Thread for GbajiFollow

Hey, Gbaji, unrelated to any other threads since I wouldn't want to confuse you by entering a new facet...

Can you name three aspects of an Obama presidency which would give you sincere and legitimate approval? Not silly things like "Well, he wouldn't mess this up too much" but rather actual aspects of his issues and policies which you would find yourself saying "Yeah, I agree with that" too?

It's okay to say "No" if you can't name three things. I'm just curious is all.

If he answers simply "No", I'm blaming the apocalypse on you, Joph.

He won't answer.

I honestly don't think he has the mental faculties necessary to. More and more I'm convinced that his posts are written by a monkey-operated robot.

Well, now we know there's no bug keeping you from seeing this thread. You could have just used your post to answer the question.

Fifteen/love.

Sorry, the 15/love comment was meant to go into Nobbys underage shagging/abstinence/prophylactic thread.

gbaji managing to 'win' and argument in anyones head except his own is as likely as New Zealand winning the World (soccer) Cup.

Kinda like wasting that one phone call, huh... ;)


Ok. Since I'm waiting for a system I just dorked up in another state to reboot, I'll see if I can take a swing at it. In the interest of showing that I'm willing to answer questions about my political positions where others apparently are not...


Three things is kinda hard actually. Let me preface this with an observation that Obama's approach to politics is diametrically opposed to mine. I've touched on this difference between Liberals and Conservatives before, and it's significant. I tend to look at the process by which something is done, whereas most liberals tend to look directly at the objective of the action itself. So, a Liberal might look at a poor person and think "What's the most direct way to help this person", and conclude that generating a fund via tax dollars to feed, clothe, house, educate, etc this person would be direct and would solve the problem at hand. I will look at the same person and think "What the best way to prevent people from getting into this state in the first place", and conclude that we should help ensure employment opportunities and maintain an environment in which he has every possibility to make a life for himself.


I look, not just at the problem directly in front of me, but the "cost" of any proposed solution. Sure. Sometimes, a direct approach works, but quite often the long term effect of that solution causes yet more problems. The tax dollars used to provide that person with a better life may just cost 5 other people their jobs. So now you've got more mouths to feed and the problem just gets worse.


As a result of this, it's incredibly hard for me to look at a position that Obama has and say I "sincerely and legitimately approve", because I don't just look at the specific action, but the reason for the action, the likely follow up to that action, and the "direction" that action takes us in. It's not about actions or positions on specific issues, but the underlying reasons for those actions that matters for me, and I feel that Obama's reasons for doing things are simply not aligned with what I think are the right reasons for doing things.


Having said all of that, his position on energy policy is not horrible. I think he cows a bit too much to the alternative energy crowd, but not as badly as many in his party. We do need research into alternative sources and methods and the specific areas he's said we should work are good ones.


His position on the relationship between church and state is good. He does seem to really understand that religion and government can exist side by side without one having to control or condemn the other. This is arguably the *only* position of his I actually fully approve of without much hesitation.


Hmmm... I'm actually at a loss to think of a third thing. There are aspects of his policies that I'd say are "not bad", all of them still fall into the "he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons" category. I suppose the next best would have to be his homeland security policy. At least there's nothing in there I completely disagree with. He's hit some key points that haven't had enough work done. Um... I still worry that these improvements will come at a cost in other areas that aren't acceptable, but we'll see...



That's the best I can do. Like I said, it's hard to come up with a list like this when the guy you're talking about simply views the government via a different lens then I do.

Can I ask a question for you? Yes? Ok.

Name three thing's Obama want's to change, and how he plans on doing it.

Name three thing's Obama want's to change, and how he plans on doing it.

1. The color of the President of the United States. By winning.
2. The party in control of the Executive Branch. By winning.
3. The perception of the US as a land of institutionalized racism where a black man could never lead. By winning.

Boy, that was trivially easy.

Now you name three reasons you decided to waste everyone's time spewing back what a talk radio show host told you to after another moron already had a day ago.

Go,

Now, let's here 3 World issues. And no, because he is black and is popular, is not world wide.

You're on the wrong forum. Try OOT. I'm not going to list three world issues, not because I can't, I could list Obama's positions on 1000 foreign policy points and why I agree or don't with them, but because your replies are just so dull and boring. They're not engaging at all. I love to argue with people, but you're so shockingly bad at it that I can't be bothered.

Good luck.

(1) Transparency in government
Obama wishes to shift the stance the current administration has by opening up much of the decision making to public scrutiny. Examples of how he hopes to accomplish this include a "Sunlight period" on bills coming before him where they are posted on the Whitehouse website and open to comment for 72 hours before he signs them. Obviously, exceptions can be made for emergency bills. Also, he has called several times for Congressional negotiations on health care to be televised on C-SPAN rather than determined in backrooms with insurance lobbyists. This marks a definate change from the current administration and its secret energy meetings or midnight passage/signing of the Patriot Act.

(2) Foreign diplomacy
This is a pretty easy one because it's gotten a fair amount of press. Obama believes that diplomacy is a starting place for interaction with other nations/leaders and not the carrot you attempt to bribe them with. Obama would agree to meet with leaders of hostile nations on at least an initial basis in order to form a groundwork for further diplomatic contact and problem solving. The current administration regards diplomatic contact as a reward for hostile nations to earn by changeing themselves to benefit the US before we'll grace them with our presence.

(3) Iraq
Again, this is a no-brainer but it's a pretty major issue. Obama plans to begin withdrawing troops at a measured pace of one or two brigades per months over the next 16 months or so. This is, again, a major departure from our current administration and its attempts to circumvent Congress to strike a deal with Iraq to keep troops there much longer.

I picked those three because all are within the immediate ability of the president. I could pick other topics such as health care, energy policy, the economy, etc etc but many of those are a joint effort between the president & Congress. I intentionally kept myself away from promising legislative changes.

(1) Transparency in government
Obama wishes to shift the stance the current administration has by opening up much of the decision making to public scrutiny. Examples of how he hopes to accomplish this include a "Sunlight period" on bills coming before him where they are posted on the Whitehouse website and open to comment for 72 hours before he signs them. Obviously, exceptions can be made for emergency bills. Also, he has called several times for Congressional negotiations on health care to be televised on C-SPAN rather than determined in backrooms with insurance lobbyists. This marks a definate change from the current administration and its secret energy meetings or midnight passage/signing of the Patriot Act.

You don't really believe any those things would actually happen if he won, right? I realize you're responding to a question, I'm just curious of your level of true-believerism in the guy.

Incidentally, I just answered those off the top of my head and without a ton of depth because I'm not writing a treatise. There's enough in what I wrote to show that he does have a "Change" plan beyond saying "Change".

Here's his website's page on government transparency. There's a lot more to it than what I wrote and I actually sold his sunlight provision short -- I said 3 days and it's actually 5.