LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5695
|
 Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| It's a fantastic, spot-on analogy. What boggles my mind on a continual basis is how much the right seems to believe that he's been enacting the liberal agenda day and night. I wish! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5195
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | | It's a fantastic, spot-on analogy. What boggles my mind on a continual basis is how much the right seems to believe that he's been enacting the liberal agenda day and night. I wish! |
That drives me crazy too, and that's an argument I've had with conservatives elsewhere. To my mind there are just so many legitimate ways to attack Obama that making things up is both illogical and unnecessary, I think the problem is that to really attack him you need to do so from the left and the majority of the conservative media simply isn't equipped to do that. Here though we have far more liberals in denial about Obama than conservatives, well conservatives period, so here I tend to focus on the liberals simply because there are more of them to talk to. If this was say Red State you can bet that I'd be arguing that yes this guy's an as*hole, but not the as*hole you guys are painting him as.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sure, if you compare him to some fantasy President or are young and have little experience with real politics.
When did this fantasy President EVER exist? Not in my lifetime. There will always be compromises. Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43. All compromised on issues, lost in Congress, broke promises, made deals and enacted some small portion of what they wanted. None were pure. That's the real world.
Obama has already accomplished more for the left than Clinton. After a weak first term, Clinton "triangulated" right to get re-elected. He stopped taking advice from George Stephanopolous and started listening to Dick Morris. The only advantage with Clinton's first term was that he immediately got a tax hike through. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | Sure, if you compare him to some fantasy President or are young and have little experience with real politics.
When did this fantasy President EVER exist? Not in my lifetime. There will always be compromises. Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43. All compromised on issues, lost in Congress, broke promises, made deals and enacted some small portion of what they wanted. None were pure. That's the real world.
Obama has already accomplished more for the left than Clinton. After a weak first term, Clinton "triangulated" right to get re-elected. He stopped taking advice from George Stephanopolous and started listening to Dick Morris. The only advantage with Clinton's first term was that he immediately got a tax hike through. |
What has Obama really done for the left, other than getting out of Iraq (3 years too late in my opinion) and ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (one of the very few things he's done that's impressed me)? The health care bill does more harm than good, I think, because it will set back the call for a single-payer system and is based off of a Republican proposal in any case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AstroGeek wrote: | | simon_says wrote: | Sure, if you compare him to some fantasy President or are young and have little experience with real politics.
When did this fantasy President EVER exist? Not in my lifetime. There will always be compromises. Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43. All compromised on issues, lost in Congress, broke promises, made deals and enacted some small portion of what they wanted. None were pure. That's the real world.
Obama has already accomplished more for the left than Clinton. After a weak first term, Clinton "triangulated" right to get re-elected. He stopped taking advice from George Stephanopolous and started listening to Dick Morris. The only advantage with Clinton's first term was that he immediately got a tax hike through. |
What has Obama really done for the left, other than getting out of Iraq (3 years too late in my opinion) and ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (one of the very few things he's done that's impressed me)? The health care bill does more harm than good, I think, because it will set back the call for a single-payer system and is based off of a Republican proposal in any case. |
Clinton tried and failed to get an employer-mandate health plan passed, and failed to get gays serving openly in the military. High profile failures. Something Obama accomplished in both cases (with an individual mandate) while working with the Congress as it exists. not a fantasy congress. Right there he's done more. Single payer wasnt happening under Bill Clinton either.
And at this point in his Presidency, Bill Clinton was busy running right and getting welfare reform passed (read: cut) and burning up the phone lines with the far right Dick Morris. The left was not happy (neither was the right, but that's genetic when it comes to Clinton).
The left hasnt had it this good in 40+ years. Even then they were getting the Vietnam War to go along with the Great Society and civil rights. If today's results arent good enough, change Congress. They are far more the limiter than Obama. There are record fillibusters going on as right wing purists throw a tantrum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
marshall
Under the whirlwind
Joined: Apr 15, 2007
Posts: 9238
Location: Western Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | marshall wrote: | | I would not be voting for Obama if I was voting in the state of Washington. The thing is I live in Michigan now. |
That heartens me to hear. It's not Obama that I hate, I mean he might break his promises, but with Romney it's him keeping them I'd be worried about. What I hate is the blind obedience, the rationalizing away of failings, the endless demonizing of the other side, always the lesser of two evils, etc.
I'm going after Obama a lot because the right is seemingly more aware of what Romney is, the least worst, than the left is of Obama's true nature. I'm also a bit ticked because I really had hoped he might be different in 2008, so I'm taking some of his failings, especially on the civil liberties fronts, personally. Not personally enough to vote GOP though, I'm voting Gary Johnson and hoping for a meteorite to hit a debate stage or something. |
That might just make my day. If I believed in a loving God I'd also be praying for a sinkhole to open up under DC and swallow K Street. I just prey nobody is reading this as some kind of veiled violent threat. I wouldn't want to get locked up alongside Ted Nugent while waiting for the secret service to "have a friendly chat" with me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5695
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | Sure, if you compare him to some fantasy President or are young and have little experience with real politics.
When did this fantasy President EVER exist? Not in my lifetime. There will always be compromises. Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43. All compromised on issues, lost in Congress, broke promises, made deals and enacted some small portion of what they wanted. None were pure. That's the real world.
Obama has already accomplished more for the left than Clinton. After a weak first term, Clinton "triangulated" right to get re-elected. He stopped taking advice from George Stephanopolous and started listening to Dick Morris. The only advantage with Clinton's first term was that he immediately got a tax hike through. |
It wasn't 'compromise' that has made Obama go after government whistleblowers like a rabid dog, nor was it 'compromise' that led his justice department to unilaterally declare that the executive branch can /declare/ that due process has been done when it wants to execute an American citizen (or a foreign national, of course). As for what he has 'compromised' on, Obama consistently /started/ negotiations with the Republican position from a two decades ago, and let himself be walked rightward from there. He has bent over so far backwards for the Repubs. that his head has gone up his ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
heavenlyabyss
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 10, 2011
Posts: 530
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | heavenlyabyss wrote: | | he is not an evil mastermind though. To say so is absurd. |
Evil mastermind? No. Typical lying politician? Oh yes. |
My feeling is that Obama is being manipulated by his peers, just as most politicians are. Does this make it right, no. To be a politician, you must be willing to lie and bend the truth. Obama is no more manipulative than any other president. I wish he would transcend the politics, but that would be a paradox. |
|
| Back to top |
|
auntblabby
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
Posts: 18240
Location: the island of loveable toy humans
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 6:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
“Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable - the art of the next best...”
[otto von bismarck]
obama, lacking godlike powers of persuasion, must do the best he can with the relatively limited skillset he has, dealing with the atavistic body politic that he has. to expect more from him is unfair. he was able to finally ram a considerably weakened form of health care reform through the hopelessly balkanized congress, which is more than can be said for any other president. but republican tools in the SCOTUS will [more likely than not] undo that in its entirety, which will result in something even worse than the status quo [the likely repeal of EMTALA, for starters]. despite this, he fought the good fight against the reactionary rightist evils, and even though he largely lost that fight he still will have my undying gratitude just for [appearing to be] trying. at least obama isn't a gay-bashing bully like willard the plastic mormon. his victim, one john lauber [RIP 2004] was the very real cranbrook academy student whom willard and his goons knocked to the ground and attacked with a pair of scissors, and willy the wonk was NEVER punished for this, god damn it! [the washington post has FIVE independant sources for this story, btw] - despite [or because of] his very visible sociopathic traits, i fear that he will be our next POTUS, and the thought of that makes me wanna hurl my soul into heaven ahead of time. i wish to hell i were a big wheel so i too could host fund-raising dinner parties to help defend my president and my party. in america one can't do $quat sans lot$ of duckie$$$. at least in heaven i won't ever be forced to deal with [or even think about] another repub meanie ever again.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dox47
Consigliere
Joined: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 5195
Location: Seattle Area
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 4:28 am Post subject: Re: Best. Obama. Analogy. EVER |
|
|
Time for "debunk" #2, since my generous offer of quarter for retraction/retooling was ignored.
The original statement: | Quote: | | Obama tricked anti-war voters into thinking that he wouldn't order American troops into battle unless there was an imminent threat to America or a declaration of war from Congress, then went to war in Libya, violating the War Powers Resolution, even though neither condition was met. |
The "rebuttal":
Again, you attacked a position neither I nor my quoted article ever made. Who except you is talking about Iraq? We're talking Libya here, it SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE QUOTE. When debating someone, it really does help to pay attention to what they're saying if only to stay on the same topic...
Really William, are you going to make me do this to every one of your "counterpoints" since they're all in this pattern? It pains me to even type so many scarequotes, but I just can't bring myself to characterize your posts here as "argument" with a straight face.
_________________
Unconditional allegiance is the surest way to render one’s beliefs and agenda irrelevant
Any power that government has to do something you like will invariably be used for something you abhor
Murum aries attigit |
|
| Back to top |
|
WilliamWDelaney
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1201
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 5:54 pm Post subject: Re: Best. Obama. Analogy. EVER |
|
|
| Dox47 wrote: | | Time for "debunk" #2, since my generous offer of quarter for retraction/retooling was ignored. |
Actually, Dox, I think that I am thoroughly justified at this point in saying that you are an idiot.
| Quote: | | The original statement: |
The original statement suggested that Obama had made a promise to end the wars, which is a promise he never made, period. He promised that he would pursue al Qaeda, which he has done and is doing.
| Quote: | | We're talking Libya here, it SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE QUOTE. |
The war in Libya was fought by Libyans, and the US was doing its part in a multilateral, international effort. It was a laudable diplomatic maneuver that helped us considerably in reestablishing our credibility.
When are you going to realize, Dox, that Obama has been an excellent president, and you have been a sorry ingrate? Are you simply a born as*hole? Are you lacking in any scruples whatsoever? Do you deserve to have your balls cut off and stapled to your freaking forehead? Arguing with you is a totally boring waste of time, even on the rare occasions that you put out a freaking effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: Best. Obama. Analogy. EVER |
|
|
| WilliamWDelaney wrote: | | Quote: | | We're talking Libya here, it SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE QUOTE. |
The war in Libya was fought by Libyans, and the US was doing its part in a multilateral, international effort. It was a laudable diplomatic maneuver that helped us considerably in reestablishing our credibility. |
Yes, Libyans were fighting. But America was also dropping bombs on the country, killing some civilians as collateral damage. That was not America's place within the R2P mandate. Responsibility to protect civilian life means that the first priority should have been a ceasefire, with the secondary priority being getting rid of Gaddafi by diplomatic means. It is not the US's place to decide to institute regime change (especially considering all of the dictators you've supported over the years) and only gives credibility to the anti-American sentiment in places like Iran and Venezuela.
And I know that Canada was involved with this too. For this and other reasons I am a big supporter of the one MP who voted against extending our mission in Libya. |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Libya was a great idea. It was primarily driven by Europe (like Kosovo) and we honored our ties and helped them out. It was a low-cost humanitarian effort to save lives and didnt get a single American killed. An old foe is now dead (He was the Bin Laden of 1985) and Libyans have an opportunity for better. It's not up to us to guarantee that outcome and I'm glad we're done.
Clinton was often criticized for the interventions he made AND the interventions he didnt make. Some on the left and right say he should have sent troops to Rwanda but if he had many would have immediately switched sides and said it was the wrong thing to do. If Kaddafi had crushed the Libyans and razed Benghazi, some of the same people who now oppose Libya would be saying Obama was wrong for not going. They'd be posting the latest Amnesty International reports of massacres and mass graves and crying bitter tears. Been there, seen it. I'm glad we acted. If you paid attention in the early days, some Republicans were switching sides on the issue depending on where they felt Obama was located. It was like a dance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12788
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| simon_says wrote: | | AstroGeek wrote: | | simon_says wrote: | Sure, if you compare him to some fantasy President or are young and have little experience with real politics.
When did this fantasy President EVER exist? Not in my lifetime. There will always be compromises. Clinton, Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43. All compromised on issues, lost in Congress, broke promises, made deals and enacted some small portion of what they wanted. None were pure. That's the real world.
Obama has already accomplished more for the left than Clinton. After a weak first term, Clinton "triangulated" right to get re-elected. He stopped taking advice from George Stephanopolous and started listening to Dick Morris. The only advantage with Clinton's first term was that he immediately got a tax hike through. |
What has Obama really done for the left, other than getting out of Iraq (3 years too late in my opinion) and ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell (one of the very few things he's done that's impressed me)? The health care bill does more harm than good, I think, because it will set back the call for a single-payer system and is based off of a Republican proposal in any case. |
Clinton tried and failed to get an employer-mandate health plan passed, and failed to get gays serving openly in the military. High profile failures. Something Obama accomplished in both cases (with an individual mandate) while working with the Congress as it exists. not a fantasy congress. Right there he's done more. Single payer wasnt happening under Bill Clinton either.
And at this point in his Presidency, Bill Clinton was busy running right and getting welfare reform passed (read: cut) and burning up the phone lines with the far right Dick Morris. The left was not happy (neither was the right, but that's genetic when it comes to Clinton).
The left hasnt had it this good in 40+ years. Even then they were getting the Vietnam War to go along with the Great Society and civil rights. If today's results arent good enough, change Congress. They are far more the limiter than Obama. There are record fillibusters going on as right wing purists throw a tantrum. |
And announcing his support for gay marriage was an endorsement for civil rights (for gays) that no other president ever had the courage to make. I believe it possible that Obama will lead the fight for marriage equality in his second term.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
AstroGeek
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 29, 2011
Age: 19
Posts: 1477
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kraichgauer wrote: | And announcing his support for gay marriage was an endorsement for civil rights (for gays) that no other president ever had the courage to make. I believe it possible that Obama will lead the fight for marriage equality in his second term.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
I don't. He's already said that it is a personal opinion and that the actual decision will remain up to the states. This will suddenly drop totally off the radar if he's re-elected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
