FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Unhappiness with Obama?





deanhills
I don't have a problem with Obama. I don't think he is a great President, and definitely not better than Clinton or any of the previous Democrat Presidents, but then maybe I know very little about him to judge either way. The only part I do see of him is the one through the eyes of the media and apart from too much spending and dragging his heels in making decisions I do not have serious criticisms about him.

I have picked up on people being really displeased with him along the lines of him doing something terrible and despising Obama for it. I was wondering what the displeasure was about and whether anyone else has observed something similar about Obama's behaviour that justisfies this criticism?
liljp617
His continued support of the Patriot Act = I won't vote for him in 2012. Can't do it. (I don't know who I'll vote for, but it certainly won't be him or the Republican candidate given the current details)


I have little issue with him elsewhere. To my knowledge, the banks are paying the money back fairly quickly (supposedly). The choice to focus on Afghanistan was the correct one in my view, although I would like the whole thing be over. Etc. etc.

I don't think he drags his feet either. We saw plenty of overreaction and bad, quick decision making the previous 8 years (and perhaps even this administration). Our government was designed to take extensive periods before legislation is passed to combat radical changes in society's/politician's perceptions. Every politician should be willing to take the time to weigh the options before making a decision that will effect 300 million people.
Afaceinthematrix
To some, what I am about to say may sound minor. But I think it was an extremely terrible thing to do and I despise him for it.

During the presidential election, when it was down between Obama and McCain, both parties had their youtube pages where they uploaded their debates, press cutting, etc. I personally liked this. I was able to keep up with the election even when something that was aired on television was being placed on air while I was at school or work. I thought this was a nice use of technology.

Obama had the clear support of youtube. He had FOUR times more subscribers than McCain. I don't remember the exact figures, but Obama had about 4x the subscribers. So if he had 200,000 subscribers, McCain only had 50,000. The numbers were something like that, but again, I do not remember the exact figures.

I remember watching a McCain video and I had something to say on it so I left a video comment on his video. The comment went through and was posted - end of story. I then watched an Obama video later and again, I had something to say. So I posted a comment. After posting my comment, a message came up saying that my comment was pending approval and that once it's approved, it will show up. WHAT?

The primary purpose of the government is to defend and uphold the values of the constitution. The constitution clearly gives us the freedom of speech. Yet Obama (his crew probably, but they represent him) is censoring our comments and only letting ones that praise him be posted? He's restricting our freedom of speech. To make matters worse, he had FOUR TIMES the subscribers of McCain yet McCain let us say whatever we wanted. I lost all respect for Obama there.

How could I trust him to run the government and protect our rights when he was suppressing free speech right there on youtube? I could understand (although I'd still be disgusted) if it was a very close race as far as youtube support goes, but it WASN'T. Obama clearly had the support of the youtube community (which represents a lot of the general community in the U.S.)!

So here we had one candidate who allowed free speech and allowed us to say whatever we wanted and then we have another candidate who was censoring us and only letting us say what he wanted... I felt that that was corruption... I cannot trust Obama to uphold our rights to free speech when he has already violated them.
liljp617
^^

Although it's impossible for me to say, I imagine the comments were filtered for the guaranteed racist, off topic, troll, and flame comments rather than for filtering out negative criticisms. I find it hard to believe they didn't allow any negative comments if those comments were well founded, well written, or a legitimate criticism. You could probably compare the comments on the McCain vs Obama video -- I would venture to say a lot of the comments on the McCain video were very off topic or just random flaming, while a lot of the comments on the Obama video were legitimate discussion (this is all speculation obviously).
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
After posting my comment, a message came up saying that my comment was pending approval and that once it's approved, it will show up. WHAT?
Totally agreed. I would also be shocked at this as that is censorship. Agreed with liljp617 this could be to take care of flaming etc but that could have been dealt with differently, as by the same token Cain would also have been exposed to the potential for similar flaming.

I did pick up on the media bias, and Alaskacameradude did a posting on it too in the Left-Wing Extremist Media Thread, as there had been a specific investigation (not about youtube as far as I know but about the media in general):
Alaskacameradude wrote:
FInally, I leave you with this. A study by the Excellence in Journalism group concluded that the media coverage of the past election was biased in favor of Democrats.

http://www.journalism.org/node/8187

And having talked with many former collegues about this, I have found that many are embarrassed
that this happened and feel it is an embarrasment to the field of journalism....so people ARE
aware of it.

For me Obama won the election because his marketing was much more savvy and having the media in his pocket was part of that. He probably had lots of funds to do that with as well. And probably hatred of Bush also helped getting him elected, which is kind'a ironic since he seems to be pursuing most of the Bush policies as they have been before, with a few exceptions, plenty of delays and trillions of spending.
Afaceinthematrix
liljp617 wrote:
^^

Although it's impossible for me to say, I imagine the comments were filtered for the guaranteed racist, off topic, troll, and flame comments rather than for filtering out negative criticisms. I find it hard to believe they didn't allow any negative comments if those comments were well founded, well written, or a legitimate criticism. You could probably compare the comments on the McCain vs Obama video -- I would venture to say a lot of the comments on the McCain video were very off topic or just random flaming, while a lot of the comments on the Obama video were legitimate discussion (this is all speculation obviously).


It wasn't though. Because I thought the same thing that you do. So I did a little investigation and checked out numerous videos and saw nothing but praise comments. I find it hard to believe that no one left any legitimate criticism at all. If I had seen any legitimate criticism or discussion then I would have been alright with the censoring because nobody wants to see crap like random flaming, racism, etc.

But like I said, I did not see any legitimate criticism - at all. I wish I would have documented this because then I would be able to give specific examples. However, I am merely going off one-year-old memory (although still accurate memory).

So I am forced to believe that his crew was simply censoring the opposing team and restricting free speech. Although if someone could provide counterexamples (such as legitimate negative criticism from the era of the 2008 campaign race) then I would be happy to reevaluate my views. I would really hate to think that the president of the United States cannot uphold free speech...
liljp617
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
^^

Although it's impossible for me to say, I imagine the comments were filtered for the guaranteed racist, off topic, troll, and flame comments rather than for filtering out negative criticisms. I find it hard to believe they didn't allow any negative comments if those comments were well founded, well written, or a legitimate criticism. You could probably compare the comments on the McCain vs Obama video -- I would venture to say a lot of the comments on the McCain video were very off topic or just random flaming, while a lot of the comments on the Obama video were legitimate discussion (this is all speculation obviously).


It wasn't though. Because I thought the same thing that you do. So I did a little investigation and checked out numerous videos and saw nothing but praise comments. I find it hard to believe that no one left any legitimate criticism at all. If I had seen any legitimate criticism or discussion then I would have been alright with the censoring because nobody wants to see crap like random flaming, racism, etc.

But like I said, I did not see any legitimate criticism - at all. I wish I would have documented this because then I would be able to give specific examples. However, I am merely going off one-year-old memory (although still accurate memory).

So I am forced to believe that his crew was simply censoring the opposing team and restricting free speech. Although if someone could provide counterexamples (such as legitimate negative criticism from the era of the 2008 campaign race) then I would be happy to reevaluate my views. I would really hate to think that the president of the United States cannot uphold free speech...


I don't know who manages the "whitehouse" Youtube channel, but there's certainly tons of criticism on those videos (along with flaming, racism, etc.). There's no comment filtering either. But like I said, I don't know who manages the channel.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

I have picked up on people being really displeased with him along the lines of him doing something terrible and despising Obama for it. I was wondering what the displeasure was about and whether anyone else has observed something similar about Obama's behaviour that justisfies this criticism?

Well, I for one believe, "the best government is the one that governs the least."
So, when I see Obama drastically increasing the size, power, and influence of the government in several different ways, I consider it to be 'something terrible'.
Afaceinthematrix
liljp617 wrote:
I don't know who manages the "whitehouse" Youtube channel, but there's certainly tons of criticism on those videos (along with flaming, racism, etc.). There's no comment filtering either. But like I said, I don't know who manages the channel.


Well I am glad to see that, at least. I haven't looked into their youtube channel, but I did look into the both politicians youtube accounts during the election and Obama's was censored. I'm glad to see that at least the white house ones are not censored. Although this is still different because a disagreement means far less now than it did before Obama was in office. Now you can disagree with him, but voicing your opinion isn't really going to have as much of an affect on his career.

Also, maybe they don't censor the white house videos because it's too much work whereas it was probably less work during the election because there were probably less comments (and who cares if they get to all of them, as long as they approve enough positive ones to make it look like good feedback? It's more important to prevent negative/alternative views than accepting good reviews).

So I'll still hold this against Obama because he was restricting free speech and using shady tactics during his campaign race... Too bad Ron Paul didn't get elected (of course he never will)... The Libertarian party sometimes seems the best way to go in my opinion... I'm not much of a Democrat (or Republican)...
Alaskacameradude
I think there are a couple things going on here. First thing (to my eyes) is that people are finding
out that Obama is just another politician....I know, big surprise right? But see, the thing is, the
way he ran his campaign was almost.....superhuman. He was VERY VERY good at the polishing
and marketing of his image. People bought into his 'yes we can' and the 'huge changes' he would
make. I think there are people who are disappointed in the reality as opposed to the fantasy.
When I saw some of his campaign promises, I predicted this would happen. After all, you can't
realistically give a tax cut to 95% of the population, institute a number of new government
programs (such as universal healthcare) AND reduce the size of the national debt. You just
can't do it. So now, that people see the reality is not the slick marketing fantasy, they are
disappointed in him. How DARE Obama be just another human being?!!! He was supposed
to solve problems that we've had for years and years, and that no one else could
figure out solutions to!

Secondly, many voters in the US (especially independents with no great loyalty to either party)
vote based on the economy. And the economy SUCKS. Add to that the continuing coverage of
the fact that Obama is driving up the national debt (I'm not debating the merits of his doing this,
just stating the fact that he is) and the fact, that this debt means our children will have a WORSE
standard of living that we do, and many people are starting to jump off the Obama bandwagon.
However, the good thing about this from Obama's point of view, is that it is happening relatively
early in his presidency. He still has time to turn this around, and if he can, the independents will
come back to him, because if the economy is humming along and steps are taken to reduce
the national debt, they won't care as much about other policies that he may institute.
deanhills
@Alaskacameradude. Well said! Think I would also add that people are beginning to forget Bush. As that was one of the factors that made them vote for Obama too. Obama was selling himself everything that Bush was not, and now that people are discovering that it is all much of the same, and that hate for Bush is not as alive as it used to be, people are starting to become cynical and disinterested. Pity that the Rebuplicans have such a weak "leadership" (no leadership in fact) as they would have been able to cash in right now. Even with being less than enchanted with Obama than before, the Democratic Party is much stronger and more viable than the Republican Party, and that may get Obama re-elected for a second session. As with everything else, the two-party political system seems to determine outcomes much more than the individuals that people are voting for.
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
@Alaskacameradude. Well said! Think I would also add that people are beginning to forget Bush. As that was one of the factors that made them vote for Obama too. Obama was selling himself everything that Bush was not, and now that people are discovering that it is all much of the same, and that hate for Bush is not as alive as it used to be, people are starting to become cynical and disinterested. Pity that the Rebuplicans have such a weak "leadership" (no leadership in fact) as they would have been able to cash in right now. Even with being less than enchanted with Obama than before, the Democratic Party is much stronger and more viable than the Republican Party, and that may get Obama re-elected for a second session. As with everything else, the two-party political system seems to determine outcomes much more than the individuals that people are voting for.


You are right, people are starting to either forget about Bush, or tire of the Democrats
continued claims that everything is Bush's fault, even though they have far more power
than the Republicans did in Bush's presidency (a filibuster proof senate for example).
However, although I don't disagree that the Republicans have weak leadership now, I DO think
the Republicans are going to win a number of races in the 2010 elections. I just heard on
our local radio news, that Republicans are leading in 7 Senate races which are currently occupied
with Democratic Senators and there are another 5 or 6 that are too close to really tell who is ahead.
Now of course, this is way to early for that to mean a ton, but I think it DOES indicate some
dissatisfaction with the status quo....and if Dems can run 'against George Bush and the status quo'
and 'in favor of change' you can bet your boots the Repubs will do the same.....in other words
you don't necessarily HAVE to have as much leadership when people are extremely dissatisfied
with what the current leaders are doing. We tend to have kind of a 'throw the bums out' mentality
here sometimes (although I would contend that it should be stronger and we should get rid of
most of the current crop in both parties.....but that is just a personal opinion)
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
However, although I don't disagree that the Republicans have weak leadership now, I DO think the Republicans are going to win a number of races in the 2010 elections.
That sounds like tremendous news, I'm more than open for being disproved about this and am looking forward to next year's elections. Especially if it is going to reveal a new generation of Republican leaders on the up and up. Going to be great fun for this forum as well!
Alaskacameradude
deanhills wrote:
Alaskacameradude wrote:
However, although I don't disagree that the Republicans have weak leadership now, I DO think the Republicans are going to win a number of races in the 2010 elections.
That sounds like tremendous news, I'm more than open for being disproved about this and am looking forward to next year's elections. Especially if it is going to reveal a new generation of Republican leaders on the up and up. Going to be great fun for this forum as well!


Well, this is JUST my opinion, and I could very well be wrong if things change before the election.
It's just my gut feel from covering politics.....if the economy still is in the 'tank' I think we
will have some Democrat incumbents loosing their seats. However, if it recovers, the Democrats
will probably fare better. Polls show this NOW, but polls can change quickly and sometimes
are just flat wrong as well. I DO think the 2010 elections will be VERY interesting with everything
that is happening.....
ponda
deanhills wrote:
I don't have a problem with Obama. I don't think he is a great President, and definitely not better than Clinton or any of the previous Democrat Presidents, but then maybe I know very little about him to judge either way. The only part I do see of him is the one through the eyes of the media and apart from too much spending and dragging his heels in making decisions I do not have serious criticisms about him.

I have picked up on people being really displeased with him along the lines of him doing something terrible and despising Obama for it. I was wondering what the displeasure was about and whether anyone else has observed something similar about Obama's behaviour that justisfies this criticism?


Afaceinthematrix wrote:
To some, what I am about to say may sound minor. But I think it was an extremely terrible thing to do and I despise him for it.

During the presidential election, when it was down between Obama and McCain, both parties had their youtube pages where they uploaded their debates, press cutting, etc. I personally liked this. I was able to keep up with the election even when something that was aired on television was being placed on air while I was at school or work. I thought this was a nice use of technology.

Obama had the clear support of youtube. He had FOUR times more subscribers than McCain. I don't remember the exact figures, but Obama had about 4x the subscribers. So if he had 200,000 subscribers, McCain only had 50,000. The numbers were something like that, but again, I do not remember the exact figures.

I remember watching a McCain video and I had something to say on it so I left a video comment on his video. The comment went through and was posted - end of story. I then watched an Obama video later and again, I had something to say. So I posted a comment. After posting my comment, a message came up saying that my comment was pending approval and that once it's approved, it will show up. WHAT?

The primary purpose of the government is to defend and uphold the values of the constitution. The constitution clearly gives us the freedom of speech. Yet Obama (his crew probably, but they represent him) is censoring our comments and only letting ones that praise him be posted? He's restricting our freedom of speech. To make matters worse, he had FOUR TIMES the subscribers of McCain yet McCain let us say whatever we wanted. I lost all respect for Obama there.

How could I trust him to run the government and protect our rights when he was suppressing free speech right there on youtube? I could understand (although I'd still be disgusted) if it was a very close race as far as youtube support goes, but it WASN'T. Obama clearly had the support of the youtube community (which represents a lot of the general community in the U.S.)!

So here we had one candidate who allowed free speech and allowed us to say whatever we wanted and then we have another candidate who was censoring us and only letting us say what he wanted... I felt that that was corruption... I cannot trust Obama to uphold our rights to free speech when he has already violated them.


Very, very true.

Edited by GhostRider103: Please use quote tags next time you want to quote someone.
azoundria
The best strategy to get out of a recession is to have the government spend lots of money. This boosts the economy.

The problem was, the previous administrations were already spending a lot of money, so now there's a huge deficit, and Obama can do nothing about that.
ocalhoun
azoundria wrote:
The best strategy to get out of a recession is to have the government spend lots of money. This boosts the economy.

Justification?

I would rather say that's the best way to delay a recession until later... All that spending will have to be paid for some day.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
azoundria wrote:
The best strategy to get out of a recession is to have the government spend lots of money. This boosts the economy.

Justification?

I would rather say that's the best way to delay a recession until later... All that spending will have to be paid for some day.
Right. I would say the best way to get out of a recession is not to interfere with the recession. Recessions are normal, but because of greediness Government and economists have found a way to keep manufacturing money, even during recessions, but of course at a great cost to everyone, viz trillions of debt.
jwellsy
No worries, inflation will make it easy to pay off debts with cheaper dollars. Spend On!!
ocalhoun
jwellsy wrote:
No worries, inflation will make it easy to pay off debts with cheaper dollars. Spend On!!

True, that does seem to be the current strategy... Trillions of dollars of debt will be easy to pay off when a loaf of bread costs $3 trillion.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
jwellsy wrote:
No worries, inflation will make it easy to pay off debts with cheaper dollars. Spend On!!

True, that does seem to be the current strategy... Trillions of dollars of debt will be easy to pay off when a loaf of bread costs $3 trillion.
Fortunately the prognosis of living past 100 is limited, so probably no one cares about the next century that much. Twisted Evil
Related topics
US democrats Obama vs Clinton?
Barrack HUSSEIN Obama
Is Barack Obama "The One"?
Should Hillary concede the nomination to Barack Obama?
¿Quién opinas ganará las elecciones presidenciales de USA?
Obama: rumors of anti-patriotism?
What can you say about Obama being the next president?
Obama
Will Obama become the next assasinated President of America
Obama - the truth part 1
Obama - the truth part 2
barack obama, friend or foe?
Obama - the truth - epilogue
McCain Compares Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.