[TrashMan]

I have mixed feelings about all of this....

[Flipside]

Well, in all honesty, a lot of your views are very Conservative in nature, so that's not too surprising.

For my part, I'm glad he's giving people options back, rather than simply dictating to the populous based on what other people feel is correct, this way people have choice, if they feel abortion is wrong, there is nothing stopping them from refusing to have an abortion, if, however, people don't feel that way, then that option is open to them. That, to me, is as much as part of Freedom as the right to state your opinion about it in the first place.

It's like the argument for Euthanasia, which has flared up again recently in the UK, it's a question of evaluating the reasons why the person wants to do it, and making sure they have assessed every other option before making that decision.

I'm not in favour of Abortion as a Contraceptive, I feel making people aware of other options, such as Condoms or the Pill is important, but then, even those have religious taboos set on them as well, so they catch people coming and going, if you'll pardon the pun, but that does not mean the option should be removed entirely.

[Mongoose]

Sure, everybody gets a choice...except for the one crucial party in the affair.  But that can of worms is best left closed here.

I'm taking a very "wait and see" approach with Obama, largely because I voted against the guy in the first place.  I was admittedly impressed by his inauguration speech, for what it was worth.  I do agree with shutting down Guantanamo, if for no other reason than the fact that it was an utter public-relations fiasco and fundamentally didn't make much sense.  What I'm most curious about is whether all his talk of "bringing people together" was so much lip service, or whether he'll make an effort to move beyond partisanship and draw ideas and input from both sides of the aisle.  If nothing else, I hope he succeeds for the sake of the country as a whole, because I don't really want to contemplate where things will stand in four years if he fails.

[Turambar]

I'm taking the wait and see approach and I voted for him.  My mom is in the Obama can do no wrong camp, but my dad and I are taking a much more level approach to this whole thing.  So far, it looks good, and I'll say that. 

As for being less partisan and such, there are groups that I really don't want to be closer to, namely rednecks and evangelicals.  Ideally, our differences make us stronger, but I don't see how adding ignorance and willful ignorance to the mix is going to do anything but weaken us.

[Flipside]

Well, I always bear in mind that Blair was all for 'Change' and 'New Directions' when he started, so I'm not quite counting my Chickens, but it is a promising start.

[Nuclear1]

Well, he seems to be wanting to keep defense spending reasonably high, even if it is because of withdrawing from Iraq. For that, I'm fairly happy.

Also I agree with closing Gitmo for all the aforementioned reasons.

[karajorma]

Well, I always bear in mind that Blair was all for 'Change' and 'New Directions' when he started, so I'm not quite counting my Chickens, but it is a promising start.

Well right from the first moment I became aware of Blair, it was quite obvious that he was a smarmy wanker who had decided whether to join Labour or the Tories based on a coin toss. So either Obama isn't one or is just much better at hiding it than Blair was.

[Galemp]

What I'm most curious about is whether all his talk of "bringing people together" was so much lip service, or whether he'll make an effort to move beyond partisanship and draw ideas and input from both sides of the aisle. 

Hm. Well, that depends on whether the Christian Right can actually have the ethical fortitude to follow through with the 'He's the President and he knows what's best and anyone who criticizes him is un-American' mantra they've been parroting for the past eight years.

From what I've seen Obama has been far more willing than Bush or McCain to be inclusive, not exclusive, of people who disagree with his policies but are nonetheless devoted to making the country (and the world) a better place. I honestly believe he's willing to listen to smart people who know their stuff, and not just people who tell him what he wants to hear.
For example, Bush's administration edited scientific conclusions made by the EPA because, politically, they disagreed with them. I don't see Obama debating the 'truthiness' of any consensus just because he personally doesn't like the result.

[NGTM-1R]

What I'm most curious about is whether all his talk of "bringing people together" was so much lip service, or whether he'll make an effort to move beyond partisanship and draw ideas and input from both sides of the aisle.  If nothing else, I hope he succeeds for the sake of the country as a whole, because I don't really want to contemplate where things will stand in four years if he fails.

These two sentences are more or less complementary, because the latter demonstrates the former will be true. Obama has a luxury that no President since FDR has had; no one can afford for him to fail.

[StarSlayer]

Heh tell that to the zealot talking heads, their partisanship still has them hoping he does an awful job    Apparently they are still too shortsighted to realize we are past the point were we can afford for him to do a **** job.

[Nuclear1]

As in Rush "I hope he fails" Limbaugh?

[WeatherOp]

I hope he does a good job, I will not like some of the things he does though. But something I do want to see is the media to stop kissing his butt on both cheeks. "He's called a politician, hello...."

[Flipside]

I think it's more a case of relief than anything else at the moment, wait until that rosy glow wears off and then see what they are saying

[Kosh]

And it's not as bad as the 1980's, 1970's or 1930's, so it could be worse.

I must have missed all of the economists saying this is the worst thing to happen economically since the great depression........

[noodlezombie]

I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for anyone actually. I just don't care.

'Some men just want to watch the world burn.'

That'd be me. Politics is nothing more than one giant spectator sport to me. And damn is it entertaining at times. Obama will undoubtedly be a better leader, but I doubt he'll provide much comedy. Bush was a gold mine for laughs.

[ssmit132]

(I think) on the last day of Bush being in office, Today Tonight had a short section showing various "Bushisms". "The Internets", indeed!

[redsniper]

I didn't vote for him. I didn't vote for anyone actually. I just don't care.

'Some men just want to watch the world burn.'

That'd be me. Politics is nothing more than one giant spectator sport to me. And damn is it entertaining at times. Obama will undoubtedly be a better leader, but I doubt he'll provide much comedy. Bush was a gold mine for laughs.

Your apathy is so edgy and cool.

[S-99]

Yes, close gitmo. Then what happens to the next POW camp that happens to get in the news? POW camps never put a good taste in anyones mouths. But, i only see this as a temporary measure until america just starts utilizing the next POW camp for normal operations that used to happen at gitmo.

You'd have to do a better job at making sure information about POW camps doesn't get out to the media in the future, or this could possibly start a slow and systematic POW camp shutdown. You need to have a place to put your POW's. They can't just go no where. America's POW camps are in the news and scrutinized, what about other countries POW camps and similar? I guess this is what happens when you put a face on something that didn't need a face in the first place.

[General Battuta]

Yes, close gitmo. Then what happens to the next POW camp that happens to get in the news? POW camps never put a good taste in anyones mouths. But, i only see this as a temporary measure until america just starts utilizing the next POW camp for normal operations that used to happen at gitmo.

You'd have to do a better job at making sure information about POW camps doesn't get out to the media in the future, or this could possibly start a slow and systematic POW camp shutdown. You need to have a place to put your POW's. They can't just go no where. America's POW camps are in the news and scrutinized, what about other countries POW camps and similar? I guess this is what happens when you put a face on something that didn't need a face in the first place.

Or, y'know, we could not have detainment centers to hold people illegally.

At all.

As a matter of fact, other rendition centers ARE being shut down. And it's a damn good thing.

[redsniper]

Gitmo wasn't a POW camp. It was a prison for 'enemy combatants.' Since we aren't fighting a war against a nation, people we capture aren't technically POWs, allowing the US to get around that pesky Geneva Convention and do all the horrible stuff it wants.