[exelant]

(I know he hasn't taken office yet, but over the next few months the President Elect will forming a cabinet and preparing to take over. The pundits are talking, reporters are reporting and the rest of us are watching. What do you think about how he's doing? Try to keep comments to the issues, and stay away from the personal stuff.)

I'd like to start by saying I think he's going to surprise a lot of people who didn't vote for him. It was reported today that Obama has reached out to McCain to work with him on the country's recovery; that he considers McCain to be a colleague who's advice he trusts -- even more than the Senate's Republican minority leader. Impressive start that puts partisan politics aside to focus on our problems. I am encouraged by his actions so far.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[luvitlo]

souds like he's a fellow BB Addict who is gonna lose his Berry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/us...o_interstitial
Not fair but he is President now he can't play like the rest of us.

[the_sandman_454]

The news should give us a break from politics until January 20th or there-abouts, and then for 3.5 years after that. At least when it comes to campaigning and what Presidents-elect do, as they're still just regular people until they are innaugurated. We've had enough politics the last couple of years to last a darn lifetime.

Strange that he couldn't keep his bb for personal use only.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[exelant]

Everything he does is public a record. He will be president, the most powerful man in the world some say, but we own him. His life is no longer his own.

Sandy, I'm hoping this thread will be more about policy and solutions to the problems that face us, and less about politics like we discussed during the campaign. I'm sure some will want to start arguments and us vrs them. Hopefully those comments will be few.

Anyway, the current president seems as if he can't wait to get back to Texas. I know he didn't do a very good job and bungled many things, but at least we weren't attacked again during the time after 9/11. Got to give him credit when it is deserved.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[luvitlo]

If you read the article it is what they do with all Presidents. Email can be hacked easily especially yahoo, gmail, hotmail...etc.... key note Miley Cyrus tv pop star was in the news she sent some nearly nude photos to her boyfriend a hacker got in her email account or phones picture sending I can't remember which and plastered the pictures of the near nude teen star all over the news and internet. So imagine what they would do if they hacked the Presidents email straight from his BlackBerry the news media would eat it up and embarass the whole country, We don't want another Bill Clinton issue (remember that one)
He's human he's gonna make mistakes in emailing friends and family the information that could embarass him so they opt for the President to cancel email and only use their secure media and be monitored 24/7. Face it he is exposed to every Top Secret file, archive, and everything so he is a huge security risk if the wrong people could manage to get him.

[exelant]

Imagine giving up your blackberry, cold turkey. Like when they practised for the debate and everyone on the team had to put their BlackBerrys on the table. I know the feeling, being in a meeting at work and sneaking a peak at my berry to see if there's any mail, lol.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[wnm]

I surprised he has to give up his BB. I would think there is BES in place that would track everything he does on his BB for archival purposes. I think that the security issue must have been addressed, 'cause everyone has a BB!

As for how he's doing, the 2+ month gap between the election and the inauguration is causing him and the country problems. He is really reinforcing the idea of only one president. It benefits him by giving him a little more time for things to hit bottom before he takes over, but also prevents him from giving real advice and changing directions on how to improve our economy. A down side of our election system is that you can't have your team (cabinet, high level appointments) in place on day one. And if you even think of having plans in place for a change over, and who your top people will be you get accused of measuring for the drapes.

I think all he can do right now is not do or say anything that will cause republicans to come out in advance of his plans once he takes office.

[Hi-Definition]

exelant; I wanted to start off by addressing your point on giving Bush credit towards there not being another attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Historically speaking in regards to any attack deemed 'major' on any country's soil...not just the U.S.' soil...there are gaps of many years before a 'major' attack of some sort happens. Obviously it would be ideal if we could say for surety that no attack anywhere remotely close to that of 9/11 happens again...even 100+ years from now.

I personally think giving Bush such credit for 'preventing' an attack on U.S. soil is negated and brought back to square one...when you look at the collective number of deaths/casualties/attacks on Americans on the soil of other countries (I.e. Iraq/Afghanistan). Especially since the manner, consistency and the actual occurrences of these deaths/casualties/attacks...could have been outright avoided or limited to a great extent.

In my opinion; Bush deserves no such credit without attaching NUMEROUS disclaimers. His haphazard approach to retaliation and reasoning behind the approach to the implementation of his power...has planted seeds to greater hate; which has put a greater strain and doubt on Americans for years to come (domestically and internationally). In my mind; this in no way is owed credit when an individual hasn't been meticulous in looking at the sanctity for what he's leaving for his heirs in the form of Americans living now; and the future ones unborn.

As for gauge'ing Obama now...it may be a TAD bit premature to wholly say; but so far so good. Godspeed to him; he has A LOT on his plate.

[exelant]

I miss the election thread , so premature or not, I started this one to yak about politics , lol. I also thought it would be a thread where we can talk about politics and issues that concern us. I'm also feeling very magnanimous, warm and fuzzy about how well the election went and said something nice about 'ol Dubya.

I'm on record here as one who places a great deal of blame for the problems we face right in his lap. He will go down as one of the bottom 5 worst Presidents we've ever had; even the hapless Harding had a successful world summit. I am not unsympathetic, though. I don't think he was up for the job, all of our most successful presidents have been intellectuals or had a good street sense or intuition about how to face people and problems. And most important, they had something to do, an agenda. Bush did not have any idea what to do with all of the power we gave him.


Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[wnm]

Anyway, the current president seems as if he can't wait to get back to Texas. I know he didn't do a very good job and bungled many things, but at least we weren't attacked again during the time after 9/11. Got to give him credit when it is deserved.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I came back to this, 'cause I missed it the first time. I see no basis for the implication that thanks to Bush we have not been attacked since 9/11. I think you are making a causal connection, which would make the statement that "Bush (in some capacity) was responsible for the 9/11 attacks" equally true.

Since the Mexican American War (you might include the Civil War), this nation has been attacked twice, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 (I guess you could also include some WWI Uboat sinkings as well). Pearl Harbor was a clear act of war, while 9/11 was clear act of mass murder done to embarrass the US to which we reacted by making up a war.

IMHO had the new Bush administration listened to Clinton's security team about terrorist threats, 9/11 may have been avoided.

[luvitlo]

exelant; I wanted to start off by addressing your point on giving Bush credit towards there not being another attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Historically speaking in regards to any attack deemed 'major' on any country's soil...not just the U.S.' soil...there are gaps of many years before a 'major' attack of some sort happens. Obviously it would be ideal if we could say for surety that no attack anywhere remotely close to that of 9/11 happens again...even 100+ years from now.

I personally think giving Bush such credit for 'preventing' an attack on U.S. soil is negated and brought back to square one...when you look at the collective number of deaths/casualties/attacks on Americans on the soil of other countries (I.e. Iraq/Afghanistan). Especially since the manner, consistency and the actual occurrences of these deaths/casualties/attacks...could have been outright avoided or limited to a great extent.

In my opinion; Bush deserves no such credit without attaching NUMEROUS disclaimers. His haphazard approach to retaliation and reasoning behind the approach to the implementation of his power...has planted seeds to greater hate; which has put a greater strain and doubt on Americans for years to come (domestically and internationally). In my mind; this in no way is owed credit when an individual hasn't been meticulous in looking at the sanctity for what he's leaving for his heirs in the form of Americans living now; and the future ones unborn.

As for gauge'ing Obama now...it may be a TAD bit premature to wholly say; but so far so good. Godspeed to him; he has A LOT on his plate.

For the first time I find myself agreeing with High Deff. here. I have a friend who was in Iraq and he said it was a JOKE. He claimed they were not allowed to shoot unless shot at and it was more playing cop and just flexing muscles than anything his military training had taught him. He also said the wargames they play once a year in the training camps were funner than Iraq, he is one of those who joined the military for the thought of a war and the "FUN" he could have shooting people and getting away with it.

[Hi-Definition]

For the first time I find myself agreeing with High Deff. here. I have a friend who was in Iraq and he said it was a JOKE. He claimed they were not allowed to shoot unless shot at and it was more playing cop and just flexing muscles than anything his military training had taught him. He also said the wargames they play once a year in the training camps were funner than Iraq, he is one of those who joined the military for the thought of a war and the "FUN" he could have shooting people and getting away with it.

luvitlo; I presume you agree that Bush shouldn't be extended credit for the U.S. not being attacked since 9/11.

In regards to 99% of the content in your above spastic post; real war isn't meant to be 'funner'.

Why would any soldier representing freedom, liberty and the other elements comprising the beacon known as the United Stated of America...shoot soldiers w/o unwarranted transgression? What's so wrong with not shooting back unless one is shot at? Real war isn't a game such as one engaged in training or a video game.

I don't understand the premise of your post...it's as if you're relaying that we should conduct ourselves just as Saddam did so against his own people...inflcting unwarranted pain/death.

Your friend's mindset is sad; as paradoxical as it may seem...there are rules to the engagement known as war.

[Nycxice]

Once the declaration of war is repealed with a mission accomplished tab the rules of engagement change drasticly. Tell your friend to familiarise himself with the UCMJ and Geneva convention before calling it a joke.

As for Obama, he's putting a Clinton back in office so automatic minus 20 for me add to that for the first time I can recall the stock market went down after an election..people have no confidence in him and it shows. I'm going to go ahead and stamp MISTAKE on his head due to the fact that he had a majority of uninformed voters looking for the rockstar candidate and not policy and practice.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[luvitlo]

luvitlo; I presume you agree that Bush shouldn't be extended credit for the U.S. not being attacked since 9/11.

In regards to 99% of the content in your above spastic post; real war isn't meant to be 'funner'.

Why would any soldier representing freedom, liberty and the other elements comprising the beacon known as the United Stated of America...shoot soldiers w/o unwarranted transgression? What's so wrong with not shooting back unless one is shot at? Real war isn't a game such as one engaged in training or a video game.

I don't understand the premise of your post...it's as if you're relaying that we should conduct ourselves just as Saddam did so against his own people...inflcting unwarranted pain/death.

Your friend's mindset is sad; as paradoxical as it may seem...there are rules to the engagement known as war.

yes I was agreeing that Bush is not the reason we have not been attacked, and just pointing out that this "War on Terrorism" is a joke. Military are trained with a "one shot one kill" perspective. Our military is really designed to take out the enemy and come home. But if you wait until you get shot at, face it todays machine guns shoot fast and one enemy can take out 5 or 6 soldiers before they locate the shooter. We have suffered enough casulties.

From your original post:
"I personally think giving Bush such credit for 'preventing' an attack on U.S. soil is negated and brought back to square one...when you look at the collective number of deaths/casualties/attacks on Americans on the soil of other countries (I.e. Iraq/Afghanistan). Especially since the manner, consistency and the actual occurrences of these deaths/casualties/attacks...could have been outright avoided or limited to a great extent."

Now if they would of flown in a few Elite troops to take out the enemy "ONE SHOT ONE KILL" that would of proved the point of "Don't mess with the USA" better than sending targets for the enemy to shoot at will because they can't fire until someone shoots at them. I know my friend has issues with wanting to kill foreigners, but he did sign up just for that possibility, got sent to a "war" and never got to fire his gun because noone ever shot at his platoon during the year he was in Iraq.
War is pointless if there is noway to end it and "Police Action" is no end the countries we are in have Police ang armies, just need guidence to keep these merceneries from taking over.
Sorry I was unclear on that one "My Bad" but atleast I agree with your view this time.

[JRussett]

Once the declaration of war is repealed with a mission accomplished tab the rules of engagement change drasticly. Tell your friend to familiarise himself with the UCMJ and Geneva convention before calling it a joke.

As for Obama, he's putting a Clinton back in office so automatic minus 20 for me add to that for the first time I can recall the stock market went down after an election..people have no confidence in him and it shows. I'm going to go ahead and stamp MISTAKE on his head due to the fact that he had a majority of uninformed voters looking for the rockstar candidate and not policy and practice.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

i could be wrong but i do believe that we never declared war on iraq...
as for the stock market and obama analyis...even if the stock market wanted to go up, it cant...we are in a recession - it wont be official until next quarter, but we're there. the market not going up has nothing to do with obama. no president has assumed the office at the very beggining of a recession like this so the comparison isnt exactly fair. and as far as "policy and practice" goes, he has not even got in the door yet, so how are you judging him on his presidential policy?

[exelant]

Now we're talking!

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[exelant]

I was a bit disingenuous to say something good about Bush. I was pretty sure that would get things going. The idea that we can use an army to do investigative police work is an obvious blunder. It is a defining quality of the Bush administration to go from one blunder to the next.

To stop these people who want to hurt us requires undercover work to root out the terrorists before they can put plans into action. In a way by committing such a horrible crime, these people have really done themselves great damage.

We are looking for them. I don't believe a group of middle eastern men could get away with renting apartments together and enrolling in truck driving school let alone pilot training. So I do agree, Bush has not done anything to keep us safer. The bad guy's own actions have hurt their cause.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com