Anything Forums

Are people being too critical or not critical enough about Obama? I know I posted a joke in the world's longest thread, but it seems some people's opposition to him goes way past joking. And other people's adoration of him almost reaches the point of worship.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15122

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68971

Agreed.. I try to keep a open mind on the President.. I don't think he's trying to kill old people and I don't think he's Hitler.

On the other hand... I also don't think he's Jesus or even a great president... so far.. he gets a resounding "I'm not dead" vote from me.
see my rating scale below

From Best to Worst

We Elected God (literally)
This guy isn't half bad
well I thought i liked this guy
I'm not dead
Hey we're dying out here
Save us
We elected Satan (literally)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68974

I think that a lot of people had high expectations of him, and there was no way he could actually live up to those expectations. And he was willingly going along with those high expectations on the campaign trail. He promised to quickly end the was in Iraq, and people had expectations that he would do so, yet when he got into office, he acknowledged that the withdrawal would not be as quick as he originally made it sound. I wonder if he just figured that out when he became president, or if he was just unwilling to acknowledge it before the election.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68975

Anyone with half a brain has to know that things aren't as simple as we'd like them to be. Making that promise helped get him elected.. he HAD to have known that he couldn't just say.. "okay shut the war down now"

He fed into peoples expectations and now has the face the reality of those expectations not being reasonable... and hopefully do the best he can.

I was never in the "he can do no wrong" camp.. after all, what are the odds of getting a real GOOD president after 40something pretty bad ones. I'm starting to think that the job just isn't cut out for good people.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68976

FloodG8-9595 wrote: after all, what are the odds of getting a real GOOD president after 40something pretty bad ones.

My my. You are casting a pretty wide net with that "pretty bad" description. Do you actually think that we haven't had any good presidents?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68977

In my estimation it takes a WHOLE lot to be a good president. but, you are right... I really shouldn't say that all of them were pretty bad. but, who in the recent past has really wowed you?
It's hard to be a good president forever... even if you were a good one for your era..

I should say that there are presidents that I like more than others but, the one thing that always keeps me from being a presidential cheerleader is that... their all politicians and gernerally I think people who make that their life these days are only interseted in helping themselves.

Sorry if this is a jumbled mess.. I had to type quickly so I can go pick up that Chicken i mentioned in another thread.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68988

I'd have to say that so far, Obama is the best president we've had since I've been old enough to care. That said, I lean to the left, so that pretty much means I like him a little better than Clinton. But back to the original question, Obama seems to be an almost mindbogglingly polarizing president, and the media and it's "show the controversy" (even when it's not there) mentality hasn't exactly been helping things. It seems to be winding down a little bit everywhere except fox news, but not much. Oh how I long for the day when the media decides to start reporting facts instead of the opinions of a few radicals on either side. Ok, so maybe I'm exaggerating a little on that last bit, but I digress.

News media in general is getting lazy. The problem of course being that it's being handled like any other business, cut costs and increase market share by any means possible. This with traditional media waning as online offerings gain traction makes things even worse. And the online offerings boil down to rumors, AP copypasta, and blogs which are pure opinion. Real reporting is on the decline, in favor of anything that an grab an eyeball or two for 30 seconds.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68990

I don't follow politics that much but yeah, he seems to be good from what I hear. There's of course, "obama haters" but I find most of them just hate him, but don't really have a good reason to. "because he's black" does not count.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68991

manadren wrote: News media in general is getting lazy. The problem of course being that it's being handled like any other business, cut costs and increase market share by any means possible. This with traditional media waning as online offerings gain traction makes things even worse. And the online offerings boil down to rumors, AP copypasta, and blogs which are pure opinion. Real reporting is on the decline, in favor of anything that an grab an eyeball or two for 30 seconds.

I wonder if part of the problem with media is the nature of technology itself. Images and video can be spread around the world before the media has a chance to provide accurate context surrounding those images. Anybody at all can start providing opinions about an image, and have those opinions be read and passed along by hundreds of people. A lot of people though, don't bother reading corrections to previous opinions, if such corrections are even presented. Those people are just interested in looking at the images or video and drawing whatever conclusions they feel like, no matter what the truth may be. Take those recent ACORN videos for instance. They certainly made the organization look bad, but are those videos an accurate reflection of the entire ACORN organization? I'm not so sure. Then people bring up Obama's association with ACORN in an attempt to make Obama look bad.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68992

I can see what you're saying about the technology issue. In fact I was going to bring it up in my last post, but I was already firmly in rant territory and didn't want to drag it out. It's not a new things though. It started with the 24 hour news networks, which on the one hand spawned an urgency to get a story out as soon as possible, and on the other gave a boost to fluff, celebrity, and other stories which wouldn't have gotten coverage if these networks didn't have 24 hours to fill. The immediacy of the internet further hurts things, where people can find out about major happenings within minutes of their occurrence. With quick, though inaccurate, information readily available, I imagine that there is a sense of urgency in the media, not only to beat their competitors, but also to grab a hold of a story before it gets too cold. There's so much of a push to grab snippets of information and move on to the next things, with no one really ever having a chance to digest any of it.

As for the ACORN thing, that kinda pissed me off. Accusations are made, and a single video surfaces from some anti-ACORN conservative group, and congress kills funding for the entire organization, period. Couldn't they have put funding on hold until an independent investigation was conducted? Or are we switching to guilty at accusation? It could've been just the one woman, or the one office at fault. We don't know, and we very well may never know, because apparently all it takes to convince congress, a democratically controlled congress, is to throw out a few allegations and yell really loud.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68994

He has a "He's not Bush" vote from me.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:68998

And now Obama's reputation is going to be marred by his failure to convince the Olympic committee to chose Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. After all, Obama must have done something wrong for them to reject Chicago.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69001

Bookworm wrote: And now Obama's reputation is going to be marred by his failure to convince the Olympic committee to chose Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. After all, Obama must have done something wrong for them to reject Chicago.

Maybe I just live under a rock, but I don’t think Americans care about the Olympics. (I know I sure don’t.)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69003

Speaking of the Olympics, they're this year, in CANADA! I probably wont go, it's all the way at the other end. I'm not that much into it anyway, but it is kinda cool that it's in Canada this year.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69009

Bookworm wrote: And now Obama's reputation is going to be marred by his failure to convince the Olympic committee to chose Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. After all, Obama must have done something wrong for them to reject Chicago.

I think Chicago is the reason they rejected Chicago...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69012

Chyse wrote:

Bookworm wrote: And now Obama's reputation is going to be marred by his failure to convince the Olympic committee to chose Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. After all, Obama must have done something wrong for them to reject Chicago.

I think Chicago is the reason they rejected Chicago...

Ha... too true.

as an american.... I can say that while It's always great to have world events held in our country... I don't really watch the olympics.. I care.. but, I don't care enough...

Obama is a decent guy and overall (leaving out my hatred for politians) I think he's a fair president so far. I'm lukewarm but, happy that we've gotten out of the conservative crap house we've been in for a while. It just doesn't seem that Obama has enough supporters with spines to get anything done half the time.

I'm a libritarian mostley but, a left leaning libritarian... I think that some things the government should handle (I won't list them because I don't feel like it) but other than that I just want to be left alone to do what I want.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69022

So now Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Even he admits that he doesan't deserve it. I guess they give out the prize now simply for good intentions.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/...1929395,00.html

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69052

It doesn't seem like he did anything to deserve it really, but he did a lot for international relations simply by being an American president and not being a dick. After Bush, anyone even vaguely personable would fit the bill really.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69055

Awarding "good intentions", or someone's potential is liable to backfire. One thing that it does accomplish is trivializing the award for future recipients.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69056

Obama's Favorite Words: Let me be clear

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69118

What does Obama need to do to keep from being a one-term president?

The Republicans do seem to be surging.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69847

Republicans are surging, yes, but I don't think it's in the bag. Republicans are calling this a historic change and a sweeping vote against Obama's policies and for the Republican's approach. Historically, it's not all the surprising or unusual. The reality is that these are hard times and the republicans are just reaping the benefits of not being the party in charge. Also a number of republicans are playing the very dangerous game of hindering Obama and the democrats in every way so they can blame them for failure in 2012. This kind of divisiveness that the republicans are drumming up could easily backfire. Then there is the Tea party movement, which is increasingly pulling pieces of the the core republican base to fringe candidates that don't appeal to mainstream voters.

That said, the Democrats aren't really doing much to inspire confidence either. They are the party in power during difficult times and most don't really see the President accomplishing anything. That said he has accomplished a few things in his first two years, and the democrats need to remind people of that. Second, they need to explain to people that the financial crisis is just too big a problem to fix overnight, and that despite republican claims, his plan hasn't failed yet, it's just a slow road to recovery.

Point is though, a lot can change in the next two years, so I'm not willing to place any bets at this point.


(edit for spelling)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69857

manadren wrote: Also a number of republicans are playing the very dangerous game of hindering Obama and the democrats in every way so they can blame them for failure in 2012. This kind of decisiveness that the republicans are drumming up could easily backfire.

I think the Republicans are just worried about another Clinton episode. Clinton went along with some Republican ideas and then claimed the credit for them and ended up with a second term. I personally would rather have some bills passed with Obama getting credit that having no bills passed at all.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69865

I'm sure that the case for at least a few republicans, but on the other hand there are those who have flat out said they want Obama to fail and will vote against whatever he proposes. Maybe we are already seeing a reaction to this kind of maneuvering in the emergence of the Tea Party. That said, I fear for a movement that puts stock in a woman like Sarah Palin.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69868

manadren wrote: I'm sure that the case for at least a few republicans, but on the other hand there are those who have flat out said they want Obama to fail and will vote against whatever he puts proposes. Maybe we are already seeing a reaction to this kind of maneuvering in the emergence of the Tea Party.

I got the impression that the Tea Partiers were the ones who wanted Obama to fail rather than ones who were reacting to that attitude. Of course, there are probably a few different flavors of tea in the Tea Patry.

That said, I fear for a movement that puts stock in a woman like Sarah Palin.

I've never been much impressed with her myself, but I wouldn't use fear to describe my reactions.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3936, old post ID:69870