If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BattleSwarm)   Why Obama's triangulation might work: "If Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee, Obama could probably personally execute a Gitmo detainee on the White House lawn every day at high noon and liberals would still vote for him"   (battleswarmblog.com) divider line 150
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Dec 2010 at 4:27 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-12-07 02:46:15 PM
His willingness to make unecessary consolations to the right wing is pretty disturbing. Biparticianship is a two was street.
I'd be willing to look at a Democratic nominee with more guts.
 
2010-12-07 03:11:04 PM
So many progressive are tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, that they'll stay home. Honestly, I'd rather Obama lose to Palin and hopefully have Democrats take the right message from it, e.g. you can only say fark you to your base so many times than continually rewarding them for bad behavior.

If we continually allow them to flip us the bird at every opportunity and then still vote for them cause "they're better than the other guy," we're just asking for them to flip us the bird again. Sometimes, you just have to know when to walk away.
 
2010-12-07 03:17:22 PM
FireBreathingLiberal: His willingness to make unecessary consolations to the right wing is pretty disturbing. Biparticianship is a two was street.
I'd be willing to look at a Democratic nominee with more guts.


This, only with better spelling :)

Hillary is looking better all the time, although given her cave when she voted for the Iraq war, I don't really trust her either.

Frankly, I don't know of any potential Dem candidates that appear to have the cajones to stand up to the gop these days. Really sad.
 
2010-12-07 03:45:50 PM
Dinki: Hillary is looking better all the time, although given her cave when she voted for the Iraq war, I don't really trust her either.

Frankly, I don't know of any potential Dem candidates that appear to have the cajones to stand up to the gop these days. Really sad.


I, too, have finally come to the conclusion that even Hillary would've been a better choice than Obama--a conclusion I never thought I would reach. Her balls might not be huge, but she probably at least has a pair, unlike that Republicrat pussy Obama.

The farking corporate Republicrat "Dems" keep pushing me toward voting for third parties. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000 because, at the time, I didn't see the ball-less corporate Republicrat whores the Dems offered up (Clinton and Gore, respectively), as all that much better than the corporate Republicrat whores the Republicans offered up (Dole and Dubya, respectively). Having learned how horrible Dubya really was, I felt compelled to hold my nose and vote for that complete douche Kerry in 2004--something I'm still not proud of--and I didn't have to hold my nose quite as much when I voted for Obama over Mister "Maverick" and Caribou Barbie in 2008.

I don't plan on making that mistake again. I'm sure as hell not going to vote for Palin or Huckabee or Mittens or any of the other Bible-thumpers the Reeps are likely to offer up, but I don't see myself voting for Obama in 2012 either. Fark him. I would image I'll go third party once again in 2012, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
 
2010-12-07 03:48:09 PM
Nah. I'll look for a liberal to vote for this time.
 
2010-12-07 04:26:52 PM
Obvious human rights issues notwithstanding, that would be pretty damned cool. And it would send an interesting message to our enemies. "That farker is INSANE!"
 
2010-12-07 04:27:49 PM
If Sarah Palina Republican is the Republican nominee, Obama could probably personally execute a Gitmo detainee on the White House lawn every day at high noon and liberals would still vote for him

FTFY, Subby.
 
2010-12-07 04:52:59 PM
He's not a liberal, he never said he was a liberal, if you thought he was a liberal, you weren't paying very close attention.

But by all means, stay at home or vote for Ralph farking Nader or whoever instead, what's the worst that could happen?

www.independent.co.uk
 
2010-12-07 04:56:43 PM
Palin will not get the nomination no matter HOW much liberals would like it. While the GOP is stupid, I don't think they're THAT stupid.
 
2010-12-07 04:59:55 PM
I'm a liberal but I'm not voting for Obama. I'm going third-party next time around. Or I just won't vote.
 
2010-12-07 05:02:39 PM
mitchcumstein1: But by all means, stay at home or vote for Ralph farking Nader or whoever instead, what's the worst that could happen?

If my choices are Republican, guy who does exactly what the Republican wants and someone else, I'm voting for someone else.

slayer199: Palin will not get the nomination no matter HOW much liberals would like it. While the GOP is stupid, I don't think they're THAT stupid.

Actually, they're exactly that stupid.
 
2010-12-07 05:03:59 PM
slayer199: Palin will not get the nomination no matter HOW much liberals would like it. While the GOP is stupid, I don't think they're THAT stupid.

And she's not that motivated.
 
2010-12-07 05:32:14 PM
GAT_00: If my choices are Republican, guy who does exactly what the Republican wants and someone else, I'm voting for someone else.

That's the kind of thinking that gets you 8 years of George W. Bush. Do you remember 2000? You remember people saying Bush and Gore were so similar it didn't matter? Do you remember people being pissed at the Party, voting for Ralph Nader or not voting at all?

Think about how the World and this country would be different had a couple thousand people in Florida voted for Gore instead of Nader, and Democrats in Missouri, Ohio or New Hampshire hadn't decided to stay home.
 
2010-12-07 05:37:58 PM
And you people still won't vote third parties?
 
2010-12-07 05:43:09 PM
mitchcumstein1: GAT_00: If my choices are Republican, guy who does exactly what the Republican wants and someone else, I'm voting for someone else.

That's the kind of thinking that gets you 8 years of George W. Bush. Do you remember 2000? You remember people saying Bush and Gore were so similar it didn't matter? Do you remember people being pissed at the Party, voting for Ralph Nader or not voting at all?

Think about how the World and this country would be different had a couple thousand people in Florida voted for Gore instead of Nader, and Democrats in Missouri, Ohio or New Hampshire hadn't decided to stay home.


So I'm going to be guilty of the crime of putting a Republican back in office because I want to vote for a liberal? Tell you what. You go ahead and vote for someone who doesn't have a spine and runs from every fight and consider this a good thing, and I'll vote for someone who actually fights for what they campaign on, OK?
 
2010-12-07 05:44:57 PM
GAT_00: So I'm going to be guilty of the crime of putting a Republican back in office because I want to vote for a liberal? Tell you what. You go ahead and vote for someone who doesn't have a spine and runs from every fight and consider this a good thing, and I'll vote for someone who actually fights for what they campaign on, OK

Okay, but you don't get to biatch if a Republican gets in and f*cks the hell out of everything he touches.
 
2010-12-07 05:45:15 PM
mitchcumstein1: That's the kind of thinking that gets you 8 years of George W. Bush. Do you remember 2000? You remember people saying Bush and Gore were so similar it didn't matter? Do you remember people being pissed at the Party, voting for Ralph Nader or not voting at all?

Think about how the World and this country would be different had a couple thousand people in Florida voted for Gore instead of Nader, and Democrats in Missouri, Ohio or New Hampshire hadn't decided to stay home.


The Democratic Party might as well just change its slogan to:

"Sure we're assholes and we hate you, but you'll vote for us anyway because the other guys are even bigger assholes and hate you even more!"

Fark that shiat. If the Dems want liberals to show up and vote for them, then maybe they should actually run a liberal rather than yet another Republicrat corporate whore.
 
2010-12-07 05:50:24 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Okay, but you don't get to biatch if a Republican gets in and f*cks the hell out of everything he touches.

What a bunch of horseshiat. He sure as hell does get to biatch about it if he didn't vote for that Republican. Just as Republicans are free to biatch about Obama if they couldn't bring themselves to vote for a couple of incomptent, brain-dead assholes like McCain/Palin and decided to vote for some third-party candidate instead.
 
2010-12-07 06:03:11 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Okay, but you don't get to biatch if a Republican gets in and f*cks the hell out of everything he touches.

Yes, it will be all my fault. OH WAIT.

That isn't how it works. Quit whining. If you're not pissed enough at him for this to consider not voting for him, how many more capitulations to whatever the GOP wants will it take?
 
2010-12-07 06:11:59 PM
The Obama fanboys are starting to look like battered wives. The excuses for sticking by his side are growing thinner by the day.

FDR welcomed and encouraged pressure from his left flank. Are the adamant Obama supporters worried he'll break like fine china?
 
2010-12-07 06:20:08 PM
I'm a liberal in Oklahoma. It doesn't really matter who I vote for.
 
2010-12-07 06:20:58 PM
GAT_00: Quit whining

Who's whining that he's not getting everything he wanted? Certainly not me; I'm a realist.
 
2010-12-07 06:49:47 PM
 
2010-12-07 07:01:51 PM
cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Quit whining

Who's whining that he's not getting everything he wanted? Certainly not me; I'm a realist.


So, when do you stop using the President's lines and start thinking for yourself? When are you going to be mad about the President giving up every single time?
 
2010-12-07 07:16:32 PM
GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Quit whining

Who's whining that he's not getting everything he wanted? Certainly not me; I'm a realist.

So, when do you stop using the President's lines and start thinking for yourself? When are you going to be mad about the President giving up every single time?


When he ceases to become the better alternative. Do you think with McCain in we'd have been out of Iraq when we were? Hell no we wouldn't have. Would we have gotten the stimulus or healthcare reform? Hell no.

Progress is a slow process. I don't take my ball and go home because I didn't get everything at once.
 
2010-12-07 07:33:52 PM
Obama's been disappointing to me in many ways, but I don't regret voting for him in the least. McCain is a total sell-out, he's become a pathetic shell of his former self, and Palin... well, the less said about her the better. Obama was the better choice, hands down (I prefer progressive to regressive).

As for 2012, I'd like to see someone like Alan Grayson challenge Obama. He's defnitely got the balls, but with his demeanor, I just don't think he'd be able to win. Hilary could, but I think I'd prefer Obama to her.
 
2010-12-07 07:34:16 PM
GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Quit whining

Who's whining that he's not getting everything he wanted? Certainly not me; I'm a realist.

So, when do you stop using the President's lines and start thinking for yourself? When are you going to be mad about the President giving up every single time?


You are conflating ideology with willingness to take a stand. You can like Obama on paper (what he says his views are) but be disappointed by his lack of resolve (he is too quick to abandon his ideology for the sake of "getting something done").

In my view, Obama gave up a rook to take out a pawn. You would think just after an election would be the best time to make a politically risky move because it would give you the longest time to recover, but that's just me.
 
2010-12-07 07:35:17 PM
GAT_00: Yes, it will be all my fault. OH WAIT.

That isn't how it works. Quit whining. If you're not pissed enough at him for this to consider not voting for him, how many more capitulations to whatever the GOP wants will it take?


I get so frustrated by the left. You know what? It is going to be your fault because Republicans are a minority of the population but always vote so they always have a foothold in Congress. It doesn't matter what they do because they can always count on votes. With the exception of 2008, I am always the youngest person I see at the polls. Liberals show up for 1 election out of the last 40 years and get pissed off that everything isn't the way we want it in under 2 years and start talking about letting the Republicans win again? Obama would have passed this the way you want it and he would have passed the public option if we had the legislative support. You live in TN, did you do anything to help Harold Ford Jr. in the last election other than maybe vote? No? Obama isn't a dictator that can ram all this stuff through.

This bill right here - if Obama hadn't done this, then we would have lost unemployment for tens of millions of people. Do you think the economy would have done well after that? What do you think would have happened if this gridlocked and the economy worsened as a direct result of inaction? The payroll tax essentially puts $120 billion directly into the economy. He got concessions.

So anyways, as long as Republicans vote more, then we are going to have to make concessions. Liberals throwing their votes away makes it so politicians can ignore us. When everyone is bankrupt in 20 years you'll just look back and say "I didn't vote for the Republicans so it's not my fault," when the Republicans were in the minority of the population yet were always able to get their issues passed because they always went to the polls and volunteered.
 
2010-12-07 07:44:28 PM
GAT_00: mitchcumstein1: GAT_00: If my choices are Republican, guy who does exactly what the Republican wants and someone else, I'm voting for someone else.

That's the kind of thinking that gets you 8 years of George W. Bush. Do you remember 2000? You remember people saying Bush and Gore were so similar it didn't matter? Do you remember people being pissed at the Party, voting for Ralph Nader or not voting at all?

Think about how the World and this country would be different had a couple thousand people in Florida voted for Gore instead of Nader, and Democrats in Missouri, Ohio or New Hampshire hadn't decided to stay home.

So I'm going to be guilty of the crime of putting a Republican back in office because I want to vote for a liberal? Tell you what. You go ahead and vote for someone who doesn't have a spine and runs from every fight and consider this a good thing, and I'll vote for someone who actually fights for what they campaign on, OK?


Fine, who is this crusader for the left? Who is this man who never backs down and never comprises? Because you and I, we want the same thing for this country, so if you got a person who's better, who can actually win and do something to help the country, shiat man, I'm all for it. But if it's just some nitwit who's going to yell from the sidelines and has no shot to actually win, I don't want to hear it. So please, tell me who this person that is going to fix eduction, poverty and health care in this country, while making it no big deal legally to be a homosexual is, I'll start working to get him or her elected right the fark now.

I'm not real thrilled with B.O., but fark me, have you looked around lately? People have lost their goddamned minds, if we're not careful a real nutnjob could end up in charge.
 
2010-12-07 07:45:39 PM
GAT_00: cameroncrazy1984: GAT_00: Quit whining

Who's whining that he's not getting everything he wanted? Certainly not me; I'm a realist.

So, when do you stop using the President's lines and start thinking for yourself? When are you going to be mad about the President giving up every single time?



He's made progress, not as much as many of us would like, but it's still progress nonetheless. Baby steps will still move you forward.
 
2010-12-07 08:25:12 PM
Ezy Ryder: He's made progress, not as much as many of us would like, but it's still progress nonetheless. Baby steps will still move you forward.

Yes. The worst abuses of the Bush administration have no been established as legitimate because they have bipartisan support: CIA drone bombings, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, etc. Those that have been abandoned (certain enhanced interrogation techniques) can come back at any time because we've established that we don't prosecute people for warcrimes or crimes against humanity (unless they happen to be whistleblowers [and no I don't mean Assange]). And we've expanded on them by saying the President can assassinate anyone without judicial review.

But don't worry, baby steps going forward will eventually take us full circle back to reasonable limits on executive power.
 
2010-12-07 08:33:30 PM
You know, it's amazing how much power I apparently have. I mean, it seems like I can swing elections all by myself. That's amazing. I am one man, with one set of opinions, but it appears that I am swinging the election against Obama all by myself.

I like that, because it gives the impression that I'm being listened to. So when is that going to start?

So progress is a slow method. That's fine, I know that. But progress also means one step forward sometimes. There haven't been many of those. We're further behind, not further ahead.

Who am I going to vote for? I have no idea. You don't see me giving a name here. But I intend to vote for a liberal. That's not Obama. And you don't see me defecting right away. I've stood beside this President for two years, through compromise after compromise. I have yet to see him fight for ANYTHING, and I am appalled by that. I don't think the stimulus could have got passed without the tax cuts, but fighting before caving could have gotten a stronger bill. I don't think the public option could have gotten passed, but fighting for it means that the inevitable concessions come from a stronger point. You all know the list as well as I do. The Democrats will propose something, it gets Republican opposition, and where is the President? Nowhere. He doesn't fight, he doesn't talk back, he just gives in. Every. Single. Time.

Well, that's fine. You all are free to keep supporting him. I'm going to vote for someone with a backbone. That isn't Obama. I've had enough.
 
2010-12-07 09:01:24 PM
GAT_00: You know, it's amazing how much power I apparently have. I mean, it seems like I can swing elections all by myself. That's amazing. I am one man, with one set of opinions, but it appears that I am swinging the election against Obama all by myself.

I like that, because it gives the impression that I'm being listened to. So when is that going to start?

So progress is a slow method. That's fine, I know that. But progress also means one step forward sometimes. There haven't been many of those. We're further behind, not further ahead.

Who am I going to vote for? I have no idea. You don't see me giving a name here. But I intend to vote for a liberal. That's not Obama. And you don't see me defecting right away. I've stood beside this President for two years, through compromise after compromise. I have yet to see him fight for ANYTHING, and I am appalled by that. I don't think the stimulus could have got passed without the tax cuts, but fighting before caving could have gotten a stronger bill. I don't think the public option could have gotten passed, but fighting for it means that the inevitable concessions come from a stronger point. You all know the list as well as I do. The Democrats will propose something, it gets Republican opposition, and where is the President? Nowhere. He doesn't fight, he doesn't talk back, he just gives in. Every. Single. Time.

Well, that's fine. You all are free to keep supporting him. I'm going to vote for someone with a backbone. That isn't Obama. I've had enough.


I agree with every single word of this post. And I say this as a person who, according to several people, apparently was able to singlehandedly swing the 2000 election to Bush by having the audacity to a vote for an actual liberal (Nader) rather than a Republicrat whore who called himself a Dem (Gore). How I was able to do this by voting for Nader in California, a state that Gore carried by a margin about 12 bazillion votes, is a mystery to me, and yet I was somehow able to do it, according to several people who have criticized me for it.

Every election, the Dems nominate a candidate who is more to the right and more of a big fat pussy than the candidate before him. Clinton. Then Gore. Then Kerry. Then Obama. Because people like some who comment here will continue to enable them.
 
2010-12-07 09:04:07 PM
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Ezy Ryder: He's made progress, not as much as many of us would like, but it's still progress nonetheless. Baby steps will still move you forward.

Yes. The worst abuses of the Bush administration have no been established as legitimate because they have bipartisan support: CIA drone bombings, indefinite detention, warrantless wiretapping, etc. Those that have been abandoned (certain enhanced interrogation techniques) can come back at any time because we've established that we don't prosecute people for warcrimes or crimes against humanity (unless they happen to be whistleblowers [and no I don't mean Assange]). And we've expanded on them by saying the President can assassinate anyone without judicial review.

But don't worry, baby steps going forward will eventually take us full circle back to reasonable limits on executive power.



If you read my previous post, I said that I've been disappointed in Obama as well, for all of the reasons you've mentioned (and more), which is why I'd be open to the Dems running someone against him, but that doesn't mean Obama hasn't made progress in other important areas.

Healthcare reform was a big step forward, even as unsatisfying as the final bill was, at least it's something we can build on, which is more than what we had before.
 
2010-12-07 09:07:47 PM
Ezy Ryder: If you read my previous post, I said that I've been disappointed in Obama as well, for all of the reasons you've mentioned (and more), which is why I'd be open to the Dems running someone against him, but that doesn't mean Obama hasn't made progress in other important areas.

Healthcare reform was a big step forward, even as unsatisfying as the final bill was, at least it's something we can build on, which is more than what we had before.


You're defending a murder. I mean, that's not hyperbole. If he's authorized illegal, due process-free assassinations of United States citizens, at the very least he's guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. We don't know who is on the list or if one has been carried out because his administration lacks so much transparency, but we do know that he's authorized multiple murders. So you'll pardon me if I'm not excited over the prospect of voting for a murderer because he passed a healthcare reform bill to the right of what was passed by a Republican governor in Massachusetts.
 
2010-12-07 09:16:50 PM
GAT_00: Who am I going to vote for? I have no idea. You don't see me giving a name here. But I intend to vote for a liberal. That's not Obama. And you don't see me defecting right away. I've stood beside this President for two years, through compromise after compromise. I have yet to see him fight for ANYTHING, and I am appalled by that. I don't think the stimulus could have got passed without the tax cuts, but fighting before caving could have gotten a stronger bill. I don't think the public option could have gotten passed, but fighting for it means that the inevitable concessions come from a stronger point. You all know the list as well as I do. The Democrats will propose something, it gets Republican opposition, and where is the President? Nowhere. He doesn't fight, he doesn't talk back, he just gives in. Every. Single. Time.

Hmmmm so your solution is to run hand picked ideologues that will not cave to special interests against established candidates that you don't feel pass a purity test? Did you see what JUST FARKING HAPPENED with the Tea Party? Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnel, Sharon Angle....ringing any bells? This is a proven strategy to lose seats and lose influence in politics. It won't work no matter how upset you get. Plus, cave every single time? Really? How many decades has it been since any health insurance reform was passed?

Look, what I want is what's best for the country. I call myself a liberal because the policies that I would like in an ideal world line up with that the best, but at the end of the day what I want is for the best policies that can be passed. Those policies are not those put forward by the Republicans. I understand that there are huge swaths of the country that will vote right wing no matter what their leaders do and we will have to compromise with them at times.

There are actual stakes in this. When I read things like what you are posting, it is like saying my ideology is more important than what is good for the country. If liberals do not vote for the Democrats in as large as numbers as possible, then the country is going to go to shiat. That isn't up for debate anymore. Voting for Nader will make it worse. Imagine if Al Gore had been president instead of Bush. Seriously.
 
2010-12-07 09:29:34 PM
It's whiny titty babies like Gat_OO and his counterparts on the right that are the reason this country is so goddamn polarized.

F*ck it. I'm moving back to England.
 
2010-12-07 09:32:05 PM
SnakeLee: purity test

Have you seen me give up after the first compromise? This is what, the 20th? I wouldn't call that a purity test. If I was hitting him with a purity test, I would have started opposing him from the start. I've been saying for months that I'd vote for him but wouldn't like it, and these tax cuts were the last straw to flip me. Does that sound like someone opposing him on a purity test? Or someone who was willing to bend but finds themselves having to bend too far?

You're telling me that I have no right to make up my own mind, that I have no right to speak my own mind, that I have to fall in lock step with the Democratic Party. I don't do that. Stand back and look at yourself, and see what you're saying, because while you stand there and accuse me of sounding like a Teabagger with a purity test, you sound a Republican attacking a RINO.
 
2010-12-07 09:33:34 PM
cameroncrazy1984: Gat_OO

Those are zeros, not o's.

And see my last post.
 
2010-12-07 09:55:40 PM
GAT_00: Have you seen me give up after the first compromise? This is what, the 20th? I wouldn't call that a purity test. If I was hitting him with a purity test, I would have started opposing him from the start. I've been saying for months that I'd vote for him but wouldn't like it, and these tax cuts were the last straw to flip me. Does that sound like someone opposing him on a purity test? Or someone who was willing to bend but finds themselves having to bend too far?

You're telling me that I have no right to make up my own mind, that I have no right to speak my own mind, that I have to fall in lock step with the Democratic Party. I don't do that. Stand back and look at yourself, and see what you're saying, because while you stand there and accuse me of sounding like a Teabagger with a purity test, you sound a Republican attacking a RINO.


What is he supposed to do? Let the unemployment benefits go away? Do you know that that would lead to tens of millions of people losing their income? Do you want them to starve and lose their apartments because of a fight the Republicans are not willing to give in on? Do you think the Republicans give a fark about the unemployed? Saying "he should have not caved" isn't a realistic position, it's an ideological one and it would lead to severe hardships for millions of people. If there was a liberal politician who gridlocked everything because he insisted on fighting for everything, nothing would get done and public opinion of liberals would plummet. Also, you're whole point is calling Obama a "DIMO" - I am for party unity. It is the exact opposite of your last line.

People voted for Nader because they thought Clinton went too far right and look what happened. Republicans put Sharon Angle and Christine O'Donnell in the primaries because they thought their incumbents were too far left and look what happened. It just isn't a realistic approach to American politics. The majority of the country isn't leftist and we're never going to have a situation where we can get liberal items passed exactly the way we want them. That is just reality.
 
2010-12-07 10:04:17 PM
Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Ezy Ryder: If you read my previous post, I said that I've been disappointed in Obama as well, for all of the reasons you've mentioned (and more), which is why I'd be open to the Dems running someone against him, but that doesn't mean Obama hasn't made progress in other important areas.

Healthcare reform was a big step forward, even as unsatisfying as the final bill was, at least it's something we can build on, which is more than what we had before.

You're defending a murder. I mean, that's not hyperbole. If he's authorized illegal, due process-free assassinations of United States citizens, at the very least he's guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. We don't know who is on the list or if one has been carried out because his administration lacks so much transparency, but we do know that he's authorized multiple murders. So you'll pardon me if I'm not excited over the prospect of voting for a murderer because he passed a healthcare reform bill to the right of what was passed by a Republican governor in Massachusetts.



It's hyperbole because 1) I'm not condoning any of the shiatty things he done, in fact I've voiced my disappointment in him, mainly for having continued the worst of Bush's policies and 2) if you think he's any different from previous presidents in that regard, well, you're less cynical than I am. Our government has been corrupt for quite some time. In fact, I'd be surprised if the CIA hasn't killed some of our fellow citizens already.

I fully understand your anger with his okaying the assassination of an American terror suspect, it's a grievous violation of our Constitution, no doubt, but I ask you this, how many United States citizens have died (actual real deaths, not theoretical possible deaths) as a result of inurance companies denying treatment? To me, that's murder that Obama's worked to prevent and I see it as progress, no matter how imperfect it is.
 
2010-12-07 10:05:07 PM
robmilmel: Poll over at Crooks & Liars: Should There be a Democratic Primary Challenge to President Obama? (new window)

Running at 70% yes right now.


Which tells us that some percentage of people who read a liberal blog are more liberal than average. Brilliant!
 
2010-12-07 10:08:36 PM
SnakeLee: What is he supposed to do? Let the unemployment benefits go away?

He could have tried fighting for them. Did you see him do that? Because I sure didn't. He just let the vote fail to another Republican filibuster, and that was it. No media coverage. No demands that it pass. It was just an "Oh, it failed? That's too bad." Tell me this: when have you seen Obama fight for anything?
 
2010-12-07 10:11:55 PM
Problem: Obama advances an agenda that liberals find unsatisfactorily progressive.

Solution: Elect Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin who thanks to Newton's Third law will involuntarily excrete progressive legislation by dint of how right they are.

This just makes sense.
 
2010-12-07 10:14:59 PM
House of Tards: Problem: Obama advances an agenda that liberals find unsatisfactorily progressive.

Solution: Elect Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin who thanks to Newton's Third law will involuntarily excrete progressive legislation by dint of how right they are.

This just makes sense.


And I'm single handedly electing Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin by opposing Obama for being too far to the right in TENNESSEE.

Holy fark people. I know all of you attack the Republicans for marching in lockstep and not having their own opinions. I express mine and all of you start shouting about how I have to ignore my own opinions and march in lockstep with the Democratic Party. Do none of you see that?
 
2010-12-07 10:16:03 PM
SnakeLee: Hmmmm so your solution is to run hand picked ideologues that will not cave to special interests against established candidates that you don't feel pass a purity test? Did you see what JUST FARKING HAPPENED with the Tea Party? Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnel, Sharon Angle....ringing any bells? This is a proven strategy to lose seats and lose influence in politics.

Wow, yeah, you're right. The Dems nominating a mainstream, traditional liberal who espouses traditional Democratic values and whose views are in accord with the majority of rank-and-file Democrats is exactly the same thing as the Republicans nominating a bunch of whacko, far-right nutjob extremists who espouse positions that are far to the right of traditional Republican values and whose views are far to the right of the majority of rank-and-file Republican voters. Yep, the Dems nominating someone who would stand firm on rolling back tax cuts for billionaires is exactly the same as the Republicans nominating someone who wants to eliminate Social Security or someone who thinks that masturbation should be outlawed, and would have exactly the same alienating effect among rank-and-file voters.

Where the fark do you come up with this shiat? Jesus.
 
2010-12-07 10:33:12 PM
Ezy Ryder: It's hyperbole because 1) I'm not condoning any of the shiatty things he done, in fact I've voiced my disappointment in him, mainly for having continued the worst of Bush's policies and 2) if you think he's any different from previous presidents in that regard, well, you're less cynical than I am.

So you're saying it's not hyperbole to call Obama a murderer because a) you don't condone his murdering people and b) every president murders people?
 
2010-12-07 11:03:56 PM
Nope...not even then.
 
2010-12-07 11:11:31 PM
GAT_00:

And I'm single handedly electing Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Sarah Palin by opposing Obama for being too far to the right in TENNESSEE.


Where did I reference you specifically and/or state that you would single handedly get anyone elected? That said, setting up a primary opponent for Obama will do nothing but weaken him in the general, leading to a GOP win. Unless of course you manage to find a strong enough candidate to beat Obama (Clinton), in which case you've traded one centrist Democrat with another. Progress!

Absent a primary, someone staying home or voting 3rd party in TN might not make a bit of difference, but doing the same in MO, or MN or CO or FL will make a big difference.
 
2010-12-07 11:20:50 PM
House of Tards: (Clinton)

The one person who might actually be worse than Obama. She's great as SecState, and she'd be horrible leading the country.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report