Obama General Discussion II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hollywood Reporter

The former mayor of Carmel is "not a fan" of President Barack Obama.


Clint Eastwood told Katie Couric during a CBSNews.com interview that the president is doing what he can to stay in the position, but that he's not actually "governing."

The 20-minute interview posted Thursday was to push Eastwood's movie Hereafter, which opened today.

Eastwood supported Obama's Republican challenger John McCain two years ago, but the politically active actor is no right winger. He supported California Gov. Gray Davis, a Democrat, for example, during the recall campaign that eventually led to Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger being elected.

Nevertheless, publicly coming out against Obama -- 11 days before mid-term elections, no less -- definitely puts Eastwood in the minority in famously liberal Hollywood.

Eastwood, though, is laying low compared to others in Hollywood who don't support Obama. Kelsey Grammer recently launched RightNetwork, for example, and Jon Voight has been speaking at Tea Party rallies.

And then there's Clint Howard, who stars in two online commercials: one that trashes Obama's tax policies, and a newer one from writer-director David Zucker that goofs on Sen. Barbara Boxer's famous "I-worked-so-hard-to get that-title" comment.
 
I think Eastwood's frustration with Obama is the same that a lot of people have with him, Democrats or otherwise.

I'll get worked up about the very dangerous expansion of executive power during the Bush Administration and then be irritated when Obama leaves healthcare to the idiots in Congress to figure out. So I dunno :sad:
 
I just watched a bunch of YouTube videos of masses of people (especially African-Americans) in the streets celebrating after Obama's election on Election Night 2008. The world seemed so united.

YouTube - Obama's Election Night

What ever happened to that spirit? My, how times change.:doh:
 
If you want to go back to the threads

I kept saying he should wait,
he could have easily gone in 2012, 2016, 2020 or 2024.
 
I watched it too, don't see how he disrespected him. By calling him dude?

Or actually challenging him, albeit in a humorous way. I would also call it mildly challenging. I would think that anyone going on that show, even the President, knows that they'll be "used" to get laughs. It is a comedy show.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
I watched it too, don't see how he disrespected him. By calling him dude?

Or actually challenging him, albeit in a humorous way. I would also call it mildly challenging. I would think that anyone going on that show, even the President, knows that they'll be "used" to get laughs. It is a comedy show.
Click to expand...

the dude thing was not that big of a deal

but you are right, Stewart uses his guest as the 'butt' of the joke.

To turn 'Yes We Can' into a punch line is something I would expect from Limbaugh or Hannity.

The segment of the population that watches that show on a regular basis, are already Obama supporters.

Obama has steadily been losing independents and older people since he took office, any of them that caught that show, like myself, would not have been won over, he was not impressive, the limelight was on Stewart.

I also agree Obama and his people should have known what to expect, so that is why I am saying it was a mistake.
 
I think if you go on that show you know the limelight will be on Stewart. Obama's smart enough to know that. He goes on The View too, he goes on MTV. I don't think he's going on those shows to try to win over independents or older people. Why he is, well you'd have to ask him and his peeps.

Yes We Can was a campaign slogan-it pretty much begs to be mocked. Like they all do. Don't think it's exclusive to Hannity or Rush-and if Jon Stewart just kissed Obama's backside he would lose credibility. He's a smart guy, not a blind butt kisser.

I don't watch it on a regular basis at all but I wanted to see Obama and what Jon Stewart would ask him. I think Obama has his big boy pants on-if he doesn't he better get them on fast.
 
deep said:
To turn 'Yes We Can' into a punch line is something I would expect from Limbaugh or Hannity.
Click to expand...
But when Limbaugh and Hannity do it, that's all they do, because they have no substance. Stewart had substance aside from the small jokes, and those jokes tended to lead to larger points, points Limbaugh and Hannity lack the ability to make.
 
Christian Science Monitor, Nov. 3

President Obama is pledging stepped-up military and economic cooperation with Yemen in response to last week’s foiled terrorist operation aboard cargo planes that originated in the country.

Yemen is one of the Arab world’s poorest countries and home to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

An initial response to Mr. Obama’s promise to step up the fight against Yemen’s Islamist militants may have come Tuesday, when an oil pipeline running through a militant stronghold in Yemen was blown up. The pipeline attack was a reminder that the two-track approach for fighting Islamist terrorists in their strongholds--covert military and intelligence operations and “hearts and minds” development programs to reach the public and deny terrorists their havens--faces a steep climb to success in Yemen.

Some regional analysts are already calling Yemen Obama’s “next Afghanistan,” a weak state where anti-Western extremists have been able to take root. But a comparison to Obama’s approach for the militant havens of Pakistan’s northwest may be more apt. No one expects large numbers of US troops to be deployed in Yemen. Instead, the administration is quietly discussing ramping up covert operations by the Central Intelligence Agency--adding special-operations units and strikes by unmanned drones to what some analysts already call a “clandestine war.” At the same time, the president is talking publicly about increased assistance to Yemen to build up its institutions and reach a poor population.

But some Yemen specialists worry that Obama’s talk of ramping up development assistance will remain just that–-talk--while what they call a “militarization” of US relations with Yemen continues unabated. “If there only were a genuine two-track approach to Yemen: That would be a good thing, but unfortunately, whatever economic aid and attempts to persuade the Yemeni public there have been have been dwarfed by the money and attention going to military options,” says Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert and doctoral candidate at Princeton University’s Department of Near Eastern Studies.

...ehind the scenes, the administration is hearing the opinion of a growing number of military and intelligence officials that President Saleh may be losing his grip on the country. And concern is growing that he appears unable to handle an Al Qaeda affiliate apparently growing in sophistication and bent on striking the West.

...But an increase in covert operations such as drone strikes also risks “mistakes,” some say. Exhibit A: the recent strike on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border that killed three Pakistani soldiers--and worsened already-tense US-Pakistan relations. Such “mistakes” have already occurred in Yemen, says Mr. Johnsen of Princeton, with the effect of strengthening AQAP and boosting its recruiting efforts. “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has been around since 2006, but their argument that Yemen was under Western attack and that therefore it was a Muslim’s duty to strike back wasn’t really catching on,” he says. But then, he says, “word spread” about a number of supposedly covert missile strikes--one in late 2009 that killed a number of women and children, and another in May of this year that killed a government official. “Al Qaeda has been able to say, ‘We’ve been telling you Yemen is under Western military attack,’ ” Johnsen says. “And it has been catching on.”

Saleh has shown in the past that he does not take kindly to unpopular US operations in his country, on several occasions responding by suspending security and counterterrorism training programs. But he may have no choice, some say, but to accept what Obama calls a strengthened US role in his country.

Any US role in Yemen will have to have some military component, Johnsen says. But, he adds, if it is not counterbalanced by more than lip service to the development and public-outreach side of the equation, “the US may be walking into a bit of a trap.”
Click to expand...

And then there's the Administration's recently proposed $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, currently under consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (Congress has until Nov. 20 to stop the sale, after which the Defense Department will begin the long process of nailing down contracts). If approved, this will be the largest arms sale in US history. The stated purpose is long-term "counterbalance" of Iran in the region (funny, that was also the Nixon Administration's term for all those arms sales to the Shah). I don't doubt that's the main intent, but the rapidly deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia's neighbor to the south is surely affecting their calculus, as well.
 
Knowing our luck, we'll be fighting against some of the military capital from that arms sale in 10 to 15 years :lol:
 
yolland said:
And then there's the Administration's recently proposed $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, currently under consideration by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (Congress has until Nov. 20 to stop the sale, after which the Defense Department will begin the long process of nailing down contracts). If approved, this will be the largest arms sale in US history. The stated purpose is long-term "counterbalance" of Iran in the region (funny, that was also the Nixon Administration's term for all those arms sales to the Shah). I don't doubt that's the main intent, but the rapidly deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia's neighbor to the south is surely affecting their calculus, as well.
Click to expand...

Canadiens1131 said:
Knowing our luck, we'll be fighting against some of the military capital from that arms sale in 10 to 15 years :lol:
Click to expand...

That is a huge sale.

I'll be waiting for the pictures of U.S. military equipment sitting covered and idle in the Saudi desert. I posit that Saudi Arabia is just buying stuff from us (and will not use it) just to prop-up our economy and government (and to thank us for the oil purchases).

Just a thought.
 
I'm inclined to agree with the above two posts.

Oh, goody. MORE military activity in yet another Arab country. 'Cause that's just what we need! Cooperation to deal with the extremists, the terrorists, is fine, but as that snippet stated, the Middle East is pretty sick to death of our Western "help", especially since it doesn't seem to be working all that well, so we really should try a plan that doesn't involve more battles and deaths and a prolonged military presence. Isn't there any plausible plan like that out there anywhere?

HBK-79 said:
I just watched a bunch of YouTube videos of masses of people (especially African-Americans) in the streets celebrating after Obama's election on Election Night 2008. The world seemed so united.

YouTube - Obama's Election Night

What ever happened to that spirit? My, how times change.:doh:
Click to expand...

That's an excellent question. I've asked that quite a few times in the past year or so myself. It's sad how quickly that evaporated, because to be quite honest, while I loved and admired Obama himself being optimistic and inspirational, the fact that he seemed to be able to get the public at large to embrace that stuff as well was what truly impressed me, and their eagerness was what gave me the most excitement and hope on Election Day. I thought, "Hey, the country in general is actually on the same page for once, this is great, with all of us working we can't go wrong."

Uh. Yeah. That lasted about, what...3 months, at best? I mean, like I said, I have my critiques of Obama, definitely (see above about Yemen), there are things he certainly could have, should have done sooner to keep the momentum and effort going strong and stances/directions he should've taken that he didn't. But I'm also saddened by the general public at large for giving up so easy and falling so easily for the schtick of the Tea Party and people of that sort. I fully understand the public's anger and frustration and don't disagree with what some of their anger is directed at, but I don't understand being so angry that you're literally seeing "red", so to speak.

Angela
 
kramwest1 said:
I'll be waiting for the pictures of U.S. military equipment sitting covered and idle in the Saudi desert. I posit that Saudi Arabia is just buying stuff from us (and will not use it) just to prop-up our economy and government (and to thank us for the oil purchases).
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone ever buys $60 billion worth of weaponry as a mere nicety. Granted, we've been arming the Saudis off and on for decades, that much isn't new, but this is a staggeringly large infusion of military technology all at once. I think more likely it points to a shift in the Administration's Iran policy towards longterm containment (despite what their words suggest, and never mind all that talk about disarmament).
 
I would think that's exactly/entirely what it's about. And many people think that a nuclear Iran will be shortly followed by a nuclear Saudi Arabia - so perhaps this is arming them to a level where they feel comfortable about the balance, without needing to go nuclear.
 
This got me interested in looking deeper.

I think spending 1.5 times your annual military budget on an arms purchase comes close to the category of a gift to the United States. Like I said, just a thought.

From Wikipedia:
List of countries by number of troops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by level of military equipment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IranVSaudi.jpg
 
Washington (CNN) -- His party got its clock cleaned in Tuesday's midterm elections, but President Barack Obama still remains competitive in some hypothetical 2012 presidential election matchups, especially against Sarah Palin, a new poll shows.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday also indicates that at the unofficial start of the race for the Republican presidential nomination, the field of possible contenders appears wide open with no front-runner.

Twenty-one percent of Republicans say they would most likely support 2008 GOP White House candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for their party's 2012 presidential nomination, according to the poll.

The number is 20 percent for another 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Fourteen percent say they support Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee, with 12 percent backing former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia.

The remaining candidates, whose names were all in single digits, are led by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who also ran for the GOP presidential nomination the last time around, followed by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

The poll's release comes as Santorum visits New Hampshire to give a speech about the midterm election results and the future of the Republican party. No one has yet to announce a bid for the GOP nomination.

In a possible general election showdown, Obama leads Palin 52-44 percent among all registered voters.

"Looking ahead to 2012, it may be too early to count Barack Obama out, particularly if Sarah Palin is his opponent," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "The former Alaska governor gets a lot of attention, but she is in third place when Republicans are asked to pick a presidential nominee, and in a hypothetical matchup with Obama she is arguably the weakest candidate of the top-tier GOP hopefuls."

In a hypothetical 2012 matchup, Huckabee leads Obama 52 - 44 percent, while Romney has a 50-45 point advantage, which is within the poll's sampling error. Obama holds a 49-47 percent margin over Gingrich.

The poll indicates that four in 10 have a favorable opinion of Palin, with nearly half saying they have an unfavorable view.

Romney has a 36 percent favorable rating and a 29 percent unfavorable rating, with 35 percent unsure.

Forty-two percent say they see Huckabee in a positive light, with 26 percent saying they hold a negative view and just over three in 10 are unsure.

Gingrich has 32 percent favorable rating, with four in 10 saying they have an unfavorable view, and 28 percent unsure.

On the Democratic side, nearly three-quarters of Democrats say they want to see the party renominate Obama in 2012.

Why does that matter?

"No incumbent president has faced a significant primary challenge and gone on to win re-election in November, Holland added. "Contested primaries make incumbents look weak and overly-political, and prevent the incumbent from building up goodwill while the opposition party candidates are fighting among themselves."

Avoiding a primary challenge won't guarantee Obama victory in November 2012, but the fact that 73 percent of Democrats want to see the party renominate Obama may scare off any Democrats who are contemplating a run against him, and that gets him one step closer to a second term.

The poll of 1,006 adult Americans, of which 921 were registered voters, was conducted by phone October 27-30, before the midterm elections.

The sample also included 500 respondents who describe themselves as Republicans or independents who lean Republican, and 453 respondents who describe themselves as Democrats or independents who lean Democratic. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

CNN also conducted exit polls on Election Day in some of the states that vote first in the presidential primary calendar.

In Iowa, 21 percent of Republicans questioned as they exited the voting booth said that Romney was their likely choice in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, with Huckabee also at 21 percent, Palin at 18 percent, Gingrich at 7 percent and one in five saying they would support another possible candidate.

In New Hampshire, 39 percent of Republicans said that Romney is their likely choice in the state's primary, with Palin at 18 percent, Huckabee at 11 percent, Gingrich at eight percent and 19 percent saying they would back another possible contender.

Twenty-five percent of South Carolina Republicans say Palin would be their likely primary choice, followed by Huckabee at 24 percent, Romney at 21 percent and Gingrich at 10 percent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
51 52 53
Replies
2K
Views
64K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
O
Better late than never “they” say…
Replies
1
Views
277
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
Reggie Thee Dog
Are we NOT discussing the Dolby Atmos Mix of Achtung Baby?
Replies
13
Views
1K
count rushmore
count rushmore
Janet H
  • Sticky
Forum Update - We're back! Ask your questions here.
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Popmartijn
Popmartijn
C
Hello Hello... Hola!
Replies
1
Views
649
prbiker15
prbiker15

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom