fighting the Soviets, we armed the nation with huge MX missle and defense buildups. No one ever benefited from that military buildup except the defense industry and big oil, just like today. Just like no one benefitted from the Korean war and the Vietnam war, all done for profits.

The corp. media never talk about the human casualties and the human suffering caused by the wars and U.S. intervention in the "Arab Spring" uprisings. All the news media/talk radio wants us to focus on is this sham election and rigged primaries this whole last year and in 2012, who's up in the polls, and religous nonsense. The corporate media conglomerates share boards of directors with these huge war profiteers/ defense contractors, big oil, and those companies that profit from war. The controlled corp. media monopoly press, the electronic voting machines together, with the rigged tabloid TV/ radio three ring circus, make sure Big Brother has all his bases covered. And the message from the govmnt/ big business is: vote for your corporate candidate for more corporate profits that benefit corporate America.

Real change to our government has been taken "off the table," just like prosecuting Bush/Cheney was.

Americans who are really informed and really have a conscience about stopping the carnage in the Middle East and Asia, and who really are humanitarians and want to advance the brotherhood of man,would demand a third and fourth party, and they most certainly would not vote for these 2 identical, corrupt, Republican and Democrat parties.

I think you guys are missing the glaringly obvious difference of Obama actually having a functioning brain. Obama has been fighting a congress that is so dysfunctional it is almost non-existent. That being said, he has gotten a surprisingly long list of accomplishments, all while painting the Republicans into a corner as being the corporate lap dogs they are.

You have to understand that there is not going to be any major differences between presidents when the congress that actually controls things is made up of the same idiots that were there with the previous administration.

I voted yes, primarily because his policies have been approximating that of Bush's lately.