Thread: Extreme Disappointment in Obama

I hate to agree with Conservatives on this one but I truly believe that Obama will go down as one of the worst Presidents in History. Firstly, he betrays his Democratic, liberal base in favor of adopting a "war hawk" stance on foreign affairs. Secondly, he has little or no influence on Congress and pales in comparison to political heavyweights like Teddy Roosevelt and LBJ. Thirdly, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was altered under his watch and without even so much as a heated protest. Not to mention, he took Executive Office during a great recession. Although he can't be blamed entirely for all of these issues, he will be judged for them by future generations. This is not a good time in History for anyone, Republican or Democrat.

Do you agree or disagree...and why or why not?

Congress are the ones that run the country. They pass legislation where the money is going to be spent or saved not the President. Congress also has the power to stop wars or start them and as yet the war in Afghanistan is still going on. The President doesn't control Congress so they have te final say in MOST matters so the way the economy goes and the way the nation goes is primarily Congresses responsibility.

He is such a weak President. I can't blame him entirely.

I wish he knew the ins and out of the Senate like LBJ and that he had close allies there as well as blackmail.

He's a Chicago politician. There's nothing in his background which would lead anyone to believe he knows anything about governing. His specialty is getting elected.

Originally Posted by mikepotter84

I hate to agree with Conservatives on this one but I truly believe that Obama will go down as one of the worst Presidents in History.

Agreed. Jimmy Carter has lost the title. As to the reasons, well, we're certainly not going to agree there.

As to being disappointed, well, I expected him to be horrible. Indeed, if he can somehow serve out his second term without the currency collapsing, hyperinflation, depression, or some kind of domestic unrest verging on civil war; I'd say he had exceeded my expectations. So the bar's not set very high.

Originally Posted by mikepotter84

I wish he knew the ins and out of the Senate like LBJ and that he had close allies there as well as blackmail.

Well, there is the NSA surveillance program.......

Honestly? He'll go down as being worse than GWB? I was thinking George would edge out Harding and take the title.

Sure, Obama has been pretty crumby on many levels. He won't be joyously remembered I'm sure. But how could he possibly top the fiasco that came before? The fiasco before him is probably 9/10 of why Obama hasn't been seriously approached with impeachment.

I'm sure a lot of people are regretting they didn't vote Romney, now, though.

I'll never regret not voting for Mr. Flip-Flop. I never said Obama was THE worst but one of the worst...especially because we all had such great expectations of "hope" and "change".

Disappointed in Obama?

That's just because you bought the hype.

Personally, I'm disappointed in our government from the bottom to the top. To an even greater extent, I'm disappointed in the voting public. Obama did a fantastic job of getting elected. All we were interested in was the popularity contest and now we're dealing with the consequences. Until we break the chains of this two party catastrophe we've bought into, this is the kind of governing we should expect. Middle-of-the-road status quo stuff.

I had answered something, but then decided it was not a good match for the spirit in which the question was asked (too far outside the frame of reference people see as reality, in which Opium just happens to be in Afghanistan by a fluke)

Not as surprised about Obama as others might be, unfortunately. Congress of 2006 appeared to show there was a War agenda they were unable or unwilling to oppose. People that would have been likely to make (or really try to make) a real change never had any chance of making it in 2008 (as usual) because they did not have the Mass media coverage and/or were not part of the established parties (that incidentally collude in secret deals as to what doesnt make it into the debates), that Jesse Ventura dubs DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans, (which I see as the covert iron fist in a velvet glove faction vs the bare overt iron fist faction).

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Disappointed in Obama?

That's just because you bought the hype.

Personally, I'm disappointed in our government from the bottom to the top. To an even greater extent, I'm disappointed in the voting public. Obama did a fantastic job of getting elected. All we were interested in was the popularity contest and now we're dealing with the consequences. Until we break the chains of this two party catastrophe we've bought into, this is the kind of governing we should expect. Middle-of-the-road status quo stuff.

I agree. For an electorate to affect politics it must be able to affect party policy and political behaviour. Parties and politicians are vote-sucking machines - that's really their core involuntary function - and voters can exploit that: Parties are obsessed with stealing votes from each other. In a healthy democracy where you have say two main parties and a few fringy special interest parties that steal votes from the big players, those big players are obsessed with the 5 or 10 % losses, that can tip the difference between win or lose. Canadian parties live in terror of this situation termed "vote splitting"... for illustration to Americans imagine if the Tea Party put forward its own candidates, who compete against Republicans. We observe big parties in these situations bending - I mean changing policy - to appeal to those fringe voters. The effect is that parties such as Green or Libertarian (or whatever that country's fringe happens to be) have a disproportionate political influence despite (or rather because) they don't stand a chance. The right-wing candidate finds himself promising all sorts of environmental initiatives to win back those voters he lost last election to the Greens. And so forth. ... An unhealthy democracy, in contrast, has two parties whose singular focus is appealing to each others voters. Each party strives to be like the other and yet somehow better. They become alike. And the voters they care most about are the middle ones who take no position in anything.

I remember in the 2004 election that lots of republicans showed up to the forum that was set up to decide whether to put Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon. They showed up in order to vote in favor of it. I'm sure many dems would show up and do the same if a Tea Party candidate were running.

People come out to fight against their enemy. However, this gives advantage to enemies that have a unified purpose but no unified identity. The war hawks, for example. They all agree that additional wars would be profitable, but for 100 different reasons. They can work together, and collude against the public, but the public will never unify against them because there's no "them".

If only they'd be foolish enough to wear arm bands and identify themselves, like the Nazis did.

Originally Posted by kojax

I remember in the 2004 election that lots of republicans showed up to the forum that was set up to decide whether to put Ralph Nader on the ballot in Oregon. They showed up in order to vote in favor of it. I'm sure many dems would show up and do the same if a Tea Party candidate were running.

Its all good. When you put candidates with strong positions into the mix, this forces the more populist figures to engage those positions because they must assume a significant percentage of the electorate intends to vote on issues not loyalty or flavour.

It's really too hard to tell about his place in history--we typically several decades to see how history will treat him.

That being said, I think history will be relatively kind to Obama:

-He's the first black president--his double election becomes the easy mark on the wall for a sea change in American prejudice.

-He'll get credit for recovering from one of the worst economic disasters in American history--not only turning the tide but likely wiping out the yearly deficits.

-He'll be recognized as building the last rail in progressive social agenda--that of a national health care system.

-And lastly for ending two wars, that I think history will view as clumsy mistakes.

I partially agree. I think he will get credit for the economic recovery...as long as it continues and improves soon! Also, as far as Afghanistan goes, we've a way to go:

Obama Plans For Troops In Afghanistan After 2014 To Be Announced Shortly: John Kerry

I think in today's spin, counter spin (which usually means bigger spin) and then double counter spin media universe, we could elect a reincarnation of Mahatma Ghandi next election, and he'd go down in history as a bad president.

Bush sucked, so does Obama. I voted for myself the last four elections. Bush was an idiot, and Obama is a social climber. Whatever. We haven't had a decent candidate in EITHER party in years.

Originally Posted by babe

Bush sucked, so does Obama. I voted for myself the last four elections. Bush was an idiot, and Obama is a social climber. Whatever. We haven't had a decent candidate in EITHER party in years.

I usually vote for third party candidates.

Except last time Romney got my vote for his position on China and currency manipulation. I have strong feelings about that topic, and so was willing to overlook the man's other potential flaws.

Originally Posted by kojax

I usually vote for third party candidates.

In a first past the post voting system that is a wasted vote.

The current reality is that candidates for federal office in the United States have very little reason to worry about pleasing actual voters. Most voters will vote for whichever candidate has the best television ads. It is appalling to me, but the average voter simply does not apply critical thinking to what they see on TV. The real contest is for the money to pay for those ads. Successful candidates MUST please the big money contributors who foot the bill for creating and broadcasting these ads. Those people aren't influenced by hype, they expect returned value for their dollars and they get it. The sense that there is very little difference between republican candidates and democratic candidates is absolutely correct, candidates parrot the expected slogans of their chosen party during the election but once elected get on with the real job of making the rich contributors who got them elected happy.

Bbb.b.b.buttttt.t.....he has 3 years left ...plus he won the Nobel PP,....and shinola falls off him and does not stick. The conversion of the tennis court to a basketball court didn't do him any good though. Didn't he compare himself to Abe Lincoln one time? They both ordered American citizen's death sentence without trials. He is more like JF Kennedy, both were bleeding heart libs in Congress, but flip flopped into hard line Presidents of an Imperialistic nation when it counted. Let's wait three years before we hang him out as a scapegoat like we did W. BTW, if you are disappointed extremely in Obama, you must have been really happy with the white trash Clintons?

Originally Posted by danhanegan

The current reality is that candidates for federal office in the United States have very little reason to worry about pleasing actual voters. Most voters will vote for whichever candidate has the best television ads. It is appalling to me, but the average voter simply does not apply critical thinking to what they see on TV. The real contest is for the money to pay for those ads. Successful candidates MUST please the big money contributors who foot the bill for creating and broadcasting these ads. Those people aren't influenced by hype, they expect returned value for their dollars and they get it. The sense that there is very little difference between republican candidates and democratic candidates is absolutely correct, candidates parrot the expected slogans of their chosen party during the election but once elected get on with the real job of making the rich contributors who got them elected happy.

Once name recognition is established money has far less influence on politics than most of us realize..in fact 2/3 of the money during recent elections was spent on loosers.
Spending by independent groups had little impact on election, analysis finds - The Washington Post

I guess from a foreign perspective it's quite difficult to see why so my many Americans feel let down by President Obama. Everytime we see him giving a speech on television he is clear and articulate, comes across as reassuring as if that he always knows what to do and how achieve it. His views also seem reasonable and considered, for example when he is talking about military action, it gives the impression that it must be serious and important. All of which seems such a contrast from that of President Bush who just didn't ever inspire any confidence in his words or Judgement.

Yes I guess it's fair to say that in general Democratic American Presidents tend to get a better reception around the world, possibly because they tend to be perceived as 'World Presidents', thus having a greater respect and influence around the world, perhaps with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan who also seems have commanded that same level of respect as being seen as a world president. Reagan was also President at a very special time in America's history, a time at which America's popularity, culture and influence was at it's highest. But with his exception it certainly seems to have been the case the Democrat Presidents have really been the global stars.

Obama has certainly picked up the mantle in this respect, he has been the driving force for a new resurgence of American popularity, his place in history already assured and will been remembered around the world as great American President. Which makes it all the more confusing to non Americans that he is becoming less popular at home.
Perhaps one possible explanation for this stark contrast in perception could be the level of expectation that he could actually work miracles for the American economy and could create world peace. Pretty tough billing for anyone to live up really, also perhaps that his popularity abroad has always been less about what he actually did and more about what he represented, the way in which America could change and engage with the rest of the world in a way that never seemed to be an option when George W Bush was President.

Can we actually measure just how good Barack Obama has really been as an American President, given that for most of his time in office his hands have been metaphorically tied, also that he has had to contend with a huge global recession, conflict on multiple fronts, the campaign against terrorism and the many people that resent him being President purely because he is black. How could anyone cope given all of those pressures, and just what would another man have done in his place that people might all actually agree would have made him a success?

"I guess from a foreign perspective it's quite difficult to see why so my many Americans feel let down by President Obama."

Obama is not a bouffon, but hes a deceiver, the European press is highlighting the form but concealing pertinent facts and the substance, Obama ran on Change, you are being sedated by the Media, lets see;

Obama works for Wall Street,
has not reinstated the banking act of the 30s that was put in place after the Great Depression to minimize conflicts of interests and speculation. no substantive change, foxes are in charge of watching the henhouse, fractional reserve is still in place with private banks issuing bank credit and controling the cartel known as the federal reserve, not audited

Obama makes for a smiley face police state
The dismantlement of rights and instalment of the police state is right on track with Obama, nazi checkpoints at airports, secret no flying list, indefinite detainment without a trial, wiretap of citizens, spying on jounalists, ...etc, etc

An Obama War is a happy war
Iraq is still under military occupation with US military bases, missiles are being throw in other nations territory left and right, But to be fair warmongering lapdogs UK (sorry) and France have done the dirty deed for the US in Libya putting an islamist powder keg in its place, no matter how you hated boufon Gaddafi it was a War of Agression And a War crime! We are sold a berrel of bullshit with Syria, chemical weapons we smuggled by Nato-zionist proxy terrorist to pin on the Syrian army, its a fraud a proped up proxy war, and a War Crime.

Obama fascism light, is indeed less of a catastrophy that overt-warmongering nutcase neocon republicans, but its not like anyone should be celebrating the part that have Not changed much since Bush

Obama is not a bouffon

Although his hair in the seventies could have been described as bouffant.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by babe

Bush sucked, so does Obama. I voted for myself the last four elections. Bush was an idiot, and Obama is a social climber. Whatever. We haven't had a decent candidate in EITHER party in years.

I usually vote for third party candidates.

Except last time Romney got my vote for his position on China and currency manipulation. I have strong feelings about that topic, and so was willing to overlook the man's other potential flaws.

Voting is a privilege and you definitely chose your own path. Judgment should not be about who someone votes for, in my humble opinion. I care more about those that do not vote than "bitch" about it. You don't vote, you don't have the right to complain, to me.

Originally Posted by Ascended

I guess from a foreign perspective it's quite difficult to see why so my many Americans feel let down by President Obama. Everytime we see him giving a speech on television he is clear and articulate, comes across as reassuring as if that he always knows what to do and how achieve it. His views also seem reasonable and considered, for example when he is talking about military action, it gives the impression that it must be serious and important. All of which seems such a contrast from that of President Bush who just didn't ever inspire any confidence in his words or Judgement.

Are you guys aware of Obama's teleprompter? He reads, he does not speak without the Teleprompter. Bush has ten times the leadership ability as Obama. So,...do you vote for one that can read a tele. or one that can lead. As far as inspiring confidence, Bush was able to speak to god, while Obama has to pray daily for guidance. Plus Bush represented an honest political party while Obama represents one that attempted to steal the office of the President in 2000 and kidnapped god in 2012. In actuality it makes no difference what so ever, both are puppets of the MIC.

Originally Posted by sampson

Are you guys aware of Obama's teleprompter? He reads, he does not speak without the Teleprompter.

Given the quality of Bush's speeches, it's no small wonder Obama uses a teleprompter. Bush never once made a speech that inspired me. He did have a LOT more comedy nuggets than Obama, though.

Honestly, anyone who cares about the president delivering some speech he didn't even write on his own is just being silly.

Originally Posted by sampson

Bush has ten times the leadership ability as Obama.

With or without Cheney's hand up his backside?

Originally Posted by sampson

As far as inspiring confidence, Bush was able to speak to god

Uh....what?

Originally Posted by sampson

Plus Bush represented an honest political party

Uh....WHAT?!

Originally Posted by sampson

while Obama represents one that attempted to steal the office of the President in 2000 and kidnapped god in 2012.

A recount is not "stealing" any more than Republicans moving districts around in their favor or requiring mandates which make it statistically more difficult for lower class minorities to even vote.

Originally Posted by sampson

In actuality it makes no difference what so ever, both are puppets of the MIC.

Jeez. It makes no difference? You wouldn't know that based on your post.

Forget about which party is the puppet. The voters are the puppets. Manipulated by soap-opera media outlets and billion dollar campaigns that speak to everything but the real issue. If you wanted honest politics, you'd laugh at the idea of either party being scrupulous.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Forget about which party is the puppet. The voters are the puppets. Manipulated by soap-opera media outlets and billion dollar campaigns that speak to everything but the real issue.

Yes, I see ample evidence of that in your post.

Because I'm being manipulated by ... ?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Because I'm being manipulated by ... ?

Well, let's put it this way. There is nothing original in a Bush criticism, and 60% of all of them are false, and the other 40% exaggerated well beyond boring. Bush became a scapegoat when the markets collapsed. So........ all or 99.9% of anything that is Bush related comes from sources not to be trusted, especially those concerning Cheney. The only one I would believe is that one where he used voodoo to order Hurricane Katrina to pester the poor black folks of New Orleans.

[QUOTE=sampson;436908]

Are you guys aware of Obama's teleprompter?

Honestly it's one of the most stupid things said nowdays. The teleprompter is just a high-tech version of paper, which every president has used since the start of the nation--including the more famous ones such as the Gettysburg Address.

Originally Posted by sampson

Well, let's put it this way. There is nothing original in a Bush criticism

He's immune to criticism because it's been done before?

Originally Posted by sampson

60% of all of them are false, and the other 40% exaggerated well beyond boring.

Those are some pretty round numbers you've got there.

Originally Posted by sampson

Bush became a scapegoat when the markets collapsed.

Could it be because of his inept leadership?

Originally Posted by sampson

all or 99.9% of anything that is Bush related comes from sources not to be trusted, especially those concerning Cheney.

"All" and "99%" in the same sentence. You must be pretty darn sure of yourself. Not to mention a master of politics.

Originally Posted by sampson

The only one I would believe is that one where he used voodoo to order Hurricane Katrina to pester the poor black folks of New Orleans.

Stupid comment.

Look, Obama is not the savior of man, but to call him a miserable excuse for a president and then defend Bush is almost comical.

The fact is, they are both very similar. Their policies are not that far from one another. They both got us into wars, financial turmoil, created civil unrest. They have both been at the helm of a disaster of a congressional train wreck. I mean, from my point of view, you might as well lambast the peach and extol the virtues of the nectarine.

But whatever. I don't subscribe to party mantra, so what could I possibly know?

Originally Posted by sampson

As far as inspiring confidence, Bush was able to speak to god, while Obama has to pray daily for guidance. Plus Bush represented an honest political party while Obama represents one that attempted to steal the office of the President in 2000 and kidnapped god in 2012.

Do Political threads always devolve into this kind of fundamentalist idiocy?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

The fact is, they are both very similar. Their policies are not that far from one another. They both got us into wars, financial turmoil, created civil unrest. They have both been at the helm of a disaster of a congressional train wreck. I mean, from my point of view, you might as well lambast the peach and extol the virtues of the nectarine.

Not a dimes difference, puppets both.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by sampson

As far as inspiring confidence, Bush was able to speak to god, while Obama has to pray daily for guidance. Plus Bush represented an honest political party while Obama represents one that attempted to steal the office of the President in 2000 and kidnapped god in 2012.

Do Political threads always devolve into this kind of fundamentalist idiocy?

If you can face the facts, state them, if you can not face the facts, because of a conflict with a presonal agenda, then ignore them.

Originally Posted by sampson

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by sampson

As far as inspiring confidence, Bush was able to speak to god, while Obama has to pray daily for guidance. Plus Bush represented an honest political party while Obama represents one that attempted to steal the office of the President in 2000 and kidnapped god in 2012.

Do Political threads always devolve into this kind of fundamentalist idiocy?

If you can face the facts, state them, if you can not face the facts, because of a conflict with a presonal agenda, then ignore them.

Bush speaks to God is a fact?

Fundamentalist nonsense.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Bush speaks to God is a fact?

Fundamentalist nonsense.

That is logically impossible. So no, not a fact. I was using Bush and Obama's own words. On numerous occasions Bush has claimed a direct link to a god that many believe in. Bush once told a jewish rabbi that he could not go to heaven. Obama has stated he prays to god everyday for guidance. Millions voted for him and never questioned this fundamentalist nonsense as you said. Obama invoked god in campaigning more than any presidential candidate ever. Of course he is lying, it is illogical. However I think Bush has an edge as he has claimed a personal relationship, but was never asked for a recording.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by sampson

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by sampson

As far as inspiring confidence, Bush was able to speak to god, while Obama has to pray daily for guidance. Plus Bush represented an honest political party while Obama represents one that attempted to steal the office of the President in 2000 and kidnapped god in 2012.

Do Political threads always devolve into this kind of fundamentalist idiocy?

If you can face the facts, state them, if you can not face the facts, because of a conflict with a presonal agenda, then ignore them.

Bush speaks to God is a fact?

Fundamentalist nonsense.

Well if Bush really thinks he speaks to God then I'm just relieved he isn't still in charge of America's nuclear arsenal.

I didnt post comments about the Bush and God, because, well, I thought it was a joke. I am interpreting replies as if you guys think Sampson is not pulling your leg and having a laugh.
Is this Bush and God narrative genuine or to make people laugh?

Bottom line. Bush was an idiot, Obama is just a well-spoken idiot. THere isn't much difference with the exception that Obama is a good orator, and we all know that was not Bush's forte.

I would hesitate to call them idiots. Obama studied law at Harvard. He's not dumb.

I think the problem is that we have so much adversity within our government that nothing can get done except the bad things we all want to avoid. A Republican congress also has NO problem with 4 years of disaster so long as Obama is at the helm. I have a hard time accepting that they have our nation's best interests prioritized over making the competition look bad.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I would hesitate to call them idiots. Obama studied law at Harvard. He's not dumb.

I think the problem is that we have so much adversity within our government that nothing can get done except the bad things we all want to avoid. A Republican congress also has NO problem with 4 years of disaster so long as Obama is at the helm. I have a hard time accepting that they have our nation's best interests prioritized over making the competition look bad.

There are a lot of people who are very book smart, but have no common sense or common denominator smarts. I have known a few over the years. I was not speaking of book smart.

I do not find that any administration, of either party, has had anything of the people of America's interest in mind for probably a long long long time. Those who we vote into taking care of those things aren't doing their job, yet we continue to VOTE THEM IN!....clean house.

I also think we need to stop speaking Republican and Democrat and start speaking AMERICAN!

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I would hesitate to call them idiots. Obama studied law at Harvard. He's not dumb.

I think the problem is that we have so much adversity within our government that nothing can get done except the bad things we all want to avoid. A Republican congress also has NO problem with 4 years of disaster so long as Obama is at the helm. I have a hard time accepting that they have our nation's best interests prioritized over making the competition look bad.

There are a lot of people who are very book smart, but have no common sense or common denominator smarts. I have known a few over the years. I was not speaking of book smart.

I do not find that any administration, of either party, has had anything of the people of America's interest in mind for probably a long long long time. Those who we vote into taking care of those things aren't doing their job, yet we continue to VOTE THEM IN!....clean house.

I also think we need to stop speaking Republican and Democrat and start speaking AMERICAN!

I would also question the notion that one can survive the American political environment on book smarts alone. These guys are exceptionally clever.

I simply maintain that they are unable to get past their own personal agendas and the bloated federal government. Even those who DO have America's interests in mind will be hard-pressed to affect a meaningful change.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I would hesitate to call them idiots. Obama studied law at Harvard. He's not dumb.

I think the problem is that we have so much adversity within our government that nothing can get done except the bad things we all want to avoid. A Republican congress also has NO problem with 4 years of disaster so long as Obama is at the helm. I have a hard time accepting that they have our nation's best interests prioritized over making the competition look bad.

There are a lot of people who are very book smart, but have no common sense or common denominator smarts. I have known a few over the years. I was not speaking of book smart.

I do not find that any administration, of either party, has had anything of the people of America's interest in mind for probably a long long long time. Those who we vote into taking care of those things aren't doing their job, yet we continue to VOTE THEM IN!....clean house.

I also think we need to stop speaking Republican and Democrat and start speaking AMERICAN!

I would also question the notion that one can survive the American political environment on book smarts alone. These guys are exceptionally clever.

I simply maintain that they are unable to get past their own personal agendas and the bloated federal government. Even those who DO have America's interests in mind will be hard-pressed to affect a meaningful change.

I think, we are saying the same thing, just in a different way. I agree.

Originally Posted by river_rat

Originally Posted by kojax

I usually vote for third party candidates.

In a first past the post voting system that is a wasted vote.

For "choose your winner" it's wasted yes. For nudging the positions of mainstream parties and politicians, a passive-aggressive vote is not a waste. For metaphor, imagine your goal is to move all the dogs in a park over to one corner: What happens if you reward one with a biscuit? What happens if you toss your biscuit into the duckpond, visibly "wasting" it? And, what if you don't offer any biscuits at all? Those are the three options each eligible voter has. Most Americans on this thread recognize the problem with American politics is they're all stooping to reward the favorite dogs. How does this affect the dogs?

Originally Posted by Ascended

I guess from a foreign perspective it's quite difficult to see why so my many Americans feel let down by President Obama. Everytime we see him giving a speech on television he is clear and articulate, comes across as reassuring as if that he always knows what to do and how achieve it. His views also seem reasonable and considered, for example when he is talking about military action, it gives the impression that it must be serious and important. All of which seems such a contrast from that of President Bush who just didn't ever inspire any confidence in his words or Judgement.

Yes I guess it's fair to say that in general Democratic American Presidents tend to get a better reception around the world, possibly because they tend to be perceived as 'World Presidents', thus having a greater respect and influence around the world, perhaps with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan who also seems have commanded that same level of respect as being seen as a world president. Reagan was also President at a very special time in America's history, a time at which America's popularity, culture and influence was at it's highest. But with his exception it certainly seems to have been the case the Democrat Presidents have really been the global stars

I share your view. The term is "statesman" , not in the elder sense but meaning a leader capable of engaging other leaders reasonably, while putting forward the interests of their own countries. Whether or not a politician is a statesman is plainly tested by willingness to engage in pubic negotiations with other leaders, without weasel-words, staging, or mouthpieces. Then it's clear (whether one likes them or not) which leaders have this quality: Putin, George W. Bush, Saddam, Reagan, Un, Obama, Ahmadinejad. Which of these can successfully articulate their country's positions in internationally televised negotiation? Which have proposed that?

I wouldn't..uh.. call Barrack..uh.. Hussein..uh...Obama articulate. Uhh... that's not his style.

Well I don't really think it's fair to blame Barrack Obama for not doing everything that everyone wanted. Firstly everyone wanted something different from him, the black community wanted him not only to be an icon for being the first black president but also to reverse what they consider is the social injustice that so many black live in poverty and or don't by percentage get high paying jobs when compared with white Americans, the Hispanic community also wanted Obama to redress what they considered social injustice as so many of their community also experience poverty, but they didn't want him to show and favourtism to the Black community. Then you have a large section of white Republican voters who just didn't want him to change a single thing, getting most irrate at the idea he might change something from the way it was under George W Bush, yet at the same time blaming him for not magically fixing the economy over night. Then you had all of the more liberally inclined of all races wanting him to do things like close down Guantanamo Bay, pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Everybody wants something, everybody expects something yet nobody really seems stop and ask "well what has he done?", or "realistically what did we expect he could do?".
Also surely if people really wanted him to do the things they wanted then why didn't they give him the tools to do it? I mean surely people must be aware that he might have actually been able to make some real progress if they'd voted in a Democratic Congress to give him some actual power to get things done.

As America's first black President Obama, has been a success he has shown people of all creeds in America they are capable of succeeding, on the world stage he demonstated that America would support it's allies by helping the British & French in Libya, economically he is bringing America out of recession and creating new jobs, implementing his idea for healthcare for the 40 million+ Americans who didn't have any cover and is universally adored around the rest of the world, so again I ask has he been a failure, or might it just simply be the case the expectations were unrealistic?

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

I wouldn't..uh.. call Barrack..uh.. Hussein..uh...Obama articulate. Uhh... that's not his style.

You should see ME addressing billions of people live across the world. I just wing it. It's articulate and spectacular. Way better than that Obama jerk.

His speech writers are quite articulate, and he is a good orator. I give him that. Other than that, well I am not happy at all.

Originally Posted by babe

His speech writers are quite articulate, and he is a good orator. I give him that. Other than that, well I am not happy at all.

But fair enough then, what is it that you would have liked to have seen that would have made you happy with his performance? What could he have done better or differently?

"what is it that you would have liked to have seen that would have made you happy with his performance?"

1- Make a speech to explain why the Banking Act of 1933 was enacted and why speculation needs to be checked, and why it needs to be, take quotes from FDR if you have to
2- Audit the Federal Reserve for starters.
(Of course he wont do that, hes a Wall Street sock poppet bought and paid for, like an actor telling you "Colgate now has freaking flavor crystals@!" FFS as if anyone thought the guy on tv is not paid to say this in an advertising.)

Quote General Smedley Butler from War is a Racket, and...
3- Pull back from all bases around the world, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan

or Benjamin Franklin's "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and
4- Denounce Publicly, the abuses and exaggerated nature of the Patriot Act, the NDAA's Fascist provisions with indefinite detention, and all other Police State Crap like Monitoring communications of US citizens.
(He wont do that either, because if he had the character for it, he would not have gotten any media attention, and if he wakes up and does, he'd probably get a letter with US Military strain Antrax reminding him that Eisenhower's public warning about a Military Industrial Complex has fallen on deaf ears :
"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." -Eisenhower

There are many things he could do, but hes acting like a corrupt politician. The only Politician that I think would have the guts to do as much as he could do or has much as would be possible as a President, would be Jesse Ventura. (even then, the entire system is so corrupt and entrenched in the Establishment's favor that change would require as much public pressure or more than there was during the great depression)

(one of the reasons FDR and others were able to push for workers right laws and placing limits on bankers and speculation is that a faction of the elite of the time (Great Depression), were genuinely scared that the workers of the US would revolt and throw the Elites out like a US version of the Russian communist revolution, the faction that wanted to appease the people with carrots won over the faction that wanted to tame the populace with sticks on their heads. This imo was the seed that allowed the middle class to flourish. But later, at the anti-communist propaganda was smooth sailing and the USSR was in its death throws, there was no reasons for carrots anymore for a clueless atomized and divided populace, so the new deal and unions were indirectly dismantled, people like Greenspan contemplated the advantages of having a 3rd world slave labor population and soon after the first provisions for anti-riot/anti-revolt started to be implemented piece by piece behind the scene, the tame the populace with sticks method apparently got the upper hand)

Originally Posted by icewendigo

"what is it that you would have liked to have seen that would have made you happy with his performance?"
1- Make a speech to explain why the Banking Act of 1933 was enacted and why speculation needs to be checked, and why it needs to be, take quotes from FDR if you have to
2- Audit the Federal Reserve for starters.
(Of course he wont do that, hes a Wall Street sock poppet bought and paid for, like an actor telling you "Colgate now has freaking flavor crystals@!" FFS as if anyone thought the guy on tv is not paid to say this in an advertising)

Quote General Smedley Butler from War is a Racket, and...
3- Pull back from all bases around the world, starting with Iraq and Afghanistan

or Benjamin Franklin's "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." and
4- Denounce Publicly, the abuses and exaggerated nature of the Patriot Act, the NDAA's Fascist provisions with indefinite detention, and all other Police State Crap like Monitoring communications of US citizens.
(He wont do that either, because if he had the character for it, he would not have gotten any media attention, and if he wakes up and does, he'd probably get a letter with US Military strain Antrax reminding him that Eisenhower's public warning about a Military Industrial Complex has fallen on deaf ears :
"we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together." -Eisenhower

Ok now point by point try and work out the reasoning behind why he either hasn't or couldn't do the things that you'd have liked.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

There are many things he could do, but hes acting like a corrupt politician. The only Politician that I think would have the guts to do as much as he could do or has much as would be possible as a President, would be Jesse Ventura. I might not agree with all his views, but hes the real deal, not a used car salesman, imo.

Herrm Jesse Ventura, interesting. But didn't they also have an ex wrestler in that film idocracy?, can't say the idea fills me with confidence for the future of world cooperation and unity.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by babe

His speech writers are quite articulate, and he is a good orator. I give him that. Other than that, well I am not happy at all.

But fair enough then, what is it that you would have liked to have seen that would have made you happy with his performance? What could he have done better or differently?

Decrease debt. Gone about health care reform in a more researched and investigated way as to what does and does not work. Balance the budget. Done away with the Patriot Act. (hell they have been spying on us all for years, don't hide behind an "Act"). Not screwed the South Pacific in its abilitiy to defend, by severe cutbacks that seriously affect us.

President, would be Jesse Ventura.

Ahhh....was with you up until right here...the man is a crazy Libertarian conspiracy theorist...

...the man is a crazy Libertarian conspiracy theorist...

Sure and I have powers of clairvoyant precognition, Im thinking of a number right now, that will form in you brain in the near future, I am starting to get something, ok, heres a question
~How many Documents have you read from the United States National Archives and Records Administration?~ Ive got a fuzzy number almost got it...

I will not qualify people that have not read a few declassified documents and/or think WTC7 was not a controlled demolition
(WTC7 will at some point be a textbook example of double think reality defying faith in state propaganda ),

but although I am not a Libertarian (just ask Neverfly) I nonethess think Jesse Ventura is the best man that could run, not corrupt like a Democrat and Republican would most certainly be,

"But didn't they also have an ex wrestler"

Wrestler, yes I laugh when I heard that, but its a very superficial juging-a-book-by-its-cover point, not worth considering
He even was a Navy Seal, which even I would not hold against him, I am ready to forgive that (Im just making you howl, teasing)

Do not blame Obama, he inherited the absolute and utter mess that George Bush had created. George Bush alienated the Middle East, completely disrupted order in the Middle East and in the process managed to put America into trillions of dollars of debt.

No President has ever inherited such an utter disaster as the reign of George Bush.

Originally Posted by Devon Keogh

Do not blame Obama, he inherited the absolute and utter mess that George Bush had created. George Bush alienated the Middle East, completely disrupted order in the Middle East and in the process managed to put America into trillions of dollars of debt.

No President has ever inherited such an utter disaster as the reign of George Bush.

Will you be saying the same thing about the guy who takes over after him and has an even bigger mess and more than 5 trillion (first term only) in extra debt? If not, you're a hypocrite.

"Bush caused the Recession", "Obama inherited it", and so on. All utter bullshit! NO President is personally responsible for these enormous far-reaching events; ALL Presidents are simply PAWNS, being used as the scapegoat material to take both the blame, and credit, where any is due.

So far, I personally see no credit as being worthy of deliverance to the present Administration, whomever the hell is behind running it! jocular

I was thinking something similar...

In order to show some taste- I won't post this link to the video of "Tourettes Guy" because it drops the F-bomb like crazy and is vulgar.
But if you happen to come across the video- it's pretty much head on- It doesn't matter WHO is in office, the effect is usually the same- with a whole lot of partisan bias swirling around it.

Will we ever have an atheist president?

Will we ever have a real PRESIDENT?

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Will we ever have an atheist president?

Eventually people will accept that you can be a good leader even if you don't believe in their favorite fictional being, or believe in a different one. Until then, it won't happen.

Originally Posted by babe

Will we ever have a real PRESIDENT?

Like the one in "Independence Day"? joc

Originally Posted by TheUnknowable

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Will we ever have an atheist president?

Eventually people will accept that you can be a good leader even if you don't believe in their favorite fictional being, or believe in a different one. Until then, it won't happen.

Before JFK's successful run, it was widely predicted the country would likely NEVER have a Catholic President. 'Nuff said there.

Atheist? Some past Presidents, though proclaimed to adhere to this or that religious belief, have I think been pretty damn close! I would cite Nixon first (Quaker?), he quaked all right, right on down to his boots! joc

This is true- I suspect Obama is a closet atheist, as well. But politically, they claim to believe in what the majority believe.

Perhaps the question may be- Will there be an openly heathen atheist president?

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by babe

Will we ever have a real PRESIDENT?

Like the one in "Independence Day"? joc

I said REAL!! NOT FILM!

IMO, it will only happen in "unreality", like Hollywood. joc

Originally Posted by Neverfly

This is true- I suspect Obama is a closet atheist, as well. But politically, they claim to believe in what the majority believe.

Perhaps the question may be- Will there be an openly heathen atheist president?

While I'd like to think that, I doubt it, he's been a regular church attender for decades, including long before he entered politics. In my experience he'd be rather unusual atheist. Those that I know, including myself for a few years, just attended church for the social side to share with family and not every often.

Atheist are among the most distrusted group in America, below that of felons by many people. That won't change until many more come out in public, it becomes a very common depiction in Hollywood of honorable atheist with a strong moral compass and political membership.

At best it will take a couple decades, much as depictions and trust of gays did over the past generation.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While I'd like to think that, I doubt it, he's been a regular church attender for decades, including long before he entered politics.

His mother was an atheist and raised him as such. He didn't join the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he was baptized, until 1988. He majored in Political Science from 1981 to 1983, so he may have been planning a career in politics by then, probably was. He already had ambitions of running for the presidency before his marriage in 1992. According to his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jermiah Wright, “Church is not their thing. It never was their thing.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rev-wright-obamas-church-not-their-thing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_l...f_Barack_Obama

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While I'd like to think that, I doubt it, he's been a regular church attender for decades, including long before he entered politics.

His mother was an atheist and raised him as such. He didn't join the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he was baptized, until 1988. He majored in Political Science from 1981 to 1983, so he may have been planning a career in politics by then, probably was. He already had ambitions of running for the presidency before his marriage in 1992. According to his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jermiah Wright, “Church is not their thing. It never was their thing.”

Rev. Wright on Obamas:Early life and career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Probably one of the best things I've heard about him in a while. A part of me wishes he would live his life in that manner, but another part of me knows he would be politically crucified for doing so.

What a shame.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While I'd like to think that, I doubt it, he's been a regular church attender for decades, including long before he entered politics.

His mother was an atheist and raised him as such. He didn't join the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he was baptized, until 1988. He majored in Political Science from 1981 to 1983, so he may have been planning a career in politics by then, probably was. He already had ambitions of running for the presidency before his marriage in 1992. According to his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jermiah Wright, “Church is not their thing. It never was their thing.”

Rev. Wright on Obamas:
Early life and career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though you have revealed this info, it was with a noncommittal stance: will you convey any personal conviction(s) pertaining to this subject? joc

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While I'd like to think that, I doubt it, he's been a regular church attender for decades, including long before he entered politics. In my experience he'd be rather unusual atheist. Those that I know, including myself for a few years, just attended church for the social side to share with family and not every often.

Atheist are among the most distrusted group in America, below that of felons by many people. That won't change until many more come out in public, it becomes a very common depiction in Hollywood of honorable atheist with a strong moral compass and political membership.

At best it will take a couple decades, much as depictions and trust of gays did over the past generation.

(1) Is not church attendance under such guise rather hypocritical?

(2) Atheists are distrusted in the extreme, you say, but by whom? All others? And why? Can you elaborate a bit? joc

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

While I'd like to think that, I doubt it, he's been a regular church attender for decades, including long before he entered politics.

His mother was an atheist and raised him as such. He didn't join the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he was baptized, until 1988. He majored in Political Science from 1981 to 1983, so he may have been planning a career in politics by then, probably was. He already had ambitions of running for the presidency before his marriage in 1992. According to his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jermiah Wright, “Church is not their thing. It never was their thing.”

Rev. Wright on Obamas:Early life and career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Probably one of the best things I've heard about him in a while. A part of me wishes he would live his life in that manner, but another part of me knows he would be politically crucified for doing so.

What a shame.

I have not found yet, regrettably, a way to "double or triple "like" " a post! Bravo! To me, it borders on near-heinous behavior that Presidents have, and do, flagrantly violate the Oath of Office, only somewhat cautiously during their first term, then with unhidden contempt during the second! It is most painful to me, to realize now that the deeply imposed, and loyally-embraced patriotic beliefs I held for much of my lifetime, have been shattered like broken glass by the Administrations of several recent United States Presidents. jocular

Originally Posted by Harold14370

His mother was an atheist and raised him as such.

That's speculation, we don't know the religiosity of his mom. He was raised outside a church, but that's not the same as being raised an atheist. I will concede though it's not so far fetched assumption and might suggest rather shallow beliefs, like many Americans who'll state they are Christian but would need their Garmin to find their local church. Though there are exceptions, most consider my mother a strong religious person, still reading the bible and engaging in prayer though the most part rejecting the trappings of Catholicism after they sided with her sexually abusive father of her younger sister. Obama's half sister has a quite reasonable description of their mother: "I wouldn't have called her an atheist. She was an agnostic. She basically gave us all the good books—the Bible, the Hindu Upanishads and the Buddhist scripture, the Tao Te Ching—and wanted us to recognize that everyone has something beautiful to contribute."^[34] "Jesus, she felt, was a wonderful example. But she felt that a lot of Christians behaved in un-Christian ways." On the other hand, my son could say something similar about me (except the agnostic parts)... I've read more about religion than most and have dozens of books in my private library, many of which he's read as well--I'm also deeply spiritual according to my closest friends. I'm not sure what direction my son will take.

He didn't join the Trinity United Church of Christ, where he was baptized, until 1988. He majored in Political Science from 1981 to 1983, so he may have been planning a career in politics by then, probably was.

Perhaps, if so though, is ambitions run a lot deeper than all the other hell raising he did during his undergraduate days might suggest.

He already had ambitions of running for the presidency before his marriage in 1992.

More speculation? The closest thing we had it he heart felt words from his first book from around that time...and it's not mentioned...though a strong desire to help the poor resonates through it's pages (I read my wife's copy some time ago).

According to his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jermiah Wright, “Church is not their thing. It never was their thing.”

You know what I'm going to write...... and it's sort of funny and ironic. Something about a truth sayer and confirmation bias. The fact is he did regularly attend a church for a very long time, and one with rather fundamentalist views--meaning there's at least as much reason to accept his claim as being a Christian as not.
--
Jocular, what I said is pretty well known and confirmed in many polls.
The first link, is a general public summary of one of the meta studies, the 2nd the abstract https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=in-atheists-we-distrust
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22059841

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Harold14370

His mother was an atheist and raised him as such.

That's speculation, we don't know the religiosity of his mom. He was raised outside a church, but that's not the same as being raised an atheist.

This is from Obama's book, Audacity of Hope.

I was not raised in a religious household. For my mother, organized religion too often dressed up closed-mindedness in the garb of piety, cruelty and oppression in the cloak of righteousness. However, in her mind, a working knowledge of the world's great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. In our household the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology.

On Easter or Christmas Day my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and ancient Hawaiian burial sites.In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well.

To me, that's atheism. A theist does not view their religion through the eyes of an anthropologist. She is certainly not raising him to have a religious belief.

He already had ambitions of running for the presidency before his marriage in 1992.

More speculation?

No, that is according to Michelle's brother Craig.

Marty Nesbitt, a young, successful black businessman (who played basketball with Michelle's brother, Craig Robinson), became Obama's best friend and introduced him to other African-American business people. Before the marriage, according to Craig, Obama talked about his political ambitions, even saying that he might run for president someday.

Early life and career of Barack Obama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To me, that's atheism.

It isn't to me. It's a position like some of our earlier deist presidents--essentially non religious, but believing in a higher power nevertheless. Of course some who today might be considered fundamentalist accused them of atheism as well. Obama's involvement with church life far exceeds that of his mom, or actually any other atheist that I can think of. There's not much reason to doubt Obama at his word that's he's a Christian. Nor any good reason to consider it some form of manipulation or political expediency. He's probably written and spoken more about his personal thoughts than any recent president, and there's nothing there to suggest he's an atheist in any of it.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

To me, that's atheism.

It isn't to me. It's a position like some of our earlier deist presidents--essentially non religious, but believing in a higher power nevertheless. Of course some who today might be considered fundamentalist accused them of atheism as well. Obama's involvement with church life far exceeds that of his mom, or actually any other atheist that I can think of. There's not much reason to doubt Obama at his word that's he's a Christian. Nor any good reason to consider it some form of manipulation or political expediency. He's probably written and spoken more about his personal thoughts than any recent president, and there's nothing there to suggest he's an atheist in any of it.

Nitpick: He was referring to the Mother in that bit, not Barrack.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

To me, that's atheism.

It isn't to me. It's a position like some of our earlier deist presidents--essentially non religious, but believing in a higher power nevertheless.

Nothing I read there that implied she believed in a higher power. She's studying it like an anthropologist and putting it on the same level as Greek mythology.

Of course some who today might be considered fundamentalist accused them of atheism as well. Obama's

involvement with church life far exceeds that of his mom, or actually any other atheist that I can think of. There's not much reason to doubt Obama at his word that's he's a Christian.

He gets baptized about the same time he starts thinking about running for office. Then attends church very erratically. Not what you usually expect from someone who gets religion later in life. I would expect him to be more enthusiastic about his new-found religion.

Nor any good reason to consider it some form of manipulation or political expediency. He's probably written and spoken more about his personal thoughts than any recent president, and there's nothing there to suggest he's an atheist in any of it.

You wouldn't expect him to write anything that undermines his politically expedient (if lukewarm) religious conversion.

rather weak logic that that Obama's an atheist argument....

A mother who goes out of her way to expose her child to a wide range of religions is painted as an atheist and her son by association.

A bit of out of context hearsay by a brother in law doesn't count for much...many of us openly say "if I were president," few of us mean it....

And a quip by a disgruntled preacher who lost his prize follower weighs heavier than two books, dozens of personal writings and thousands of speeches all without a slip up that suggest he's anything other than what he professes to be...a Christian who says he is, lives in every aspects of his life as one (better than most I might add) for more than two decades and even shares in many of the bible's rather liberal social ideals of society.

All tied to a thread bare sequence that presumes decades of planning and duplicity to give false impressions.

Really? Such a tread bare argument is quite close to conspiracy theory thinking, though oft used where the same argument is repeated by Obama haters on the far right (disappointingly).

--
Though I'd love if in the waning days of his presidency he revealed himself as an atheist-- part of the acceptance of atheist is having strong role models and there would be few better.

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Will we ever have an atheist president?

Many Christians believe that God is the only thing still propping the USA up so it doesn't collapse. The last thing they want to do is offend him/her/it by voting in an atheist as president.

It's not so much about whether the guy will do a good job. It's more about wanting to make sure the President prays for the country.

Originally Posted by jocular

(2) Atheists are distrusted in the extreme, you say, but by whom? All others? And why? Can you elaborate a bit? joc

Clearly they are mistrusted by Christians.

It's a tenet of Christianity that everything good comes from God, so it's hard for a Christian to believe that you could possibly be a good person and not automatically be drawn to Christianity.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

rather weak logic that that Obama's an atheist argument....

A mother who goes out of her way to expose her child to a wide range of religions is painted as an atheist and her son by association.

By association? This is the person who raised him. Most people who are religious pick it up from their parents.

A bit of out of context hearsay by a brother in law doesn't count for much...many of us openly say "if I were president," few of us mean it....

And a quip by a disgruntled preacher who lost his prize follower weighs heavier than two books, dozens of personal writings and thousands of speeches all without a slip up that suggest he's anything other than what he professes to be...a Christian who says he is, lives in every aspects of his life as one (better than most I might add) for more than two decades and even shares in many of the bible's rather liberal social ideals of society.

All tied to a thread bare sequence that presumes decades of planning and duplicity to give false impressions.

Really? Such a tread bare argument is quite close to conspiracy theory thinking, though oft used where the same argument is repeated by Obama haters on the far right (disappointingly).

--
Though I'd love if in the waning days of his presidency he revealed himself as an atheist-- part of the acceptance of atheist is having strong role models and there would be few better.

By comparing the number of professed atheist who are American politicians to atheists in the general population, it should be obvious that there are many closeted atheists in government. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just logic.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by MoonCanvas

Will we ever have an atheist president?

Many Christians believe that God is the only thing still propping the USA up so it doesn't collapse. The last thing they want to do is offend him/her/it by voting in an atheist as president.

It's not so much about whether the guy will do a good job. It's more about wanting to make sure the President prays for the country.

Originally Posted by jocular

(2) Atheists are distrusted in the extreme, you say, but by whom? All others? And why? Can you elaborate a bit? joc

Clearly they are mistrusted by Christians.

It's a tenet of Christianity that everything good comes from God, so it's hard for a Christian to believe that you could possibly be a good person and not automatically be drawn to Christianity.

My understanding, perhaps not correct in the overall view, is that "good" Christian thinking attempts to find the "good" that exists in the non-Christian, though it may be a "smaller good" than the "true Christian's", but nonetheless a goodness to be exploited and developed, thereby bringing to light the possibility of the non-Christian accepting Christian ways.

Put another way, recruit for the Lord! joc

Originally Posted by Harold14370

By comparing the number of professed atheist who are American politicians to atheists in the general population, it should be obvious that there are many closeted atheists in government. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just logic.

It could be noted here, that during the "Bay of Pigs" incursion, Divine Wisdom failed to materialize for the Catholic American President, who privately called in, and conferred at length with, his nemesis: Barry Goldwater. I heard it said once, Goldwater told JFK he must prove possession of larger balls than those of the Premier. joc

By association? This is the person who raised him. Most people who are religious pick it up from their parents.

Not withstanding that it's not certain that Ann was an atheist, it's by association because you trying to apply a general trend about "most people" across populations to an individual--that's why it's a logical fallacy to deduce anything of much import based on associations.

The most reasonable conclusion, based on what we know, is Obama's mother left him a broad exposure to different religions (as will simply living in Hawaii) but did not proselytize him to any particular faith. That's much different than teaching him to be an atheist. And no one here is really disputing his early adult convictions about religion.
--

By comparing the number of professed atheist who are American politicians to atheists in the general population, it should be obvious that there are many closeted atheists in government. That's not a conspiracy theory, that's just logic.

Well there's not much evidence that the fraction of atheism in politics is somehow different and proportional even though we know so many other groups are under represented groups in government-- go ahead and list them off for fun....afro-Americans, Native American's, Women, Hispanics, Muslims, gays, etc. The reality is we simply don't know how many atheist are in politics and even if we did, it wouldn't lead to evidence of Obama's particular religiosity, or lack there of. Arguments that politicians might hide their atheism, based on distrust of atheist by the general electorate, aren't evidence of Obama being an atheist.

He's got you there, Harold. No one, aside from perhaps Barrack Obama himself, knows his beliefs.

I suspect a lot of priests and ministers are also atheists- for them, it's just business. There's money in it.
Even Mother Theresa stopped believing in God. A trend of intelligent people that support the sciences is that they tend to let go of the ancient and primitive superstitions.
But that's merely a trend and not compelling evidence of Barrack Obama's faith or lack of it. I suspect that he's as much a heathen non-believer as most of the members on here. But he cannot admit it in public without committing political suicide. Suspecting it is not the same as being able to state it as a certainty.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

He's got you there, Harold. No one, aside from perhaps Barrack Obama himself, knows his beliefs.

I suspect a lot of priests and ministers are also atheists- for them, it's just business. There's money in it.
Even Mother Theresa stopped believing in God. A trend of intelligent people that support the sciences is that they tend to let go of the ancient and primitive superstitions.
But that's merely a trend and not compelling evidence of Barrack Obama's faith or lack of it. I suspect that he's as much a heathen non-believer as most of the members on here. But he cannot admit it in public without committing political suicide. Suspecting it is not the same as being able to state it as a certainty.

Presumptuous. Ill-conceived conclusion. Why would "most members on here" be, in particular, inclined to the same beliefs, much less all be "heathen". The implication is that atheists are "heathen", an erroneous conclusion, unless my interpretation of heathen is incorrect. jocular

hmmm. I think NV is using heather correctly, someone who doesn't accept the God of Abraham. Atheist would certainly fit that definition. The fact that it's even considered by some to be condescending reflects the prejudice against non-religious peoples often pushed by religious fundamentalist.

As for religiosity of the forum... I'm not sure. I'd guess as a group it probably trends as less religious than the general public, just as most polls of scientist.

I never said I knew for certain what he believed. I was commenting on this:

While I'd like to think that, I doubt it, he's been a regular church attender for decades, including long before he entered politics. In my experience he'd be rather unusual atheist. Those that I know, including myself for a few years, just attended church for the social side to share with family and not every often.

Which Lynx-Fox thinks is convincing evidence that he's religious. I do not find it so convincing. There's a plausible reason why he would start going to church before entering politics.

To get more votes? joc

Originally Posted by jocular

Presumptuous. Ill-conceived conclusion. Why would "most members on here" be, in particular, inclined to the same beliefs, much less all be "heathen". The implication is that atheists are "heathen", an erroneous conclusion, unless my interpretation of heathen is incorrect. jocular

Silence, Heathen!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

hmmm. I think NV is using heather correctly

No, I used "heathen" correctly, albeit tongue in cheek.

I have no memory of ever using Heather, and if you know something I don't- don't tell SeaGypsy.

Which Lynx-Fox thinks is convincing evidence that he's religious...

In combination with his writings about his earlier skepticism and how he came to be Christian, and more than 20 years of acting without fail as a Christian...yes.

When a man takes the time to write about his deep personal journey, repeatedly talks and than walks his talk for more than a generation .... yes I tend to believe them. What's rather ironic is the factions of the extreme right are so blinded by hatred (for what ever reason--and I have my own ideas from my inside seat as a lifelong republican) that they'd doubt and even reject one of the better examples of a Christian President in our nation's history.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by jocular

Presumptuous. Ill-conceived conclusion. Why would "most members on here" be, in particular, inclined to the same beliefs, much less all be "heathen". The implication is that atheists are "heathen", an erroneous conclusion, unless my interpretation of heathen is incorrect. jocular

Silence, Heathen!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

hmmm. I think NV is using heather correctly

No, I used "heathen" correctly, albeit tongue in cheek.

I have no memory of ever using Heather, and if you know something I don't- don't tell SeaGypsy.

Which means you tell her EVERYTHING you know, right? joc

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Which Lynx-Fox thinks is convincing evidence that he's religious...

In combination with his writings about his earlier skepticism and how he came to be Christian, and more than 20 years of acting without fail as a Christian...yes.

When a man takes the time to write about his deep personal journey, repeatedly talks and than walks his talk for more than a generation .... yes I tend to believe them. What's rather ironic is the factions of the extreme right are so blinded by hatred (for what ever reason--and I have my own ideas from my inside seat as a lifelong republican) that they'd doubt and even reject one of the better examples of a Christian President in our nation's history.

The best actors/actresses in the world operate out of Washington, D.C., and parade before our eyes shamelessly, usually successfully hiding facts the citizenry would give eye-teeth to know. For example, when Ag. Secretary Ron Brown's plane plowed into a mountainside outside of Sarajevo, I think it was, our country's official statement claimed a fierce storm resulted in misguidance. Both governments involved studied the accident extensively; the other official statement claimed the plane had been purposely misguided by an air traffic controller; that individual committed "suicide" immediately, the airport manager "resigned", but was later found dead, their official proclamation called the plane's loss an act of murder.

At a funeral memorial gathering in Washington, an unsuspecting President Clinton emerged, unknowingly on camera, walking down the stairs, jovially laughing and carrying on with the person next to him; immediately, upon seeing the videocamera, his countenance changed to one of mortal chagrin and humility, but, too late. We all saw it. One of his best friends was dead, and he was happy about it. Ron Brown's wife spoke up later; her husband had feared "retaliation".

So, you "tend to believe them". You are pitiable. jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

The best actors/actresses in the world operate out of Washington, D.C., and parade before our eyes shamelessly, usually successfully hiding facts the citizenry would give eye-teeth to know. For example, when Ag. Secretary Ron Brown's plane plowed into a mountainside outside of Sarajevo, I think it was, our country's official statement claimed a fierce storm resulted in misguidance. Both governments involved studied the accident extensively; the other official statement claimed the plane had been purposely misguided by an air traffic controller; that individual committed "suicide" immediately, the airport manager "resigned", but was later found dead, their official proclamation called the plane's loss an act of murder.

At a funeral memorial gathering in Washington, an unsuspecting President Clinton emerged, unknowingly on camera, walking down the stairs, jovially laughing and carrying on with the person next to him; immediately, upon seeing the videocamera, his countenance changed to one of mortal chagrin and humility, but, too late. We all saw it. One of his best friends was dead, and he was happy about it. Ron Brown's wife spoke up later; her husband had feared "retaliation".

So, you "tend to believe them". You are pitiable. jocular

ROFL. You believe that crap? Or are you trolling (please fess up). Sorry. As for the crash...if you'd ever spent a year in that part of the world, you'd know how treacherous the terrain is. (I was at a Convoy Support center in Croatia when it happened). The simplest explanations of either controller or pilot error resulted in Brown's crash. Never heard of the Clinton story but ever been to a funeral? Ever chuckled over a past good times with them--if you did, I guess other might say you were glad they are dead? And wrap a conspiracy around it.

But I suppose it's possible for someone to be so cynical about their elected leaders that no matter what the person does it can't be considered in good faith or penetrate and be evaluated with sound reasoning.

Lynx_Fox.......the comment made on the people professing to be Christians needing a Garmin to find theirs, was HILARIOUS!!

http://www.animateit.net/data/media/...0340-large.gif

I think we have all been to a funeral, and had this funny thought about the person, and had to stifle it!

Mine wasn't at a funeral, however, it was on an airplane, when the guy next to us died.

It was an out of the blue thing......

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

ROFL. You believe that crap? Or are you trolling (please fess up). Sorry. As for the crash...if you'd ever spent a year in that part of the world, you'd know how treacherous the terrain is. (I was at a Convoy Support center in Croatia when it happened). The simplest explanations of either controller or pilot error resulted in Brown's crash. Never heard of the Clinton story but ever been to a funeral? Ever chuckled over a past good times with them--if you did, I guess other might say you were glad they are dead? And wrap a conspiracy around it.

But I suppose it's possible for someone to be so cynical about their elected leaders that no matter what the person does it can't be considered in good faith or penetrate and be evaluated with sound reasoning.

I pissed you off with this. I believe Ron Brown's death occurred after '93, the date YOU indicated was subsequent to your service time. Immaterial, however. Do I believe "that crap"? Quite frankly, I don't know what crap to believe, since all the information available in everyday context is filtered until it's "pure" for American viewing. Am I trolling? I don't even know WTH that means in context to today's "Information Revolution", trolling in my day was fishing from the back side of a rowboat.

(highlighted). That "Clinton Story", as you called it, was presented on NATIONAL T-V. I saw it. What else did I see with my own eyes? A woman in Chicago who managed to snake through security somehow, up front with the throng, shaking and squeezing Clinton's hands, she called him an "S.O.B.". Big deal, eh? She was CHARGED with "endangering the life of a President"!

All of this kind of shit is blatantly, disgustingly, wrong to be happening in America. WTH have we come to, when I see a veteran, wearing a shirt proclaiming on it's front side, "Viet Nam Vet", and on it's back side, "I love My Country, but Hate My Government". Do you want me to ask the guy to pose for a picture? I see him often at AVI Hotel & Casino in Fort Mohave, AZ. Do you suppose he is a fraud? He limps pretty badly, looks to be about the right time-frame, bit older than I. I gotta ask myself, why would an old guy fake this? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

trolling in my day was fishing from the back side of a rowboat.

Sig worthy.

Originally Posted by jocular

All of this kind of shit is blatantly, disgustingly, wrong to be happening in America.

And we complain about Putin jailing people over his wounded ego...

This is not a free country- it has not been one for a very long time. Freedom has been sacrificed for security.
There are times I'm eerily reminded of "Animal Farm."

This country is far from perfect. However, having travelled pretty extensively and having family born and raised in another country. I'll keep what I have, even with it's problems.