Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
That sounds like something id say to start a 6-reply thread.
Difficult to agree or disagree with.
Anyway, I'm happy that Obama won over Romney, but it's definitely in a `shoulders shrugging lesser of two evils` way than anything else.
Not just because the idea of Romney as the most powerful man in the world is very scary, but more because 4 years is not long enough for a president to make the changes that define his tenure. Now he has a second term there are no excuses
is that they only put short term policies into place
ones that bear fruit only during their term in power
if they didnt care that the good would be done when someone else may be in power then things would be a lot better
same as over here
Genuine question. I've heard it was brought in after FDR hogged it for a while but he was supposed to be a good 'un, so I don't get the fuss.
particularly the adversarial style one's like Britain and America.
In essence the country is 'managed' by a guy who focus groups all the policies and uses catchy phrases an achieves almost nothing
one candidate named after cold weather hand gear & the other after somewhere that soldiers live
hahah, it's almost worse.
Who is Romney?
Like the world under Obama is a cruel harsh communist soulless hell where women are forced to abort babies and all your taxes go off funding people on welfare who are there because Obama took away all their jobs. And a world under Romney would be sunshine and lollipops where everyone is honest, fair and hard working. When really everything would be essentially the same. Secretly either side loves it when the "other guy" wins as they then have a blame-all scapegoat for all their individual woes and problems. Otherwise they have the more tricky task of supporting all their policies if they agree or not and if they are working or not, and blame all their woes on the last president.
...think that a world under Romney would be a post-apocalyptic war-ravaged sponsored by Goldman Sachs shitstorm.
Anyone who gets into extremist, uncritical thinking ends up looking like a belm - no matter what side of the spectrum they're on.
There's too much easy, cheap `LOL he's a posh cunt` stuff wheeled out when talking about Cameron... annoys me.
if that's your beef.
But, yes, I'm more comfortable with that...
you know what i'm talking about
but yeah, let's not pretend that Obama's a saint.
How'd that work out? He didn't even deliver on first promise, and that should have been an easy one. This example fits in with the premise of this thread.
...but was thinking someone might prove that it was the House of Representatives that blocked it or something.
What exactly happened with this? Was it all rhetoric or did he actually try and shut it down?
but why it hasn't actually closed i'm not sure. If he *really* wanted it closed though, i'm sure he could do it. I guess his heart's not really in it.
"But that plan was repeatedly postponed as the administration faced problems finding a prison to house alleged terrorists in the US and in the face of resistance from Congress which, among other things, cut off funds to move the accused men. The US attorney general, Eric Holder, had proposed prosecuting some of those accused of the 9/11 attacks, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in a Manhattan court near Ground Zero. But two weeks ago, Obama signed a bill passed by Congress that blocks the transfer of detainees to the US or foreign countries, effectively preventing closure of the prison at Guantánamo.
The president said he objected to the provisions and would work with Congress to overturn them but that appears unlikely to happen now that the Republicans control the House of Representatives."
A chilling reminder of the myriad horrors of the Bush era. All there.
Let's hope that while it's still there the folk in it are being treated a bit more humanely, at least...
All the prisoners would have had to either been charged and transferred to mainland prisons, or released.
The prisions in the states are run by the individual states themselves, and it proved impossible to convince them to take charge of the inmates, especially as so many of them have so little evidence (or at least, evidence that would stand up in court) against them that they would almost certainly be equitted. There was also no way that the Republican-controlled houses would have let Obama set up a mechanism for dealing with them federally.
In short, the plan was scuppered by George Bush who set up such a legally dubious institution and the states who were unwilling to take up the mess that would inevitably result from its establshment.
it's not the sort of thing to make idle promises about (same with Obamacare) if there is any doubt you can't achieve it.
Congress would have been throughout Obama's presidency, even to the point of pushing the US government to the point of shutdown and credit ratings drop (over the debt ceiling thing).
but is this 'obstructionist' attitude a new one that came in doing Obama's term, or has it always been this way? would Bush have faced as much opposition in his time as president?
if there's a Democrat president and a Republican-controlled House, or vice versa.
It's even more marked as I can't remember a president who tried to offer a bi-partisan approach and compromise so readily as Obama.
Still, got a nice photo op of him signing the order to close it. David Cameron has a lot to learn about being all PR and no substance.
Gordon Brown’s debt, waste and taxes have wrecked the economy and threaten to kill the
recovery. A Conservative government will take action now to cut the deficit, stop Labour’s jobs
tax, help keep mortgage rates low and get the economy moving. We will create a new economic
model built on investment and savings, not borrowing and debt.
But yeah can't really blame Obama for the administrative nightmare caused by the building of such an abhorrent institution in the first place. Although he probably should've checked this all out before he made such a symbolic promise!
America has voted for the candidate who might actually seek to address the fundamental causes of the US-originated worldwide recession, rather than the one who will follow the same approach as the president who drove the financial system and US government to the brink of collapse.
But at least you don't have the 'we'll solve it all by tax cuts' guy in charge...
remove 'might actually seek to address the fundamental causes of the US-originated worldwide recession, rather than the one who will follow the same approach as the president who' and i'm in agreement.
Or deliberately wiping the presidency of George Bush from your memory.
The size of the eventual win (in college votes if not majority votes) does show how hard it is to knock out a sitting incumbent and I don't think that's any less true in the UK than the US. I think when people aren't sure they tend to go for the person they know...
Ish. I'm not sure the stats back you up on that, maybe more so recently. And let's not forget that we don't have a Tory government, it's a coalition, so voting for the incumbent isn't realistically an option.
Romney was the worse of two evils(like in all politics). Obama isn't perfect (although some Americans seem to forget that and treat him like a film star) but he is pro-choice and with gay marriage. This is 2012 ffs, Romney is like a robot sent from the past.
Bill Pullman was Independence Day
Not just Americans.
Ah we'll, guess it is all China's problem now.
only just thought of it
hey that sounds like a From Monument To Masses song!
but what is the 'truth of reality' that Romney was offering? The need to fundamentally reorganise and retool the economy? Making government smaller in order to make everything go back to how it was 5 years ago?
(I said hardship when I meant prosperity)
I wanna know what hard truth Jordan thinks Romney was offering
is that he was going to fuck cat_race's girlfriend "on day one" - it was going to be his Guantanamo closure signing, surrounded by smiling congressmen and American flags.
in re-electing Obama, America has chosen four years of easy lies over four years of evil lies.
not least because he took time out on Election Day to criticise Detective Munch's acting skills
He mad bro, he mad.
The guy is amazing. I also liked his call for revolution.
$77m dolla on a campaign! and no-one that has watched wrestling would vote for 'robo-Linda'. Vince would definitely be successful if he ran for president mind.
As for the links at the bottom:
An open letter to Mitt Romney after his 'let them eat cake' moment
an open letter to Clint Eastwood
An open letter to Danny Boyle…
An open letter to Vladimir Putin concerning Pussy Riot
Easy lie: We got Bin Laden