what_now: Wait...are we "impossible to please liberals" who are leaving Obama in droves or are we "Obamaniacs who walk lockstep with everything the Messiah does"?

It's a matter of perspective. From the point of view of objective people reading threads like these who see Obama supporters continuing to support him despite his having betrayed them on virtually every substantial issue, you're the latter. From the point of view of the President, who can't imagine that he personally might be at least partly responsible for his party's current political woes, you're a convenient scapegoat, hence the former. In fact, you're especially convenient as a scapegoat, since he can blame you and be psychologically reassured that he is therefore blameless, while you will support him even more as a result because you can take what he has said as proof that you not, in fact, the latter, and so feel somewhat better about yourselves.

/Sorry 'bout that, but you did ask.

skullkrusher: Lando Lincoln: GaryPDX: Embrace the Gridlock, stability will save the economy.

That's so farking funny.

"Everybody just stand still and Do nothing! That's the only way we'll fix our problems!"

the financial markets have historically agreed. Gridlock means little changes which in turn means little in the way of surprises.

But surprise parties are fun. What does the market have against them?

still no explanation on why his lips are purple.

dj_bigbird: EvilEgg: I wonder how this reporter felt about Bush saying the same thing?

Newsflash: Bush isn't in office anymore, so it really doesn't matter.

Buh but Bush?

These guys are farking sitcom actors, drawing attention away from the real power.

Xivero: From the point of view of objective people reading threads like these who see Obama supporters continuing to support him despite his having betrayed them on virtually every substantial issue

Wait, are Obama supporters continuing to support him despite his betrayal or did everyone abandon him and his numbers are tanking because everyone knows he's the worst president evar!

I forget what Mondays are.

me thinks purple drank could be the cause

So he's headstrong, and cocksure? Or is he a dithering and indecisive weakling?

I blame Fox News and all those white people who cling to their religion and guns. If we were all bisexual, atheist, vegetarian, communist abortion doctors his rating would be through the roof.

Shaggy_C: So he's headstrong, and cocksure? Or is he a dithering and indecisive weakling?

He's a Communist, Socialist, Fascist, Marxist, who wants to turn America into a Muslim Theocracy, of course.

lordaction: I blame Fox News and all those white people who cling to their religion and guns. If we were all bisexual, atheist, vegetarian, communist abortion doctors his rating would be through the roof.

You left out sekret kenyan muslins.

relcec: log_jammin: relcec: did you give McCain shiat for saying we might have troops there for decades?

irrelevant.

you made a claim that he lied. he didn't. you're flat out wrong. on this and the other issues I addressed.

sorry your ass stings so hard over it.

he said he would end the Iraq war. to most people think that means getting the f*ck out, not staying there indefinitely with 50k troops. he was purposefully deceptive. you're an apologist and an idiot who can't understand how the the tax cuts are gonna add $3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. later dumbass.

What then is an appropriate amount of debt for the liberation of a nation from a mass murdering tyrant that invaded two of his neighbors, was hellbent on gaining WMD and funding suicide bombings in Israel? What's the cutoff? Or is life and liberty a luxury for pale skinned Christians only? Or just when you happen to like the President?

vomitsmuggler: still no explanation on why his lips are purple.

A-Rod?

what_now: but he certainly hasn't "betrayed me on virtually every substantial issue".

Well, let's see, he did deliver on truly universal public health care, the closing of Gitmo, the ending of the government's practice of ignoring civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror, and the repeal of DADT, so I suppose you have all that going for you. Now, if he'd abandoned the public option in backroom deals, kept Gitmo open, claimed the right to assassinate American citizens, and chosen to appeal a ruling that would have ended DADT, then presumably you would feel differently. After all, he never actually promised to take measures to balance the budget by either raising taxes or cutting spending -- that was just something one might have assumed a responsible president whose party controlled Congress would try to do. So, adding trillions to the deficit and extending the Bush tax cuts the left likes to blame for ruining the budget can't technically be considered a betrayal of the left, so much as of his general responsibility to govern well. Therefore, I will try to tone down the hyperbole for you in future.

canyoneer: Donald_McRonald: The majority is against Obamacare. The majority is generally for the things in the health care bill.

The majority doesn't know whether to sh*t or wind its watch. But it knows it didn't like what it saw in the medical insurance legislation process - at all. Its also depressed, scared, and pessimistic. The majority wants the AZ immigration law in every state, believes that the next generation will be worse off than the current generation, believes America is in decline, disliked the bailouts, is alarmed by the deficits, thinks Congress is worse than a whorehouse, is tuning out the traditional news outlets, and sees the federal government as a threat.

In short, the majority of Americans have had it with the way the country is being run, feel exploited and lied to, and didn't elect the Democrats in 2008 to do what they ended up doing. The majority didn't want stale old Democrat policies and rehashed neoliberalism any more than they wanted stale old Republican policies and rehashed neoconservatism.

I think the majority is way ahead of the political establishment and the out-of-touch, irrelevant opinion industry on all of this. The sh*t is hitting the fan, and the power elite seems both unaware and unconcerned, or is simply stalling for time while stealing what's left of the money while the stealing's good.

The medical insurance legislation that was recently passed will probably not survive to be fully implemented in any event. It will collapse just like the existing government medical insurance programs and social security and the global military empire.

The next ten years will be...different.

I think you just like hearing yourself talk.

apeiron242: relcec: log_jammin: relcec: did you give McCain shiat for saying we might have troops there for decades?

irrelevant.

you made a claim that he lied. he didn't. you're flat out wrong. on this and the other issues I addressed.

sorry your ass stings so hard over it.

he said he would end the Iraq war. to most people think that means getting the f*ck out, not staying there indefinitely with 50k troops. he was purposefully deceptive. you're an apologist and an idiot who can't understand how the the tax cuts are gonna add $3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. later dumbass.

What then is an appropriate amount of debt for the liberation of a nation from a mass murdering tyrant that invaded two of his neighbors, was hellbent on gaining WMD and funding suicide bombings in Israel? What's the cutoff? Or is life and liberty a luxury for pale skinned Christians only? Or just when you happen to like the President?

Wait... so now the rational is that we invaded Iraq to save all those poor Iraqi's from Saddam? I don't buy it. There are plenty of other mass murdering tyrants in the world and we don't say boo to them. Also, when was the last time a Republican cared about anyone other than real Americans?

/throws B.S. flag on the play
//10 yards for moving the goal posts

UnspokenVoice: Obama is a liar.

Fine, you made the claim, now back it up.
How's that for a direct reality check?

Has anyone else noticed a shift in the selection of "articles" on Farkkk.com recently? Very few actual articles, any more - mostly editorials, blogs and opinion pieces.
It's almost as if the actual news doesn't fit into somebody's narrative.

jso2897: Has anyone else noticed a shift in the selection of "articles" on Farkkk.com recently? Very few actual articles, any more - mostly editorials, blogs and opinion pieces.
It's almost as if the actual news doesn't fit into somebody's narrative.

Agreed. I don't think the mods actually are more right wing. I just think they do it for the ensuing flame war and page hits.

physt: Wait... so now the rational is that we invaded Iraq to save all those poor Iraqi's from Saddam? I don't buy it. There are plenty of other mass murdering tyrants in the world and we don't say boo to them. Also, when was the last time a Republican cared about anyone other than real Americans?

While the narrative for invading Iraq has changed like four times, the brutality of Saddam's regime was pretty unrivaled at the time. He would send his goons on a murdering spree over nothing in between launching unprovoked wars on his neighbors. Not saying we should have gone there, but don't try to downplay what a menace he was to the region and to his own people.

EvilEgg: I wonder how this reporter felt about Bush saying the same thing?

wow, but but Bush on the 2nd post...

I don't get the article.

Mr. Goodwin states, "Obama thinks he did everything right and nothing wrong." but offers now explanation of how he knows what President Obama is thinking. While he does quote an interview with Obama, the quote is highly selective since it only shows several words from one sentence.

The rest of the is merely more extrapolation about what Mr. Goodwin knows Obama is thinking. In short, it's all made up.

apeiron242: relcec: log_jammin: relcec: did you give McCain shiat for saying we might have troops there for decades?

irrelevant.

you made a claim that he lied. he didn't. you're flat out wrong. on this and the other issues I addressed.

sorry your ass stings so hard over it.

he said he would end the Iraq war. to most people think that means getting the f*ck out, not staying there indefinitely with 50k troops. he was purposefully deceptive. you're an apologist and an idiot who can't understand how the the tax cuts are gonna add $3 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years. later dumbass.

What then is an appropriate amount of debt for the liberation of a nation from a mass murdering tyrant that invaded two of his neighbors, was hellbent on gaining WMD and funding suicide bombings in Israel? What's the cutoff? Or is life and liberty a luxury for pale skinned Christians only? Or just when you happen to like the President?

wow, nice poisoning the well. He was a contained, largely powerless threat.

There was no reason for the iraq war.

what_now: Really? Saddam's brutality was worse than slavery, starvation, institutional rape, and murder in...most of Africa?

I'm not sure, but you are comparing one man's regime to an entire continent.

what_now: Saddam's brutality was worse than stoning an adulterer to death in Saudia Arabia? Worse than executing a mentally ill man in Texas? Worse than death squads in Central America?

Yes, easily. You're retarded if you think that gassing tens of thousands of people is equivalent to executing a murderer who's mentally ill.

I'm not saying we should have gone there to get rid of him as there isn't any legal justification for it, but you are trying to make a case that he isn't that bad (or there is someone that is worse), stretching badly, and not even coming close to making a valid comparison.

Donald_McRonald: I think you just like hearing yourself talk.

And you ignore the polling data.

Xivero: Well, let's see, he did deliver on truly universal public health care, the closing of Gitmo, the ending of the government's practice of ignoring civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror, and the repeal of DADT, so I suppose you have all that going for you. Now, if he'd abandoned the public option in backroom deals, kept Gitmo open, claimed the right to assassinate American citizens, and chosen to appeal a ruling that would have ended DADT, then presumably you would feel differently. After all, he never actually promised to take measures to balance the budget by either raising taxes or cutting spending -- that was just something one might have assumed a responsible president whose party controlled Congress would try to do. So, adding trillions to the deficit and extending the Bush tax cuts the left likes to blame for ruining the budget can't technically be considered a betrayal of the left, so much as of his general responsibility to govern well. Therefore, I will try to tone down the hyperbole for you in future.

Is this the narrative we're using for today? I thought Obama was a radical leftist who was pushing his socialist agenda while coddling our enemies.

apeiron242: hellbent on gaining WMD


You're thinking of N. Korea. We didn't invade them.

what_now: No. I'm saying there are so many examples of evil to chose from, that saying Saddam's brutality was "unrivaled" is completely untrue.

Then who rivaled him during that time?

what_now: I'm not. I'm just saying that we as a society allow plenty of bad things- even much, much worse things- to happen without invading.

This is true.

Except for the stuff he admits he got wrong.


/thanks for reminding me how shiat this site is anymore

what_now: Oh, and BTW, we've ramped up post secondary education funding, which is my biggest issue. You wouldn't know that, because to you I'm just "some liberal" and therefore must have the same concerns and the same politics as every other liberal.

I listed the major issues that have dominated most of the political discourse for the last little while. Maybe you have some personal reason for caring about this issue. Possibly you are even a student who has directly benefited from the program, in which case, congratulations on falling into the category of people whose votes the Democrats have bought with their spending. However it is, I assumed that you were on the left of most if not all of the typical issues too, an assumption that seems to have been basically correct. It is difficult to see what is particularly good about the health bill at this point. DADT has not been functionally ended. It would have been, if Obama had not chosen to appeal it. As it is, if the ruling is suspended until the appeal is heard, the military will go back to enforcing it. Congress refused to vote on the tax cuts until after the election, which, if the Republicans make anywhere near the sorts of gains being forecast, means the cuts will likely be extended in their entirety.

what_now: We've avoided a farking depression, which is a pretty big deal.

Only if you actually believe we would have entered one without the stimulus. There's no real evidence of that. For that matter, there was never any sign that it was going to be anything other than what it has turned out to be, a particularly nasty recession occurring around the time one would have expected, made worse by the subprime mortgage crisis. What we do know for certain is that the stimulus bill was passed on the projection that it would keep unemployment below 8% and that it added a ton to the deficit. It failed on the first count, and succeeded spectacularly on the second. One can always claim that things would have been worse without it, but given that it is an unprovable claim, it isn't particularly convincing. If the government had proven its integrity and competence in other matters, we might allow ourselves to believe it, I suppose, but, as its track record is one of miserable failures, as outlined earlier, no.

Facts. Pesky things.

Chart from Pelosi's office...not so pesky...or relevant..or accurate.

Keep throwing it up on every thread thought because that makes it true...oh, and here's a picture of some nazis...just cause this thread needs one of those as well.

wolvernova: what_now: Really? Saddam's brutality was worse than slavery, starvation, institutional rape, and murder in...most of Africa?

I'm not sure, but you are comparing one man's regime to an entire continent.

what_now: Saddam's brutality was worse than stoning an adulterer to death in Saudia Arabia? Worse than executing a mentally ill man in Texas? Worse than death squads in Central America?

Yes, easily. You're retarded if you think that gassing tens of thousands of people is equivalent to executing a murderer who's mentally ill.

I'm not saying we should have gone there to get rid of him as there isn't any legal justification for it, but you are trying to make a case that he isn't that bad (or there is someone that is worse), stretching badly, and not even coming close to making a valid comparison.

that was decades ago though. He, at the time of the war, was a contained, largely powerless threat. His military was in shambles, he had no WMD, etc.

On the other hand, half of Africa is swimming in Genocide, and south Asia isn't much better at times.

He was small fries at the time of the war.

LasersHurt: people ARE misinterpreting this administration, mostly because they are almost entirely ignorant


Exactly.

If American's weren't so ignorant, they'd demand higher taxes NOW... or voluntarily pay more!

Fart_Machine: I thought Obama was a radical leftist who was pushing his socialist agenda while coddling our enemies.

It is not surprising that radical leftists would show a complete disregard for civil rights or an incredible amount of hypocrisy. Nor is it impossible for them to act in ways that generally encourage hostile powers while still making life harder for specific, individual terrorists. As for the apparent discrepancy between claims that he is pushing a socialist agenda and his watering down the health care bill or potentially agreeing to extend the Bush tax cuts, well, no one ever accused him of being a competent socialist :-)

what_now: wolvernova: what_now: No. I'm saying there are so many examples of evil to chose from, that saying Saddam's brutality was "unrivaled" is completely untrue.

Then who rivaled him during that time?

By September 2004 the Janjaweed in the Sudan had killed around 50,000 people, mainly due to forced starvation. Although those numbers are clearly just a best guess, most international observers put the death toll at around half a million to date. This civil war started in 2002.

It's pretty tough to sort out the players in the Congo civil war, but what we can tell is that over three million people have died between 1998-2004, and that to date almost 5 and a half million people have died in this war, which has ranged through 6-7 countries in Africa.

While Saddam was in his "period of unrivaled brutality" tens of thousands of children were forced to become soldiers. These children- as young as 8- were beaten, raped, starved, addicted to drugs and forced to kill family members in the Congo.

In the 1994 one million Rwandan people were killed in three months.

But they didn't have any oil.

kevn357: JohnnyC: relcec: he said he was going to end the f*cking Iraq war. what do you think that f*cking means? it doesn't mean to keep u.s. troops there forever you dumbass. he lied. quit apologizing. he got around it bey reclassifying these 50k as non combat troops. it's BS.

So WWII isn't over yet? You are aware we have troops in Germany and Japan still, right?

Wow, how the fark is that relevant. We have 50k troops in Iraq guy. You sound like a Bush lover defending complete stupid

relcec: he said he would end the Iraq war. to most people think that means getting the f*ck out, not staying there indefinitely with 50k troops

"As of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 135 countries.[18] Some of the largest contingents are the 50,000 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 71,000 in Afghanistan, the 52,440 in Germany (see list), the 35,688 in Japan (USFJ), the 28,500 in Republic of Korea (USFK), and the 9,660 in Italy and the 9,015 in the United Kingdom respectively. These numbers change frequently due to the regular recall and deployment of units.

Altogether, 77,917 military personnel are located in Europe, 141 in the former Soviet Union, 47,236 in East Asia and the Pacific, 3,362 in North Africa, the Near East, and South Asia, 1,355 are in sub-Saharan Africa with 1,941 in the Western Hemisphere excepting the United States itself." Link (new window)

Um, more troops in Germany than in Iraq isn't exactly "irrelevant." And try looking for U.S. combat deaths in Iraq. Last December there were none.

IlGreven: oldebayer: GaryPDX: No, it won't "stick" but it will be uncomfortable for you lefties

I ought to tell you something. I am not left handed.

/Recently voted early, for equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats, Independents when I could find any, and against all incumbents but one, who is running against the former incumbent, who is a real SOB.

This tells me all I need to know about you...more than the rest of what you were telling Gary.

...and I think it's worse than what Gary does. Because at least Gary is honest about what he wants.

/Blaming incumbents for the current state of affairs is about as bad as blaming Obama for them.
//No matter how long the incumbents have been incumbents

and

LasersHurt: Troof, but there's a wide niche being filled by those who used to buy into the jingoistic "The Right is causing our problems!" or "The Left is causing our problems!" who have now migrated to "It's the Incumbents causing our problems

Congratulations. That's the kind of double think I have come to love on fark politics threads. It's wrong to be against incumbents, yet there you sit, arguing like mad that Obama is bad and should under no circumstances be re-elected. And you divine from one single sentence I wrote exactly how my mind works. How marvelous.

Here's the deal: when people complain at the top of their lungs how bad their government is, yet continue to return over 90% of incumbents to office, something is wrong. And I haven't changed my mind suddenly about this, I've been saying it for almost ten years on fark, and longer elsewhere. And I don't vote in some knee-jerk way against all incumbents - if someone is being enormously outspent by a challenger, I tend to follow the money, which is the real problem with American politics as it is practiced today. If an incumbent has, imhblo, done a good job, then I tend to vote for them. Even if I might disagree with them on an issue or two, as I do with my current incumbent Congresscritter (as I said, his opponent, the forment incumbent, is a known sack.) So, again in my view, the main probelms with American politics are (a) money, which leads directly to (b) runaway incumbency, which makes it necessary to (c) court the corporations and not the voters, so that (d) the voters become indifferent and are easily manipulated into thinking they are voting for the "lesser of two evils." Or, worse yet, vote for some meaningless third party.

But you guys know much more than I do, even my secret motives for saying everything I say, so carry on and enjoy yourselves.

canyoneer: Donald_McRonald: I think you just like hearing yourself talk.

And you ignore the polling data.

Could you give a longer answer (multi-paragraph is preferable) that doesn't really say all that much while containing a lot of projection as well as loathing of humanity?

Thanks.

LasersHurt: nobody can claim that the average American is educated


That's why we need to 'invest' more in government schools, right comrade?