The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[First 100 Days] Voter's Remorse...

168101112

Posts

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Now now, let us not so quickly forget the great traditions of anti-Irish, anti-Polish, anti-Italian, and anti-Catholic fervor in this country's history.

    True enough. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of the bullshit that was perpetuated to persecute other minority groups. It's just that no one is saying stuff about them now.

    Romney had to give a speech on his Mormonism. Granted it was 180 from Kennedy's Catholic speech decades ago, but still.
    Being Mormon is a choice. Being black, not so much.

    Sorry, I had forgot how insignificant an issue religious tolerance is.

    Relgion is something you actively choose to believe. People have every right to criticize you for it.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Stepped in it Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I honestly don't know how to read that comment as anything but, "Black support doesn't count."

    They count, just only about 3/5ths the amount of white support.

    Also,

    Joan of Argghh!

    Apr 29, 2009

    It's a vile example, but I'm afraid Jack is pretty much spot-on. The monolith of the black voter must be corralled and controlled at any cost.


    ...The Fuck?
    Y'know, I've always tried to be tolerant of people whose views were wrong, but ever since the teabagging, somewhere in my heart of heart I've had this nagging little voice that says what this country really needs is a good cull.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Now now, let us not so quickly forget the great traditions of anti-Irish, anti-Polish, anti-Italian, and anti-Catholic fervor in this country's history.

    True enough. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of the bullshit that was perpetuated to persecute other minority groups. It's just that no one is saying stuff about them now.

    Romney had to give a speech on his Mormonism. Granted it was 180 from Kennedy's Catholic speech decades ago, but still.
    Being Mormon is a choice. Being black, not so much.

    Sorry, I had forgot how insignificant an issue religious tolerance is.

    Relgion is something you actively choose to believe. People have every right to criticize you for it.

    Prejudice is a far cry different from criticism.

    moniker on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    Relgion is something you actively choose to believe. People have every right to criticize you for it.

    I think it depends on what you criticize specifically, and whether or not that criticism extends to unfair treatment.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Now now, let us not so quickly forget the great traditions of anti-Irish, anti-Polish, anti-Italian, and anti-Catholic fervor in this country's history.

    True enough. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of the bullshit that was perpetuated to persecute other minority groups. It's just that no one is saying stuff about them now.

    Romney had to give a speech on his Mormonism. Granted it was 180 from Kennedy's Catholic speech decades ago, but still.
    Being Mormon is a choice. Being black, not so much.

    Sorry, I had forgot how insignificant an issue religious tolerance is.
    Choosing to be a part of a racist, homophobic religion that posthumously drags historical figures into itself is a far cry from being born black or gay.

    I don't see how that's even remotely in question.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Now now, let us not so quickly forget the great traditions of anti-Irish, anti-Polish, anti-Italian, and anti-Catholic fervor in this country's history.

    True enough. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of the bullshit that was perpetuated to persecute other minority groups. It's just that no one is saying stuff about them now.

    Romney had to give a speech on his Mormonism. Granted it was 180 from Kennedy's Catholic speech decades ago, but still.
    Being Mormon is a choice. Being black, not so much.

    Sorry, I had forgot how insignificant an issue religious tolerance is.

    Relgion is something you actively choose to believe. People have every right to criticize you for it.

    Prejudice is a far cry different from criticism.

    One of the things you have to do when running for office is assure voters that you share their values.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I honestly don't know how to read that comment as anything but, "Black support doesn't count."

    Goddamn New York Times... the newspaper deserves to die.
    ...That was from the Washington Examiner.

    Also, the bad New York paper is the Post, the Times is the good one.
    "On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are." —Byron York, The Washington Examiner

    That's where my confusion came in; my bad.

    Henroid on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Now now, let us not so quickly forget the great traditions of anti-Irish, anti-Polish, anti-Italian, and anti-Catholic fervor in this country's history.

    True enough. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of the bullshit that was perpetuated to persecute other minority groups. It's just that no one is saying stuff about them now.

    Romney had to give a speech on his Mormonism. Granted it was 180 from Kennedy's Catholic speech decades ago, but still.
    Being Mormon is a choice. Being black, not so much.

    Sorry, I had forgot how insignificant an issue religious tolerance is.
    Choosing to be a part of a racist, homophobic religion that posthumously drags historical figures into itself is a far cry from being born black or gay.

    I don't see how that's even remotely in question.

    Nor do I see the relevance in that determining how well someone can perform any number of tasks. Did you refuse to vote for John Kerry because you dislike the views of the Pope?

    moniker on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Heartlash wrote: »
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    What's the Sorry...Lost business?

    I'm not positive, but I assume it means "Sorry, I can't come, I'm going to watch Lost instead."

    I think it's also a joke on how the Republicans literally lost in the GE
    Somewhat of a double joke

    Rent on
  • ZerokkuZerokku Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Raynaga wrote: »
    I have family that are Mormon, and that religion scares the crap out of me.

    Try having actually been one. :|

    Zerokku on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Now now, let us not so quickly forget the great traditions of anti-Irish, anti-Polish, anti-Italian, and anti-Catholic fervor in this country's history.

    True enough. I'm not nearly as knowledgeable of the bullshit that was perpetuated to persecute other minority groups. It's just that no one is saying stuff about them now.

    Romney had to give a speech on his Mormonism. Granted it was 180 from Kennedy's Catholic speech decades ago, but still.
    Being Mormon is a choice. Being black, not so much.

    Sorry, I had forgot how insignificant an issue religious tolerance is.
    Choosing to be a part of a racist, homophobic religion that posthumously drags historical figures into itself is a far cry from being born black or gay.

    I don't see how that's even remotely in question.
    Nor do I see the relevance in that determining how well someone can perform any number of tasks. Did you refuse to vote for John Kerry because you dislike the views of the Pope?
    Never entered my mind. Nor did Romney's mormonism enter the equation that led to my lack of support for his candidacy.

    My entire point is that Kennedy didn't give a speach about being Irish, he gave one about being Catholic. Ethnic identity (unfortunately mostly white ethnic identities) isn't a matter of choice the way that religious identity is, and therefor shouldn't require justification on the same level. A race is something that you have/are, a religion is something you believe in. That means it informs your decisionmaking on an entirely different level and it's something you can walk away from when it makes you look like a hateful shithead.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited April 2009
    Zerokku wrote: »
    Raynaga wrote: »
    I have family that are Mormon, and that religion scares the crap out of me.

    Try having actually been one. :|

    Don't feel bad; when I was a kid, my mom used to drag me and my sisters to Robert Tilton's church. Yes, I was one of thousands of weekly witnesses to faith healing. Hell, one of my mom's elderly friends swore that she could walk better after Tilton did the laying of hands on her. The place was a cult in everything but name.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Nor do I see the relevance in that determining how well someone can perform any number of tasks. Did you refuse to vote for John Kerry because you dislike the views of the Pope?
    Never entered my mind. Nor did Romney's mormonism enter the equation that led to my lack of support for his candidacy.

    My entire point is that Kennedy didn't give a speach about being Irish, he gave one about being Catholic. Ethnic identity (unfortunately mostly white ethnic identities) isn't a matter of choice the way that religious identity is, and therefor shouldn't require justification on the same level. A race is something that you have/are, a religion is something you believe in.

    Religion is as much a cultural identity, in many instances, as ethnicity is. How many non-religious Jews are there? To simply dismiss that away as something that you can just convert out of if you felt like it is failing to see the forest for the trees.

    moniker on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Nor do I see the relevance in that determining how well someone can perform any number of tasks. Did you refuse to vote for John Kerry because you dislike the views of the Pope?
    Never entered my mind. Nor did Romney's mormonism enter the equation that led to my lack of support for his candidacy.

    My entire point is that Kennedy didn't give a speach about being Irish, he gave one about being Catholic. Ethnic identity (unfortunately mostly white ethnic identities) isn't a matter of choice the way that religious identity is, and therefor shouldn't require justification on the same level. A race is something that you have/are, a religion is something you believe in.

    Religion is as much a cultural identity, in many instances, as ethnicity is. How many non-religious Jews are there? To simply dismiss that away as something that you can just convert out of if you felt like it is failing to see the forest for the trees.
    The fact remains that it's a choice. That puts it on a completely different playing field than race, sexual orientation or nation of origin.

    I'm not saying we should hate on anyone because of their religion. Just that membership in a given religion says a lot more about how that person is going to act (because it's a choice to follow a specific set of tenets) than does skin color or sexual orientation.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Nor do I see the relevance in that determining how well someone can perform any number of tasks. Did you refuse to vote for John Kerry because you dislike the views of the Pope?
    Never entered my mind. Nor did Romney's mormonism enter the equation that led to my lack of support for his candidacy.

    My entire point is that Kennedy didn't give a speach about being Irish, he gave one about being Catholic. Ethnic identity (unfortunately mostly white ethnic identities) isn't a matter of choice the way that religious identity is, and therefor shouldn't require justification on the same level. A race is something that you have/are, a religion is something you believe in.

    Religion is as much a cultural identity, in many instances, as ethnicity is. How many non-religious Jews are there? To simply dismiss that away as something that you can just convert out of if you felt like it is failing to see the forest for the trees.
    The fact remains that it's a choice. That puts it on a completely different playing field than race, sexual orientation or nation of origin.

    I'm not saying we should hate on anyone because of their religion. Just that membership in a given religion says a lot more about how that person is going to act (because it's a choice to follow a specific set of tenets) than does skin color or sexual orientation.

    That such bigotry still existing is the single point which started this wonderful tangent.

    moniker on
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Nor do I see the relevance in that determining how well someone can perform any number of tasks. Did you refuse to vote for John Kerry because you dislike the views of the Pope?
    Never entered my mind. Nor did Romney's mormonism enter the equation that led to my lack of support for his candidacy.

    My entire point is that Kennedy didn't give a speach about being Irish, he gave one about being Catholic. Ethnic identity (unfortunately mostly white ethnic identities) isn't a matter of choice the way that religious identity is, and therefor shouldn't require justification on the same level. A race is something that you have/are, a religion is something you believe in.

    Religion is as much a cultural identity, in many instances, as ethnicity is. How many non-religious Jews are there? To simply dismiss that away as something that you can just convert out of if you felt like it is failing to see the forest for the trees.
    The fact remains that it's a choice. That puts it on a completely different playing field than race, sexual orientation or nation of origin.

    I'm not saying we should hate on anyone because of their religion. Just that membership in a given religion says a lot more about how that person is going to act (because it's a choice to follow a specific set of tenets) than does skin color or sexual orientation.

    That such bigotry still existing is the single point which started this wonderful tangent.
    Bigotry of all stripes is stupid and we should strive to end it in all it's forms.

    Qualified decisions based on information about candidates (including what their religious and secular affiliations say about their potential style of governance) are part and parcel of an informed electorate taking an active part in their own democracy.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • StericaSterica Yes Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited May 2009
    Basically, you don't say "I'm not voting for him because he's Mormon!" but rather "I'm not voting for him because his Mormon views influence his politics in negative ways."

    Sterica on
    YL9WnCY.png
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Basically, you don't say "I'm not voting for him because he's Mormon!" but rather "I'm not voting for him because his Mormon views influence his politics in negative ways."
    In essence, yes.

    I wouldn't have voted for him based on his stances on abortion, gay rights, environmentalism, corporatism, the war, etc. Some of that stuff is directly tied to his faith. I'm not going to ignore it because it's due to his religion, and I'm not going to ignore the ways in which his membership in that faith informs other, less advertised issues like human rights and the division of church and state. That would be stupid.

    OptimusZed on
    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. Now With Ninjas!

    They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
  • DelzhandDelzhand Registered User, Transition Team regular
    edited May 2009
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Basically, you don't say "I'm not voting for him because he's Mormon!" but rather "I'm not voting for him because his Mormon views influence his politics in negative ways."

    Mincing words, really. Are there Mormons you'd vote for because their views don't influence their politics? Is that person even really a Mormon, then*?

    *Note that this doesn't apply to Jews, because Jewish has a double meaning

    Delzhand on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Delzhand wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Basically, you don't say "I'm not voting for him because he's Mormon!" but rather "I'm not voting for him because his Mormon views influence his politics in negative ways."

    Mincing words, really. Are there Mormons you'd vote for because their views don't influence their politics? Is that person even really a Mormon, then*?

    *Note that this doesn't apply to Jews, because Jewish has a double meaning

    Depends on the strictness - and really it's hard to give a concrete official classification of a person's religion beyond their own personal definitions unless they've been excommunicated or something. There are plenty of people who consider themselves Catholics but don't hold with everything the Pope says; that's probably true of Mormonism.

    When considering voting for a candidate, their stated religion is like a bundled package of beliefs/values that you assume they ascribe to (otherwise why would they self-identify with that religion?). Odds are they're actually going to a la carte their beliefs because most people do, but the religion they choose will most likely give you a general idea of them. Then you can get into specifics, assuming the election process gives you enough time to get to know them (which is a big assumption, but in an ideal world).

    So if there's a Catholic running and you're rabidly pro-choice, at first you'll probably go "I won't vote for him, because the Catholic view is pro-life and that goes against my beliefs." If you later find out that he's Catholic but pro-choice, you can re-evaluate your choice. If you're still not voting for him because Catholics are pro-life, then you might be an anti-Catholic bigot.

    (Sorry for talking about Catholicism so much; i'm more familiar with it than Mormonism)
    Edit: the above example uses a single-issue voter just for simplicity's sake - obviously I hope there would be more factors to whether you would vote for someone than just his abortion stance.

    KalTorak on
  • KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    I think my favorite pictures from the flikr thing are:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484023071/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484005849/

    and http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484005421/



    "What do you mean Mr. President get back to ruling the country? I need to move this couch!

    Khavall on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Khavall wrote: »
    I think my favorite pictures from the flikr thing are:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484023071/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484005849/

    and http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484005421/



    "What do you mean Mr. President get back to ruling the country? I need to move this couch!
    good to see flickr comments are staying above the youtube waterline


    just barely

    Medopine on
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Delzhand wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Basically, you don't say "I'm not voting for him because he's Mormon!" but rather "I'm not voting for him because his Mormon views influence his politics in negative ways."

    Mincing words, really. Are there Mormons you'd vote for because their views don't influence their politics? Is that person even really a Mormon, then*?

    *Note that this doesn't apply to Jews, because Jewish has a double meaning

    Presumably, you can be a Mormon and still believe in seperation of church and state. Unless the Mormon church will kick you out for believing in the seperation of church and state. Or you're a republican.

    HamHamJ on
    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    What promises has Obama broken in these 100 days?

    Obs on
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    The only people that care about ACORN as an attack issue are the same people who are too marginalized to matter. God, I hope and pray that that's the cornerstone of their attacks in four years. I'm picturing an electoral map that's a sea of blue with islands of red dotting it.

    All but for Utah, Idaho, and the Deep South.

    I move for a Constitutional amendment to declare the Deep South a single state.

    In Mexico.

    That would crater Mexico's literacy rate.

    Crimsondude on
  • CygnusZCygnusZ Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Delzhand wrote: »
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    Basically, you don't say "I'm not voting for him because he's Mormon!" but rather "I'm not voting for him because his Mormon views influence his politics in negative ways."

    Mincing words, really. Are there Mormons you'd vote for because their views don't influence their politics? Is that person even really a Mormon, then*?

    *Note that this doesn't apply to Jews, because Jewish has a double meaning

    I don't think you really have the right to tell other people how they should define their religious beliefs. It's a strictly personal matter. If a Mormon candidate was socially liberal and had a good voting record, I'd certainly cast my vote for him. I think few people agree with Reverend Wright, but in the end we know that he doesn't really represent what Obama thinks.

    CygnusZ on
  • RentRent I'm always right Fuckin' deal with itRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    What promises has Obama broken in these 100 days?

    1. Ending Any Income Tax on Seniors Making Less Than $50,000 (although this could be considered a "No Action", since he hasn't definitively stated he will not be doing this)
    2. Allow Five Days Of Public Comment Before Signing Bills (though, as you admit, he's gotten better at this)
    3. No Former Lobbyists In His Administration (By far his most damning, nominating Lynn to deputy defense secretary...what the fuck Obama)
    4. Create a $3,000 Tax Credit For Companies That Add Jobs (This could also be considered a "No Action", just like #1)
    5. Allow Penalty-Free Hardship Withdrawls From Retirement Accounts in 2008/2009
    6. Recognize the Armenian Genocide

    Rent on
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?

    Obs on
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Rent wrote: »
    3. No Former Lobbyists In His Administration (By far his most damning, nominating Lynn to deputy defense secretary...what the fuck Obama)
    But he's not letting that one guy in who was a lobbyist for Human Rights Watch or whatever. So... you know. Priorities.
    6. Recognize the Armenian Genocide
    While I think he should, it makes me angry to think that it would put him on the same side as these douchebags.
    mkhVzRxLFmp4i8i6IjUsQYoEo1_500.jpg

    L.A. Armenians and Persians are the most persecuted people on the planet.
    Khavall wrote: »

    Why does he seem to be the only person who is happy for that touchdown?

    Crimsondude on
  • MedopineMedopine __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?

    no

    Medopine on
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?
    Which would mean he keeps 321, or roughly 80% of his promises. Far better than most politicians and certainly the last.

    Edit: Of course, trying to extrapolate from the last hundred days would be fairly ridiculous.

    Quid on
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Hasn't he acknowledged it, just not in Turkey, where he was there for an economic summit?

    Fencingsax on
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    dude wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?
    Which would mean he keeps 321, or roughly 80% of his promises. Far better than most politicians and certainly the last.

    How many promises did he keep in these 100 days?



    Medopine wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?

    no

    I am taken aback.

    Obs on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited May 2009
    In 100 days
    A super-majority.
    What next? A hushed Rush?

    Seventy percent
    Of Americans dig him
    The dog didn't hurt.

    As long as his foes
    Hold lame "tea-party" protests
    The force is with him.

    A plump government
    Is grand if it means cheap meds,
    Not water-boarding.

    Such ambition! Well,
    Roosevelt would be impressed
    If not Kim Jong Il.

    It is a fine thing
    To have a smart president
    Whose sentences work.

    A fine amuse bouche
    For what promises to be
    A grand, filling meal.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    dude wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?
    Which would mean he keeps 321, or roughly 80% of his promises. Far better than most politicians and certainly the last.

    How many promises did he keep in these 100 days?

    This is the sort of information I was hoping to find in the OP. There are 3 [X days] threads that I made in the beginning of the Presidency that give some detail as to what his actions have been. You could look them up. Also, start paying attention to how your government functions.
    Medopine wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?

    no

    I am taken aback.

    If you are taken aback for every Medopine post, can we expect you to be treading water in the Pacific Ocean at the end of next week?

    moniker on
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited May 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    dude wrote: »
    Obs wrote: »
    So if he breaks 6 promises every 100 days, we can expect 87 broken promises throughout his first term?
    Which would mean he keeps 321, or roughly 80% of his promises. Far better than most politicians and certainly the last.

    How many promises did he keep in these 100 days?

    This is the sort of information I was hoping to find in the OP. There are 3 [X days] threads that I made in the beginning of the Presidency that give some detail as to what his actions have been. You could look them up. Also, start paying attention to how your government functions.

    Your [X days] threads were a big inspiration for me. If you give me this data, I will post it in the op.

    Obs on
  • CrimsondudeCrimsondude Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Hasn't he acknowledged it, just not in Turkey, where he was there for an economic summit?

    Probably. I'd have liked him to say it in Ankara though. Preferably in the context of "The EU will never let you join until you admit it." Although to be fair Turkey could do everything it's asked of and the EU won't let it in.

    Crimsondude on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Henroid on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited May 2009
    The Economist's correspondents talk about the first 100 days (the haiku above was by their "intelligent life" editor:
    The most interesting thing to me has been Mr Obama's frankness. There have been mistakes, and he has owned up to them. Remember those bumps right out of the gate? Tom Daschle now seems ancient history, but what I remember most was "I screwed up", from the president himself: beautiful music to the ears of those who thought the last White House was plagued more than anything by the sense that accountability didn't matter, so long as you won the day's politics. And on the recession, again, Mr Obama has repeatedly said it's going to be long and hard going, resisting the urge to appeal only to Americans' optimism. Of course this is good politics too; when the recession is indeed long and hard he can say so, and remind voters under which president things went haywire. But this is where political Barack Obama and presidential Barack Obama work well together. Sometimes you do well by doing good.

    The worst thing? So far, I'd say the pathetically small $100m he says he's ordered his cabinet members to find and cut. This is empty symbolism, and if that is his idea of "line-by-line", we should call him out on his first broken campaign promise.
    Washington wrote:
    The signal accomplishment of Barack Obama's first 100 days has been more stylistic than legislative: he has done to the Republican Party what he did to Hillary Clinton in the primary. In much the same way that a politician inspired by the civil-rights movement was reduced to sputtering about her popularity with "hardworking white Americans", the self-styled champions of responsible government have suddenly become the Party of No: no bailouts (but they were fine when George Bush and Hank Paulson issued them), no federal spending (Mr Bush's increases provoked no such opposition), no earmarks (similarly acceptable under the last president), no bowing to the Saudis (remember Bandar Bush?) and—most tellingly—no constructive opposition at all.
    I feel the worst for Tim Geithner. He always looks strained and tired but a little hopeful, in a way that he hopes maybe it was all a dream and will suddenly end soon. Like it's hell week at prep school and he keeps believing the next person he meets will take pity on him and send him back to his room to sleep.

    So if we look at Barack Obama's first hundred days, we find fevered activity, a strange kind of patience, the beginnings of a tattered resistance, some real changes in policy, and one pathetic attempt at budget-cutting. But if we look at Tim Geithner's first hundred days: He wakes up one morning to discover that America knows he's a tax cheat, and it just gets worse from there.
    Austin wrote:
    Last year, at the end of the primary season, Joseph Califano gave a speech arguing that Democrats have become amnesiac about LBJ. John Edwards, who wanted to reduce poverty, never mentioned Johnson's war on it. And when Hillary Clinton made her "it took a president" argument she was roundly scolded. Mr Califano (who worked in the administration) was depressed about this: "We live in an era of political micro-achievement. In recent years, it is considered an accomplishment when a president persuades Congress to pass one bill, or a few, over an entire administration: one welfare reform; one No Child Left Behind. Partisan attacks and political ambitions choke our airways, not reports of legislation passed or problems solved." That's in contrast to the flood of major proposals that came from the 89th and 90th Congresses during Johnson's presidency.

    In Barack Obama's first hundred days we've seen a bit of LBJ's ambition: think of immigration reform, which he could have ignored all year without much backlash. I wonder how far Mr Obama can go with this. He has Johnson's desire to do everything, but perhaps not his stamina or scrappiness.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited May 2009
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Hasn't he acknowledged it, just not in Turkey, where he was there for an economic summit?

    Probably. I'd have liked him to say it in Ankara though. Preferably in the context of "The EU will never let you join until you admit it." Although to be fair Turkey could do everything it's asked of and the EU won't let it in.
    Both of these are true, but Obama's obviously not the kinda guy to talk about something that's more... local politics is the only word I have for it, really at an international summit on the economy.

    Fencingsax on
This discussion has been closed.