He should have foreseen those realities - or admitted that he wasn't going to be any different.
For example, it's not like the situation in Iraq has changed much during the past couple months. Leaving 50,000 troops is far from a withdrawal. He just plain lied about that one.
A Democrat president with a Democrat controlled congress and he still can't deliver. Pretty pathetic.
DEMOCRATS ARE NOT A UNITED PARTY WHEN IN CONTROL. As the saying goes, getting democrats to do the same thing is like herding cats.
Anyhow, when my father a republican committee man, thinks the media and people are not giving Obama a chance, there is something going on. (and this man thought that Obama was a secret Muslim)
Surely you can recognize that his statement was an outright lie. Would it have been so hard to keep that promise?
Yes. It was hard to do so. The qualified people that know how to do the job, when not in a position of power, get used as lobbyist. At least any former lobbyist are being made public and he is at least giving his reason why he picked them over a non-lobbyist. For one, not all lobbyists are evil bastards, some are lobbyists for non-profits and social issues (such as homelessness, veterans and science). Not all lobbyists are created the same or come from the Big evil industries such as {Smoking, Guns, Banks and Oil). I mean there are Atheist lobbyist (making sure they don't get left out of things like discrimination and such).
Politicians lie by definition, I don't know why you expected anything less. You must have a rough life if a politician's lies phase you.
The difference is that Obama campaigned on a promise to end that.
I didn't expect he would. I'm just surprised that others are burying their heads in the sand given these facts.
Trust me... I didn't vote for Obama expecting change. A lot of people did, though. Show me where all of the Obama fanboys posted here that his promises would be empty. If he fooled people here, think of how many others were fooled.
If you were fooled into thinking Obama would change how politicians work, then you let yourself be fooled. Don't act like this is a surprise or that he did anything different from any other politician.
I voted for Obama to work towards certain goals, and while he has not eliminated the influence of Lobbyists, he has limited their influence and when they were consulted, his administration seems to mention it. Unlike the Cheney energy meetings back in the day that we still don't know what was talked about.
I voted for Obama to work towards certain goals, and while he has not eliminated the influence of Lobbyists, he has limited their influence and when they were consulted, his administration seems to mention it. Unlike the Cheney energy meetings back in the day that we still don't know what was talked about.
Is there video footage of these meetings? Do we know exactly what was discussed? I'm not seeing much transparency (that was promised) from this administration. What I have seen is organized smear campaigns (from the White House) aimed at anyone who dares criticize the President.
If these things were being done by Bush there would be an uproar.
If Bush had made the "special Olympics" joke Obama made we would have seen comedy skits of Bush trying out for the special Olympics bowling team and not being good enough.
Anyone on here going to make one with Obama's face on a Special Olympic bowler? I looked but could not find a suitable image to add his face to.
If you were fooled into thinking Obama would change how politicians work, then you let yourself be fooled. Don't act like this is a surprise or that he did anything different from any other politician.
True. Obama is a human being. He is a politician. He is not perfect. No one expects him to be perfect.
However, it is reasonable to expect him to be the best president in recent memory. Considering the people who have held the office since JFK, that's not a very high expectation.
We know what they were discussing and who he was discussing it with. We don't know the exact details (and I don't think we should) which is much better then the Cheney energy meetings where they wouldn't even say who he was meeting with.
I don't know why Obama critics assume that everyone who voted for Obama believed he would do everything he said he would do. People tend to be skeptical about politicians. As if McCain/Palin would have done better?
If Gore had been President instead of Bush, he would have had some promises broken too. The fact is that despite the President's best efforts, he doesn't have total control of the government. That's a good thing, but it does get in the way of some of the President's goals. You have to compromise, because if you don't then NONE of your work gets done.
I don't know why Obama critics assume that everyone who voted for Obama believed he would do everything he said he would do. People tend to be skeptical about politicians. As if McCain/Palin would have done better?
The point most critics are trying to make is the double standard applied when Obama screws up compared to when Bush screwed up.
I don't know why Obama critics assume that everyone who voted for Obama believed he would do everything he said he would do. People tend to be skeptical about politicians. As if McCain/Palin would have done better?
If Gore had been President instead of Bush, he would have had some promises broken too. The fact is that despite the President's best efforts, he doesn't have total control of the government. That's a good thing, but it does get in the way of some of the President's goals. You have to compromise, because if you don't then NONE of your work gets done.
Nuri, as usual, very well put.
Rym and I were talking about this over lunch yesterday. We have been watching his decisions and we still think he is doing a very good job so far. We never thought he would be perfect. We thought he would be good. We thought he would get stuff done and routinely make decisions that will benefit the country as a whole.
I don't know why Obama critics assume that everyone who voted for Obama believed he would do everything he said he would do. People tend to be skeptical about politicians. As if McCain/Palin would have done better?
The point most critics are trying to make is the double standard applied when Obama screws up compared to when Bush screwed up.
What double standard? I see Obama getting lambasted by critics and defended by supporters.
Some people thought that he was some kind of messiah during the election, and, well, that's their fault. Election campaigns are all about grandstanding; they always have been. It's all about advertising and selling yourself to the public.
He's double-backed on some specifics out of necessity, but the core message remains the same. No reasonable person should have expected anything else.
Perfect? Not by any means. Do I think he's doing what needs to be done? Absolutely. I'll take a president who responds to reality over someone who stays the course and sticks to a flawed ideology.
The point most critics are trying to make is the double standard applied when Obama screws up compared to when Bush screwed up.
The Bush Administration (not just Bush himself) screwed up egregiously. We aren't upset because he broke some promise he made during his campaign! They pushed through laws and actions that were barely legal and basically bullied and lied their way into getting what they wanted regarding war, torture, surveillance, etc. and refused to ever back down or say they had made a mistake. They put out the appearance of having a God complex, of thinking that they could do no wrong. Obama is making an effort to work with the congress, to compromise, and at least attempting to be very clear about his intentions, actions, AND mistakes. When something came out that he didn't know before, he took it into account and (god forbid!) changed his mind! He's said many times something along the lines of, "Ideally, this is how I'd like things to be...but we all know it doesn't work that way, and we're not kidding ourselves. We'll at least try to move it in the right direction."
Changing your mind in the face of NEW information on a subject is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of intelligence and rationality.
Changing your mind in the face of NEW information on a subject is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of intelligence and rationality.
This is only true when the information is truly new. If the information is not new but it is "new to you" then what does that say about someone who changes their mind based on such information? Does it mean they were naive or ignorant?
I'm happy to see the "new" plan out of the treasury. It sounds a lot like the original idea behind TARP (buy up the toxic assets) with the added bonus of the 50/50 split with private investment.
"New" information such as "oh noes, all the really smart people work as lobbyists" is hardly "new" information. "New" information such as "oh noes, the Russians plan to let our nuclear treaties expire!" is new information and should affect policy changes.
Yes. It also means that they corrected their ignorance when shown new information. This is agoodthing.
LOL. It's impossible for a person to know everything, Mr. Tick. Everyone is ignorant of something. I, for instance, am quite ignorant of the inner-workings of Linux. (I am sure there are many other things of which I am ignorant, but this is a great example.) This is why our leaders have advisers in certain areas like science. They don't know everything.
Yes. It also means that they corrected their ignorance when shown new information. This is agoodthing.
Oh noes, agreement!
It's been known to happen on occasion. I think it's more flattering for you to be agreeing with me, though. :P
The fact that the administration is willing to change its policies in response to new information bodes well for the direction the sciences will take for the next few years.
The fact that the administration is willing to change its policies in response to new information bodes well for the direction the sciences will take for the next few years.
And we didn't even talk about the repeal of restrictions last week on funding for universities that study new lines of stem cell research. That was a huge scientific reversal.
The fact that the administration is willing to change its policies in response to new information bodes well for the direction the sciences will take for the next few years.
And we didn't even talk about the repeal of restrictions last week on funding for universities that study new lines of stem cell research. That was a huge scientific reversal.
I wouldn't call it a huge reversal. I would call it a huge headache removed for labs that receive government funding.
Embryonic Stem Cell research was not banned by Bush. Only Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research was banned. This point is often misrepresented by the news media.
There was a side effect that resulted in labs not working on Embryonic Stem Cell research (can't use a lab that had a single penny of government funding to work on the stuff so a new lab would have to be built from scratch at great expense) but the research itself was never banned. Any privately funded outfit could do the research in the USA.
Embryonic Stem Cell research was not banned by Bush. Only Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research was banned. This point is often misrepresented by the news media. . . .
Any privately funded outfit could do the research in the USA.
While, technically it is true that a privately funded "outfit" could pursue stem cell research under GWB, the cost would have been prohibitive to most if not all private funding sources.
What kind of money are we talking about here? In 2005, California approved a ballot measure that provided three billion dollars for stem cell research.
Contending that private sources could come up with that sort of money is tantamount to contending that private sources could have funded the space program. It is as much a misrepresentation to say that any privately funded "outfit" could do stem cell research as it would be to say that any privately funded "outfit" could have reached the moon if the funding had been pulled from NASA in the same way that it was pulled from stem cell research.
The USA is not the only government in the world. Other countries did in fact fund this research while the US government was not funding it.
You can argue that the funding ban hurt American labs due to the restriction on labs that take any amount of federal dollars and I will agree with you. However, other governments continued to fund the research even while ours did not.
The USA is not the only government in the world. Other countries did in fact fund this research while the US government was not funding it.
You can argue that the funding ban hurt American labs due to the restriction on labs that take any amount of federal dollars andI will agree with you. However, other governments continued to fund the research even while ours did not.
This not only hurt labs and American industry, but it also slowed down the research. While other countries continued researching, the US could not contribute to the cause. The more researchers available, the faster information and treatments can be developed. You can cut off the leg of an animal and it can still get around- but that leg would help it get there faster.
The USA is not the only government in the world. Other countries did in fact fund this research while the US government was not funding it.
You can argue that the funding ban hurt American labs due to the restriction on labs that take any amount of federal dollars andI will agree with you. However, other governments continued to fund the research even while ours did not.
Yes, but in the sciences, having more researchers tackling a problem is always a better thing. Also, the USA has a crap ton of money available to researchers, which is why we're good at getting things done. Quite a few of the grants for which you would apply as a researcher are government-funded.
This not only hurt labs and American industry, but it also slowed down the research.
That is true. It's very bad policy to just voluntarily refuse to pursue research with the excuse, "Oh, that research can be undertaken by the rest of the world." It's not wise to give up a technology to the rest of the world just because you have a religious objection to it.
I 100% agree that the ban on federal funding should never have been instituted in the first place, I'm glad it was lifted. However I also take exception to those who portray it as a 100% ban on all embryonic stem cell research.
@TheWhaleShark - When we discussed this privately I never asked about the "allowed" stem cell lines. Were they worn out, dog-eared or what? Was it just the overall scientific impact of only being allowed to work with a small set of cells?
I 100% agree that the ban on federal funding should never have been instituted in the first place, I'm glad it was lifted. However I also take exception to those who portray it as a 100% ban on all embryonic stem cell research.
@TheWhaleShark - When we discussed this privately I never asked about the "allowed" stem cell lines. Were they worn out, dog-eared or what? Was it just the overall scientific impact of only being allowed to work with a small set of cells?
Pretty much, they had been explored or compromised or were useless.
Comments
Anyhow, when my father a republican committee man, thinks the media and people are not giving Obama a chance, there is something going on. (and this man thought that Obama was a secret Muslim)
That begs the question... why did Obama lie? And why wouldn't you be upset that you were lied to?
I don't like being lied to by any politician. I don't excuse lies based on party affiliation.
I didn't expect he would. I'm just surprised that others are burying their heads in the sand given these facts.
Trust me... I didn't vote for Obama expecting change. A lot of people did, though. Show me where all of the Obama fanboys posted here that his promises would be empty. If he fooled people here, think of how many others were fooled.
If these things were being done by Bush there would be an uproar.
If Bush had made the "special Olympics" joke Obama made we would have seen comedy skits of Bush trying out for the special Olympics bowling team and not being good enough.
Anyone on here going to make one with Obama's face on a Special Olympic bowler? I looked but could not find a suitable image to add his face to.
However, it is reasonable to expect him to be the best president in recent memory. Considering the people who have held the office since JFK, that's not a very high expectation.
If Gore had been President instead of Bush, he would have had some promises broken too. The fact is that despite the President's best efforts, he doesn't have total control of the government. That's a good thing, but it does get in the way of some of the President's goals. You have to compromise, because if you don't then NONE of your work gets done.
Rym and I were talking about this over lunch yesterday. We have been watching his decisions and we still think he is doing a very good job so far. We never thought he would be perfect. We thought he would be good. We thought he would get stuff done and routinely make decisions that will benefit the country as a whole.
Some people thought that he was some kind of messiah during the election, and, well, that's their fault. Election campaigns are all about grandstanding; they always have been. It's all about advertising and selling yourself to the public.
He's double-backed on some specifics out of necessity, but the core message remains the same. No reasonable person should have expected anything else.
Perfect? Not by any means. Do I think he's doing what needs to be done? Absolutely. I'll take a president who responds to reality over someone who stays the course and sticks to a flawed ideology.
Changing your mind in the face of NEW information on a subject is not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of intelligence and rationality.
Good job. Let's hope this continues. And lets hope the plan works!
I'm happy to see the "new" plan out of the treasury. It sounds a lot like the original idea behind TARP (buy up the toxic assets) with the added bonus of the 50/50 split with private investment.
"New" information such as "oh noes, all the really smart people work as lobbyists" is hardly "new" information. "New" information such as "oh noes, the Russians plan to let our nuclear treaties expire!" is new information and should affect policy changes.
The fact that the administration is willing to change its policies in response to new information bodes well for the direction the sciences will take for the next few years.
Embryonic Stem Cell research was not banned by Bush. Only Federal funding for Embryonic Stem Cell research was banned. This point is often misrepresented by the news media.
There was a side effect that resulted in labs not working on Embryonic Stem Cell research (can't use a lab that had a single penny of government funding to work on the stuff so a new lab would have to be built from scratch at great expense) but the research itself was never banned. Any privately funded outfit could do the research in the USA.
What kind of money are we talking about here? In 2005, California approved a ballot measure that provided three billion dollars for stem cell research.
Contending that private sources could come up with that sort of money is tantamount to contending that private sources could have funded the space program. It is as much a misrepresentation to say that any privately funded "outfit" could do stem cell research as it would be to say that any privately funded "outfit" could have reached the moon if the funding had been pulled from NASA in the same way that it was pulled from stem cell research.
You can argue that the funding ban hurt American labs due to the restriction on labs that take any amount of federal dollars and I will agree with you. However, other governments continued to fund the research even while ours did not.
You can cut off the leg of an animal and it can still get around- but that leg would help it get there faster.
@TheWhaleShark - When we discussed this privately I never asked about the "allowed" stem cell lines. Were they worn out, dog-eared or what? Was it just the overall scientific impact of only being allowed to work with a small set of cells?