According to David Axelrod, anti-Americanism isn't cool any more because Barack Obama is president.
What ?
Does this mean i've got to love you guys now ?Or i would lose my coolness ?
Damn.
|
I certainly perceive this to be true in my environs. There's a much more positive opinion of the States here in Canada (or at the very least, in Ottawa, with the people I spend time with) since Obama was elected.
Come on! A Canadian dessert franchise has released a special dessert just for Obama!
When Canada immortalizes you in the form of a deep-fried pastry, you know you've made it into the public's heart!
|
Okay, I hadn't meant this to be a serious thread, but since it went that way I'll ask the question. Is President Obama any smarter than President Bush, or is he just portrayed that way? Political scientists have known since the Kennedy-Nixon debate that perception is often much mopre powerful than reality. In fact the debate proved this, as people who watched the debate on television regarded Kennedy as the winner while those who listened on the radio believed Nixon had won. There are plenty of examples of "Bushism" uttered by Obama during the campaign that just got written off because of who said them. Since Obama hasn't even been president for 100 days yet, how can you be certain that he is a better president then Bush was? Or is it just the effects of a slick and admittedly brilliant campaign of marketing Barack Obama?
The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.
While I personally believe that Obama is/will be a better president than Bush was, I have to admit that you're right. Obama hasn't actually done anything different that I am aware of. However, after all the trouble perceived with Bush, people are excited to have a new president who they believe will do better.
Not to mention, Obama tends to come off as less hostile to other countries than Bush did.
|
|
The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.
He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.
Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.Okay, what has he done to prove he is smarter?
Well, see, the Democrats broke into the Secret Bush Department of Secretness (we had to kill a couple guards, it was tough), and we read teh records. We saw that not only is Obama smarter, he is much more moral (but then, all democrats are more moral...'cause we can prove it with these stolen records! ;)
Although, we cannot deny that Republicans like Lincoln.
|
I thought the Brits hated Obama because he disrespected all the traditions that useally accompany the first meeting between the leaders of the two countries.
The British have begun to worry about the “special relationship” in the Anglosphere since the election of Barack Obama. First, the visit from Gordon Brown failed to get the usual Rose Garden joint-presser treatment from the White House this week. Now the Daily Mail reports that Obama cheaped out on the traditional gift exchange, rustling up some DVDs in exchange for a thoughtful gift from Brown:
Gordon Brown has been given a collection of 25 classic American films on DVD as his official gift from Barack Obama.
The Prime Minister flew home from his successful trip to Washington this morning with the ’special collector’s box’ of films hidden in his luggage.
No 10 had tried to keep the present a secret, refusing to answer reporters who asked what President Obama had given to mark the reaffirmation of the special relationship.
Wow. You know, Amazon often sells collections like that at steep discounts, even in Blu-Ray. Thankfully, Obama saved the US taxpayers a few bucks. I’m sure that Brown put a similarly negligent amount of thought into his gift, right? Right?
Er …
Mr Brown’s gifts included an ornamental desk pen holder made from the oak timbers of Victorian anti-slaver HMS Gannet, once named HMS President.
Mr Obama was so delighted he has already put it in pride of place in the Oval Office on the Resolute desk which was carved from timbers of Gannet’s sister ship, HMS Resolute.
Another treasure given to the U.S. President was the framed commission for HMS Resolute, a vessel that came to symbolise Anglo-US peace when it was saved from ice packs by Americans and given to Queen Victoria.
Finally, Mr Brown gave a first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Churchill by Sir Martin Gilbert.
Brown also brought gifts for Obama’s daughters, a rather gracious act, especially considering the reciprocity. The Daily Mail also notes that Brown isn’t a film buff anyway, which makes the DVD set rather pointless.
People objected when Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill to the British Embassy, which had loaned it to George Bush eight years ago. I didn’t find that surprising, especially given the history of Obama’s grandfather, or at least how Obama understands it. I’d not likely keep a bust of Oliver Cromwell in the West Wing if I were President, gift or not, for similar reasons. (I’m an admirer of Churchill, though.)
However, this seems like a rather deliberate insult, or at best diplomatic incompetence. It’s one thing to cheap out on a gift for a friend or relative at Christmas, but the British have stood by the US for many long decades, through some very dark times. Despite unpopularity at home, they remained at our side in Iraq and Afghanistan. They deserve a little more effort from this administration, and a hell of a lot more appreciation.
Update: Ace and Moe Lane have more thoughts about the thoughtlessness, which extends to the First Lady as well. Two plastic replicas of Marine One from the White House gift store for Brown’s sons? Wow. Don’t strain a biceps with that effort, Mrs. Obama.
|
|
The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.
Except even Obama admits that the order he gave to close Gitmo has no teeth, and he also admits that the procedures he "banned" have not been used since 2005. So the two acts that give him moral legitimacy are both entirely symbolic and don't actually do anything.
|
|
Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.And you know them both personaly to make this statment. Or are you going off the impresion you get from the way they are portrayed in the media?
Obama's speeches and other public utterances are of a much superior calibre to Bush's. (And I mean full speeches, not the snippets shown in the media). They are thoughtful, nuanced and hopeful. Further, they are intellectual while still being able to be understood by the masses. I also think Obama's media image is much better cultivated. He's very aware of the possibilities of new media, and used them brilliantly during his campaign and his time so far in office.
I don't think Bush was dumb though. I think he was a smart man, who just made a lot of bad choices and had many slips of the tongue. I disagreed with Bush on policy grounds, as they were abhorrent to any right thinking person.
|
|
1.- The US is giving an image of "we're an evolving country and we embrace different people" by electing for the first time a president like that.
2.- So far, also, there haven't been enough slips to portray Obama as stupid, unlike "Bushisms" that were known worldwide. Not saying that Bush is/was stupid, but he almost seemed to make an extra effort every day to seem like a ridiculous person when appearing in the media.
3.- The speeches we hear on other countries haven't been, so far, intolerant; Bush pitched the world against the US when he got into the "with us or against us" attitude when the Iraq war was imminent, for example.
(I'm basically agreeing with the poster above me).
|
Obama's speeches and other public utterances are of a much superior calibre to Bush's.Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.And you know them both personaly to make this statment. Or are you going off the impresion you get from the way they are portrayed in the media?
Get him away from that teleprompter, and his oratory skills fail to impress. He reads off a teleprompter better. Bully for him.
Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.Okay, what has he done to prove he is smarter?
<cheap shot>
Speak in complete sentences?</cheap shot>
|
|
Obama's speeches and other public utterances are of a much superior calibre to Bush's.Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.And you know them both personaly to make this statment. Or are you going off the impresion you get from the way they are portrayed in the media?Get him away from that teleprompter, and his oratory skills fail to impress. He reads off a teleprompter better. Bully for him.
Outside the teleprompter his speeches go somthing like this.
"Uhm..well..ah..you see its the uh not uhm its not uh...."
|
|
2.- So far, also, there haven't been enough slips to portray Obama as stupid, unlike "Bushisms" that were known worldwide.
No, there have been plenty, they're just always dismissed as him being "tired" or "distracted".
Dude is an American politician. Smart people do not become American politicians.
I said "enough slips". I wouldn't say he's perfect. Or maybe you're right and he sometimes says things that would get him into trouble, yet he hasn't done anything to upset the world media enough to get them against him.
Yet, we have to know more about him. For example, just before this last period ended, I was amazed by Bush's AC! I mean, he evaded -twice- a guy with at least, +6/+1 BAB and proficiency on attack rolls with boot-in-hand!
|
|
Except even Obama admits that the order he gave to close Gitmo has no teeth, and he also admits that the procedures he "banned" have not been used since 2005. So the two acts that give him moral legitimacy are both entirely symbolic and don't actually do anything.The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.
Define 'Has no teeth'? Do you mean that the President can't close the detention camp down, or what?
And yes, torture may not have been committed by the CIA since 2005, but Obama moved quickly to make sure it wouldn't happen again. Which is a good thing. It may just be symbolic, but it's still a great move. You think you'll win over the masses of moderate muslims in the world if the US tortures people in the black legal hole of Gitmo? No, you won't, and you'll lose the 'War' on Terror because of it. Standing up and saying 'This is the United States of America, where we respect the rights of even those trying to kill us, and give them a fair and legal trial, under US law' does win the respect of people. Sure, it might just be PR, but you've got to be better then your enemies.
|
|
2.- So far, also, there haven't been enough slips to portray Obama as stupid, unlike "Bushisms" that were known worldwide.
No, there have been plenty, they're just always dismissed as him being "tired" or "distracted".
Dude is an American politician. Smart people do not become American politicians.
I said "enough slips". I wouldn't say he's perfect. Or maybe you're right and he sometimes says things that would get him into trouble, yet he hasn't done anything to upset the world media enough to get them against him.
Yet, we have to know more about him. For example, just before this last period ended, I was amazed by Bush's AC! I mean, he evaded -twice- a guy with at least, +6/+1 BAB and proficiency on attack rolls with boot-in-hand!
And, to Bush's credit (and I'm not one for giving him too much credit) he basically laughed in the guy's face the whole time. :)
|
|
Yet, we have to know more about him. For example, just before this last period ended, I was amazed by Bush's AC! I mean, he evaded -twice- a guy with at least, +6/+1 BAB and proficiency on attack rolls with boot-in-hand!2.- So far, also, there haven't been enough slips to portray Obama as stupid, unlike "Bushisms" that were known worldwide.
skills honed ducking flying shoes from his wife when he would stumble home late before he got sober.
|
|
One might also take note of the exchange of responses with the French after Obama recommended the accession of Turkey to the EU.
The French said, paraphrasing, "This is a European decision, and we will decide this based on our best interests."
Obama replied, again paraphrasing, "Yes it is, but friends give friends advice on such things."
The French response, yet another paraphrase, "Pike that screed, and sod off berk." Err, "Once again, this is a European decision and it will be made by Europeans. We need no advice from you on the matter."
Can you feel the love and mutual respect?
Apparently the advice of friends is something that Europe gives to America, and Obama crams up America's . . . dignity.
|
|
Obama's speeches and other public utterances are of a much superior calibre to Bush's.Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.And you know them both personaly to make this statment. Or are you going off the impresion you get from the way they are portrayed in the media?Get him away from that teleprompter, and his oratory skills fail to impress. He reads off a teleprompter better. Bully for him.
Did you watch any of the presidential debates? His oratory skills there were quite impressive. Besides, every modern politician uses a teleprompter.
At least use a better attack on Obama, eh?
|
|
Obama's speeches and other public utterances are of a much superior calibre to Bush's.Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.And you know them both personaly to make this statment. Or are you going off the impresion you get from the way they are portrayed in the media?Get him away from that teleprompter, and his oratory skills fail to impress. He reads off a teleprompter better. Bully for him.
Did you watch any of the presidential debates? His oratory skills there were quite impressive. Besides, every modern politician uses a teleprompter.
At least use a better attack on Obama, eh?
Yes I watched several of the debates probably more than I cared to but I also watched his "town hall meetings" where when asked a question his favorite word became Welluhhhm
|
|
Except even Obama admits that the order he gave to close Gitmo has no teeth, and he also admits that the procedures he "banned" have not been used since 2005. So the two acts that give him moral legitimacy are both entirely symbolic and don't actually do anything.The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.Define 'Has no teeth'? Do you mean that the President can't close the detention camp down, or what?
According to US News and World Reports the order to close Gitmo contained "significant loopholes" including allowing rendition to continue and tabling the discussion of any details of how and when to actually close the doors at Gitmo and what to do with the prisoners for at least six months. Therefore, while a symbolic order to close Gitmo was signed on January 22, 2009; the earliest any real discussion of the specifics will not begin until at least the very end of June or beginning of July. On January 23, the New York Times even reported that the decision that may come out of that meeting, when it is held, will be to keep Gitmo open.
|
|
Obama's speeches and other public utterances are of a much superior calibre to Bush's.Both. He is smarter, and his image is better portrayed.And you know them both personaly to make this statment. Or are you going off the impresion you get from the way they are portrayed in the media?Get him away from that teleprompter, and his oratory skills fail to impress. He reads off a teleprompter better. Bully for him.
Did you watch any of the presidential debates? His oratory skills there were quite impressive. Besides, every modern politician uses a teleprompter.
At least use a better attack on Obama, eh?
Yes, I saw the debates, and, no, he wasn't "impressive", unless you mean impressive, as in, being able to ramble on about nothing for a bit.
Uzzy, I'm politically neutral when it comes to American politics, I hate BOTH major parties with a passion. You aren't going to persuade me of anything, since I already know where your biases lie. I don't care that the masses in Europe like Obama, I care that the LEADERS in Europe are apparently dismissing him as a light weight. (And the leaders in the Middle East, and Pakistan, and Central and South America...).
|
|
Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)
Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.
When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
|
|
One might also take note of the exchange of responses with the French after Obama recommended the accession of Turkey to the EU.
The French said, paraphrasing, "This is a European decision, and we will decide this based on our best interests."
Obama replied, again paraphrasing, "Yes it is, but friends give friends advice on such things."
The French response, yet another paraphrase, "Pike that screed, and sod off berk." Err, "Once again, this is a European decision and it will be made by Europeans. We need no advice from you on the matter."Can you feel the love and mutual respect?
Apparently the advice of friends is something that Europe gives to America, and Obama crams up America's . . . dignity.
I loved the French president's answer when he was asked how Obama was going to arrive at the ceremony celebration D-Day in June. He said, "maybe he will walk across the English Channel and come ashore that way."
|
|
Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.
When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
Which, even Obama admits, is what is going to happen regardless of what we do.
|
|
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
Well, I suppose the people who train our Special Forces and Pilots are "bad guys" then. The SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, and the Green Berets all go through those things as a matter of course during portions of their training.
Have someone from Paizo pop over to Ft. Lewis to see what our elite go through during training...
|
|
Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.
When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
It's what they do now and yes it is torture and there are no "good guys" in war.Somtimes even when you dont really care to you just do what you hafta do to protect the people you were sworn to protect even if cost you a little of your humanity.I don't like it but it's the hard truth.
|
|
According to US News and World Reports the order to close Gitmo contained "significant loopholes" including allowing rendition to continue and tabling the discussion of any details of how and when to actually close the doors at Gitmo and what to do with the prisoners for at least six months. Therefore, while a symbolic order to close Gitmo was signed on January 22, 2009; the earliest any real discussion of the specifics will not begin until at least the very end of June or beginning of July. On January 23, the New York Times even reported that the decision that may come out of that meeting, when it is held, will be to keep Gitmo open.Except even Obama admits that the order he gave to close Gitmo has no teeth, and he also admits that the procedures he "banned" have not been used since 2005. So the two acts that give him moral legitimacy are both entirely symbolic and don't actually do anything.The above is particularly apt since he hasn't fundamentally changed any of Bush's policies. So far all he has really done is given a lot of speeches apologizing for the previous administration without actually changing anything.He banned the CIA from torturing people, and he ordered Gitmo closed. Frankly, he could do nothing else, and still be remembered for those acts. Two great acts from Obama, which start to give the US back its moral legitimacy.Define 'Has no teeth'? Do you mean that the President can't close the detention camp down, or what?
Regarding Rendition, would that be to the CIA Blacksites that were recently ordered to be shut down?
And yes, it's understandable that the closure of Gitmo will take some time. Bush left dangerous men in there, in a legal black hole. Any evidence against them could be easily thrown out of court, as it was probably obtained through torture. I think him taking time to see what the best options are is probably the best way forward, and I'm happy to give him that time. Now, if after a year, Gitmo is still open, and there isn't a damn good explanation from President Obama, then you'll see me criticising him a lot. However, I do not think that is going to happen, given Obama's willingness to move away from the Bush era tactics.
|
|
Which, even Obama admits, is what is going to happen regardless of what we do.Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.
When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
Yes they will. So you going to lower yourself to their level? (I also note you didn't answer the question. Would it be torture or not?)
|
|
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.Well, I suppose the people who train our Special Forces and Pilots are "bad guys" then. The SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, and the Green Berets all go through those things as a matter of course during portions of their training.
Have someone from Paizo pop over to Ft. Lewis to see what our elite go through during training...
That's training. Not the real thing, jeez! Not at all comparable.(And I see you also didn't answer the question.)
|
|
Bush left dangerous men in there, in a legal black hole.
No, they left themselves in a "legal black hole" as the Geneva Conventions specifically exclude them from the rights afforded to soldiers and civilians.
They also aren't covered by the Constitution of the U.S. as they a) are not U.S. citizens (the courts correctly ruled that both Padilla and John Walker Linhd were to be given their rights as citizens back, and that they had to be tried in Federal Court, with right to counsel, as they were citizens), b) were not legal U.S. residents, and c) were not in the U.S. when they committed their crime.
Our Constitution doesn't cover everyone in the world, it is an internal document for the orderly running of OUR nation, period. Napoleonic Code doesn't apply to U.S. citizens unless we happen to be in France when we commit a crime, and the French aren't going to take our Constitution under advisement in the handling of American citizens who commit a crime there. And they shouldn't. So, the rest of the world needs to stop demanding WE take our Constitution and the Geneva Conventions into account for people who are covered by neither.
|
|
It's what they do now and yes it is torture and there are no "good guys" in war.Somtimes even when you dont really care to you just do what you hafta do to protect the people you were sworn to protect even if cost you a little of your humanity.I don't like it but it's the hard truth.Not to be overly rude Uzzy but I couldn't care less for the rights of someone who was tryin to kill me. I know thats not an evolved way of thinking but I wasn't called Captian Caveman fer nothing in Highschool ;)Me neither, when they are trying to kill me. Self defence and all that.
When you've captured them though, then you should respect their rights, under international law.
Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.
Well at least you answered the question! :)
I disagree in two respects. Firstly, torture isn't that effective. People say anything to stop the pain, so you'll get just that. Anything. Could be good information, could just as easily be bad information. Or a false confession.
Secondly, it's something that causes the US to lose some of it's moral superiority. You can't win an ideological struggle by showing yourself to be just as bad as the other guys. You can bet that Gitmo and the torturing of suspects in there and other CIA Blacksites has acted as a recruiting agent for Al-queda and other terrorist groups out there.
|
|
Actually I did answer the question and I've been lucky enough to know a couple of SEALs their training can/will/does break lesser men like most of us.
this argument is getting nowhere... I do think it's odd that people in other countries will burn my nations flag in protest but sudenly cheer us when we get a new prez... that is not protesting a president thats disrespecting every american citizen.
Director of Sales
|
Okay, I hadn't meant this to be a serious thread, but since it went that way...
Really? C'mon...
On topic:
President Obama made a stupid off-hand remark about the Special Olympics on the David Letterman Show.
Before the cascade of criticism even started, he realized the error in the remark, apologized, and invited representatives of the Special Olympics to the White House.
This is not the type of action I would have expected from the previous administration.
|
|
That's training. Not the real thing, jeez! Not at all comparable.(And I see you also didn't answer the question.)Let me put it another way. If Iran captured some US Special Forces, or a US Pilot, snooping around their country, and stuck them in a legal black hole, waterboarded and 'walled' them, would you say it's torture? Of course you would. Torture is the thing the bad guys do.Well, I suppose the people who train our Special Forces and Pilots are "bad guys" then. The SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, and the Green Berets all go through those things as a matter of course during portions of their training.
Have someone from Paizo pop over to Ft. Lewis to see what our elite go through during training...
We don't hold back in our training. Sorry. They get the real thing.
And, I'm sorry, I'm a bit more pragmatic about things. I'm not losing much sleep over the guy who planned the attack that killed 3000 people getting dunked in water, as to gather info to prevent further attacks.
|
|
Okay, I hadn't meant this to be a serious thread, but since it went that way...Really? C'mon...
On topic:
President Obama made a stupid off-hand remark about the Special Olympics on the David Letterman Show.
Before the cascade of criticism even started, he realized the error in the remark, apologized, and invited representatives of the Special Olympics to the White House.
This is not the type of action I would have expected from the previous administration.
Yeah, the previous administration was too busy sending more money to Africa to combat malaria and HIV than any other administration.
Try again, Cosmo.