Yes, yes they are. Obama not only supports Bush's "state secrets" justifications, but (and this is the change part) has actually one upped Bush. Now, he argues, the government is immune to any and all lawsuits pertaining to illegal surveillance. Now, even if the surveillance is undeniably illegal, no lawsuit can be filed unless the government willfully discloses the information allowing you to file a lawsuit. This is a pretty big expansion of the theories put forth by Bush on the subject.
So what do you guys think of this? Is this the kind of change you can believe in?
What does that have to do with anything? Regardless of whether he elicited your trust or not at any time during his campaign is as of this point irrelevant, he is now the President and nothing you believe is going to change that. The real issue now is what he has done, now what people think about it.
I must say I am a little shocked by this. I did not expect much by the way of change but I never expected him to push for more government secrecy and immunity. Neither did most of his supporters. Hell, I'm sure many conservatives are even surprised by this.
He's a Chicago style politician, one of the most politically corrupt areas of the country, who rode on a wave of ignorant and uninformed people who didn't so much as listen to his words as listen to the sound of his voice, and duly has had his ego so inflated that he feels that he shits gold bricks. I have a leery eye on most politicians, but Obama reeked before he even became a front runner of the Dem ticket. He's bombastic, arrogant, and has no clue about what the rest of the world outside of his many mansions is like. He's your classic limo democrat, the kind who drives past a homeless person, hands them a dollar, feels good about himself, then goes home to a multi-million dollar mansion thinking that he's changed the world.
I expected him to do things that he said/says he wouldn't do, and to not do things he said/says he will do, because of this huge ego he has. He feels that he can say things and it doesn't matter if he follows through, or if his programs even work. What matters to him is FEELING like he's accomplished something, not actually accomplishing it. He FEELS like he's a nice happy open administration, even if that's the exact opposite of what he is doing in his administration. Its all looks, and no substance.
Finally, an important point that most people have forgotten with the term of Bush...Democrats are PRO-big government, and Republicans are ANTI-big government. Now, this may come as a surprise to people, who will note that there was a huge expansion of government under George Bush. Well, Occam's Razor, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one:
George Bush was a Republican In Name Only, aka, a RINO. Sure, he talked like a republican, prayed like one of the nut religious right, and had a foreign policy of a republican, but at home he was anything but. Illegal immigration, economy (2nd term at least), and expansion of government, every time he sided with a Democrat perspective. Now, a careful observer will wonder "Why did the democrats still not back him on the expansion of government and illegal wiretaps?" The answer is simple: It wasn't politically prudent. If the democrats had backed Bush on such things during his term, they would have lost support. Instead, they attacked him for the wire taps/government expansion and rampant government spending, things that they normally support. Once he was out of office, and their boy was in, it goes out the window. Now, they feel they can get away with doing these things, as they hold the power and the political sway. You can never, ever, out democrat a democrat, and that's exactly what Bush tried to do in many cases.
Duly, Obama expanding wire taps is just something I, and any properly researched observer, could have easily expected. Its arrogant (check), expansion of government powers over the citizenry (check), going back on promises (check), and living in a dream world, where everything he does is great and wonderful, despite what it actually does(check). Sounds right.
Sorry to go on a bit of a aimless rant, but its hard to get my thoughts on the matter condensed to something readable, and especially at 1AM with a couple White Russians down my gullet :P
Last edited by Von Mudra; April 12th, 2009 at 12:59 AM.
Democrats are PRO-big government, and Republicans are ANTI-big government.
Not really. They may say that because it sounds good, but if you spend as much money on the military as the Republicans did in the last couple of years and add in the bail-outs formed by the last administration you have a government that is much bigger than most of the "liberal" European governments or even the last few Democrat administrations.
The Republican administration also happened to be more repressive, even if salon.com (is that another example of "leftist" media?) thinks otherwise. Obama has some work to do if he wants to keep up with Bush´s secret prisons, wiretaps and torture.
The Republican administration also happened to be more repressive, even if salon.com (is that another example of "leftist" media?) thinks otherwise. Obama has some work to do if he wants to keep up with Bush´s secret prisons, wiretaps and torture.
I don't know about the rest of salon.com, but Glenn Greenwald is a Civil Libertarian (sort of, that's just the best way I can think of describing him), and he hated Bush just as much as he hates Obama now. I very much doubt that the last administration was more repressive, very very few of the policies from the last administration have been changed, and others (such as this one) have been greatly expanded.
Personal opinions are not endorsed by FileFront.
Last edited by Smitty025; April 12th, 2009 at 02:40 AM.
Not really. They may say that because it sounds good, but if you spend as much money on the military as the Republicans did in the last couple of years and add in the bail-outs formed by the last administration you have a government that is much bigger than most of the "liberal" European governments or even the last few Democrat administrations.
Exactly what I was pointing out. Bush's economic policies in his 2nd term reeked of the Democrats, the bailouts especially. As for rampant military spending, I agree military should def be a major budget, but even that went overboard. However, I think there are many other areas that need to be cut as well....
Either way, what you said there does nothing more then reinforce my argument that Bush was not an actual republican, but simply a RINO.
Anyways, I'm going to bed, don't expect a response to any comments till tomorrow sometime...>__< I always hate it when I go to bed and I wake up to 100 comments and people wondering if I wandered off or am ignoring the debate...and I get the feeling this will be a fun one.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
The Pub 
Change We Can Believe In...Right? 
Linear Mode
