[MMM]

I will respond in real time.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

From the moment in first saw Obama I had my doubts about him.

So do a lot of people that are now admitting they don't like him because his isn't white. I am not saying that is what you are saying, but that is the first thing I thought when I read your first sentence.

What is becoming clear in America is there is a faction of the population that doesn't like our president because of the color of his skin.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

No doubt he is a god looking man, and he he is an elegant speaker, but many men who have these traits don't have much real substance.

I think you mean "good looking" and "eloquent" but at what point in America did these become negative qualities? Many presidents before Pres. Obama were good looking and eloquent. Do you really think he has less "substance" than Bush or Clinton?

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Obama was a lifetime academic before coming to office.

Here is the modern paradigm for Tea Party followers: Educated=Untrustworthy and suspicious

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

I have lived around academics long enough to know that academics are better at arguing or theorizing than they are at actually doing things. Those who teach law often make the worst lawyers, and are a good argument for the old saying "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach."

This is a baseless argument. That means people that "do things" are taught by people that don't "do things." If this was true then we would live in a downward spiral of retardation. Just because someone is educated does not mean they are retarded. That statement alone contradicts itself. This Tea Party movement idea that educated=suspicious is its biggest flaw. Sadly, uneducated people take that as a badge of honor, like they aren't the educated vampires, but the simple uneducated humans. The Tea Party movement has done quite a good job making people proud of their ignorance.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Of course in the contest between the Obama and McCain, the people were offered little in the way of a choice. McCain was an unpredictable old fossil who felt he was entitled to be president, and who called all the markers he had handed out in a lifetime of politics. Obama was an inexperienced academic who lacked the real-world experience to manage a Burger King competently, but looked good and spoke well.

Obama's problem is that he has been too much of a gentleman. He has not rallied the Democratic party to tout their achievements, as the right will flat-out lie about how evil and dangerous Obama is. It has gotten pretty disgusting lately, and I don't think Pres. Obama was prepared for that. That is why the mid-term elections went like they did.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Little has changed since the days of Bush. "Combat operations" in Iraq have ended, which is a play on words to make it sound as if the war were actually over. US troops will not leave Iraq during Obama's term, because, regardless of whatever promises he made to the antiwar nuts, he knows that pulling out the troops would leave a vacuum which would surely be filled with Islamic fundamentalist West haters.

So is he an asshole for ending combat operations, or an asshole for not pulling out all the troops? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Guantanamo Bay has not been closed because, much as he might hate the idea of holding suspected terrorists there, there is no better option for dealing with them. If he seriously believed that holding them there was an illegal matter, he could simply make a presidential finding, and it would be officially illegal.

So is he an asshole for closing it, or an asshole for not closing it? You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

The pseudo-healthcare plan pushed by Obama increases coverage only incrementally, while being hugely expensive. The cost was meant to be revenue neutral to taxpayers, being mainly paid for by businesses and insurance companies. Of course, the amount of money these companies must pay amounts to billions of dollars per year, and money spent on this plan is money which might have been spent on hiring news employees or expanding manufacturing. And, of course the plan has turned out not to be revenue neutral as promised, the GAO says that out-of-pocket expenses are now going to increase.

What did you want from the heath care plan that was passed? I am not happy with it, as it isn't strong enough. And now Boehner says one say he wants to reach across the aisle, and the next day he wants to repeal everything that has been passed in the last two years and ensure Obama is not re-elected. Whatever happened to looking out for what the constituents want? I don't think e-brake for the next two years is what they voted for.

Originally Posted by Sangetsu

Both Bush and Obama have been able to work effectively to stop the recession. The problem was too big for the both of them, and throwing money at problems never solves them. People blame the banks and Wall Street for the recession, but they are not to blame. The current recession had it's seeds planted by President Carter when he signed a law called the "community redevelopment act" which lowered lending standards by banks in order to make it easier for inner-city residents to get housing and business loans. The banks didn't necessarily make risky loans because they wanted to, they did it because by law they were required to.

Obama's current team of economists is made up entirely of academics who have no real-world experience to guide them in their policy making process. This is like taking armchair quarterbacks watching a game at home and then putting them on the field to actually play. The results have been sadly predictable.

I don't have much faith in the new crop of congressmen who have just been elected, but I don't think they could do any worse than their predecessors.

You want to blame Carter (1977-1981) for the present financial woes? Wild and radical, for sure. I would put more blame on Reagan and Clinton, and then squarely on W.

The temporary tax cuts on the very wealthy W. put in place 9 years ago didn't work. There is no other evidence than looking that the fact that they didn't work. Extending them is suicide. Look at the tax rates on the wealthy 30, 50, 70 years ago. You might be a little surprised.