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.

(Boing Boing)   Right wing media: President Obama is a socialist. Reality: Obama's regressive policy record makes Richard Nixon look like Che Guevara   (boingboing.net) divider line 128
    More: Interesting, President Obama, Che Guevara, Richard Nixon, New Labour, right-wing, FISA, Rapture of the Nerds, human beings  
•       •       •

2247 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Apr 2013 at 5:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



128 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 05:04:22 PM
jewmanist.com
 
2013-04-08 06:00:32 PM
www.realclearpolitics.com
 
2013-04-08 06:03:20 PM
Aww shucks, another example of facts being directly contradictory to basically anything and everything the GOP believes.

Next up: conclusive proof that Jesus was a mythological invention of Saul of Tarsus.
 
2013-04-08 06:06:08 PM
This isn't news.

Whenever a Democrat is president or is a nominee for president, the Republican party claims that s/he is the most liberal person ever to have held/sought the office.

They do it to Obama.  They did it to Kerry.  They did it to Dean (when it looked like he might get the Democratic nod in 2004).  They did it to Gore.  They did it to Clinton.  They did it to Dukakis.  And, so forth.

They will do it again in 2016...no matter who the Democratic nominee is.  And, Fox "News" will repeat it and right wingnuts will believe it.

Now, I would love for a liberal to actually have a shot at actually being elected president.  But, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.
 
2013-04-08 06:06:14 PM
Upvote!
 
2013-04-08 06:07:18 PM
Of course, about 90% of the things in that article aren't right-wing at all, and most are either plain old Chicago-style corruption, solidly left-wing fascist, or old-school corporatist (and if you don't know what that means, look it up).
 
2013-04-08 06:09:47 PM
BULL PUCKEY

img.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-08 06:11:20 PM

cirby: Of course, about 90% of the things in that article aren't right-wing at all, and most are either plain old Chicago-style corruption, solidly left-wing fascist, or old-school corporatist (and if you don't know what that means, look it up).


Dare I ask what you consider "solidly left-wing fascist" to consist of?
 
2013-04-08 06:12:35 PM
Richard Nixon established the EPA, OSHA, and opened relations with Red China.  That's makes him a communist by today's standards.
 
2013-04-08 06:16:55 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: cirby: Of course, about 90% of the things in that article aren't right-wing at all, and most are either plain old Chicago-style corruption, solidly left-wing fascist, or old-school corporatist (and if you don't know what that means, look it up).

Dare I ask what you consider "solidly left-wing fascist" to consist of?


Also would like to know what in sam hell that means.
 
2013-04-08 06:17:04 PM
georgedonnelly.zippykidcdn.com
www.missourah.com
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-08 06:17:47 PM

Pants full of macaroni!!: BULL PUCKEY

[img.photobucket.com image 777x214]


One of my favorite graphs...originally posted by one of my favorite Farkers (a funny, faux wingnut):

img189.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-08 06:20:41 PM
I think back to his quotes of old white people that are scared and clinging to their guns and religion.

Sadly true.  I look at my people, who do not have enough children to even replace their numbers.  Who have no critical thinking skills.  Who have digressed to a state similar to a panic superstitious mob.   I then look to our future and I feel our great sorrow.
 
2013-04-08 06:21:27 PM

cirby: Of course, about 90% of the things in that article aren't right-wing at all, and most are either plain old Chicago-style corruption, solidly left-wing fascist, or old-school corporatist (and if you don't know what that means, look it up).


Oh, and the only part that makes sense here is the "Corporatist" portion of your babbling stupidity. And with this president and the last, there was nothing old school about it--this is a brand new type of legal, in your face type of corporatism that doesn't need to hide it's intentions for the sake of any public outcry--it's all legal now.
 
2013-04-08 06:26:00 PM
History will show that whatever anyone thinks of the the right-wing "wackos" they have been extraordinarily effective in keeping the political debate on their ground. This has been true for the last 30 years as the left has been completely cowed since the early 80s. The one thing you can say about the boomer leftists is that all they could ever do is talk the talk, never walk the walk.
 
2013-04-08 06:26:30 PM
he's an extreme authoritarian and a neoliberal with hyper aggressive military foreign policy instincts.
you know, the exact same president we've had for 100 years.
 
2013-04-08 06:29:32 PM
Left-wingers not knowing what left-wing politics actually entail. Marvelous.

From the people who brought us "Libertarians support slavery."
 
2013-04-08 06:29:41 PM

eraser8: This isn't news.

Whenever a Democrat is president or is a nominee for president, the Republican party claims that s/he is the most liberal person ever to have held/sought the office.

They do it to Obama.  They did it to Kerry.  They did it to Dean (when it looked like he might get the Democratic nod in 2004).  They did it to Gore.  They did it to Clinton.  They did it to Dukakis.  And, so forth.

They will do it again in 2016...no matter who the Democratic nominee is.  And, Fox "News" will repeat it and right wingnuts will believe it.

Now, I would love for a liberal to actually have a shot at actually being elected president.  But, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.


no you don't, you like these assholes. you vote for them every time they have a D in front of their name.
 
2013-04-08 06:32:59 PM
Signs NDAA 2011 (and 2012, and 2013) - [2]

OMG Obama funded the Department of Defense. How horrible!!!

an NDAA gets passed every year or two because the military can only be funded for up to 2 years.
 
2013-04-08 06:33:23 PM
OK listen, I have my problems with some of Obama's policies, but the NDAA and Monsanto things were nothing he could have prevented. They were part of bigger spending bills and he doesn't have a line item veto. Was he just supposed to not sign those bills and let the government shut down?

We Do Get Fooled Again: Progressives and the 'Monsanto Protection Act'
 
2013-04-08 06:34:06 PM
neongoats
Aww shucks, another example of facts being directly contradictory to basically anything and everything the GOP believes.

I am consistently amazed by the ability of liberals to say not, "Oh my god, what have we done?", but rather, "Ha! Suck it, republitards!".
 
2013-04-08 06:34:53 PM

relcec: no you don't, you like these assholes. you vote for them every time they have a D in front of their name.


Dunno about eraser8, but Washington state's caucus season is pretty late. When it comes to presidential candidates, all the liberals have been weeded out long before we get any say in the process.
 
2013-04-08 06:34:56 PM

relcec: eraser8: This isn't news.

Whenever a Democrat is president or is a nominee for president, the Republican party claims that s/he is the most liberal person ever to have held/sought the office.

They do it to Obama.  They did it to Kerry.  They did it to Dean (when it looked like he might get the Democratic nod in 2004).  They did it to Gore.  They did it to Clinton.  They did it to Dukakis.  And, so forth.

They will do it again in 2016...no matter who the Democratic nominee is.  And, Fox "News" will repeat it and right wingnuts will believe it.

Now, I would love for a liberal to actually have a shot at actually being elected president.  But, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

no you don't, you like these assholes. you vote for them every time they have a D in front of their name.


But Republicans are so SCARY we don't have any time to force for representation of policies we actually like!
/that seems to be the actual bullshiat excuse given.
 
2013-04-08 06:36:37 PM
Socialists think that because Obama was elected he should act like a socialist. He wasn't elected because he was a socialist, he was elected because he is a moderate. The far-left should take a deep breath and consider that before puffing out their chest.
 
2013-04-08 06:36:46 PM

relcec: eraser8: This isn't news.

Whenever a Democrat is president or is a nominee for president, the Republican party claims that s/he is the most liberal person ever to have held/sought the office.

They do it to Obama.  They did it to Kerry.  They did it to Dean (when it looked like he might get the Democratic nod in 2004).  They did it to Gore.  They did it to Clinton.  They did it to Dukakis.  And, so forth.

They will do it again in 2016...no matter who the Democratic nominee is.  And, Fox "News" will repeat it and right wingnuts will believe it.

Now, I would love for a liberal to actually have a shot at actually being elected president.  But, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

no you don't, you like these assholes. you vote for them every time they have a D in front of their name.


Because we love half-assed efforts on the Dem's side or because they're historically the far lesser of the two shiat sandwiches?
 
2013-04-08 06:37:57 PM

Wadded Beef: relcec: eraser8: This isn't news.

Whenever a Democrat is president or is a nominee for president, the Republican party claims that s/he is the most liberal person ever to have held/sought the office.

They do it to Obama.  They did it to Kerry.  They did it to Dean (when it looked like he might get the Democratic nod in 2004).  They did it to Gore.  They did it to Clinton.  They did it to Dukakis.  And, so forth.

They will do it again in 2016...no matter who the Democratic nominee is.  And, Fox "News" will repeat it and right wingnuts will believe it.

Now, I would love for a liberal to actually have a shot at actually being elected president.  But, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.

no you don't, you like these assholes. you vote for them every time they have a D in front of their name.

Because we love half-assed efforts on the Dem's side or because they're historically the far lesser of the two shiat sandwiches?


I think the idea is maybe to force the Democrats to actually be center left instead of the lesser of the shiat sandwiches.
 
2013-04-08 06:39:10 PM
fusillade762
OK listen, I have my problems with some of Obama's policies, but the NDAA and Monsanto things were nothing he could have prevented. They were part of bigger spending bills and he doesn't have a line item veto. Was he just supposed to not sign those bills and let the government shut down?

As if that's any better? That just means the political system is completely farking broken. Should we just be OK with that? Let me guess: We should try to fix the political system by voting... aka using the broken system to fix the broken system.

Motherfarking liberals are completely intellectually bankrupt. "If you don't support 100% everything Glorious Leader does, you're betraying us to !!!teh republicans!!! and millions of people will end up on the street and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT, PRINCIPLED PROGRESSIVES AND RADICALS!"
 
2013-04-08 06:39:38 PM

relcec: no you don't, you like these assholes. you vote for them every time they have a D in front of their name.


Nope.  I voted for Obama in 2012 only because Mitt Romney was such a disastrously bad choice and, in the end, I didn't want Obama to win the presidency without winning the popular vote.  This was a tough choice that I agonized over (even on Fark)...even on the day I cast my ballot, I wasn't sure I'd vote for Obama.   I liked Jill Stein much more than I liked Barack Obama.

In 2008, by comparison, I did NOT vote for Obama   Even on his inauguration day, I wrote on Fark that I hadn't voted for him...but, wished him well (from 2009):Also, I didn't vote for the president -- and I didn't vote for Mr. McCain, either...but my relief at the end of the Bush era is inexpressibly profound. It marks the passing of the most terrible disaster for this country.

And, though I didn't vote for him, I wish the president all the best of luck. People need to give him some space and a chance. Our country is depending on him now.
 
2013-04-08 06:41:25 PM

theknuckler_33: Socialists think that because Obama was elected he should act like a socialist. He wasn't elected because he was a socialist, he was elected because he is a moderate. The far-left should take a deep breath and consider that before puffing out their chest.


This is exactly the point. Obama is not a moderate; in any other country in the West he would be considered a right-wacko. He is a right wing wacko. Only in America's twisted vision of the world could Obama be considered a "leftist".
 
2013-04-08 06:41:53 PM
Tell me, how many people have been rounded up since the NDAA was signed?

Oh wait, the answer is none because the NDAA was a bunch of fearmongering bullsh*t and it gets passed every 1-2 years.
 
2013-04-08 06:42:50 PM

worlddan: theknuckler_33: Socialists think that because Obama was elected he should act like a socialist. He wasn't elected because he was a socialist, he was elected because he is a moderate. The far-left should take a deep breath and consider that before puffing out their chest.

This is exactly the point. Obama is not a moderate; in any other country in the West he would be considered a right-wacko. He is a right wing wacko. Only in America's twisted vision of the world could Obama be considered a "leftist".


I think you have no idea A) what Obama's policies actually are and B) what the rise of the right in Europe is.
 
2013-04-08 06:43:17 PM
"Republicans are so stupid, they're a regional party who will never get what they want."

If they're idiots, they're idiot savants. Face it, Dems. They went crazy while your guys opened up the big tent, turning the Democratic party into the old Republican Party. Sure, a few of you manage to get your Warrens or Sanders, but the Democratic Party is dead. Republicans won. They're just having fun now, because even if they "lose," they get a president who will put forth more conservative policies than any "moderate" you would even consider voting for.

Only a Democrat can gut welfare. Only a Democrat can slash Social Security.

Any of you who object will get blamed for not holding the party line. Remember how Nader voters who objected to what Clinton had done in the name of compromise were treated after 2000?
 
2013-04-08 06:43:44 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: But Republicans are so SCARY we don't have any time to force for representation of policies we actually like!
/that seems to be the actual bullshiat excuse given.


You've seen the razor thin margins with which presidents have won elections lately, right? In our system, a third party does nothing but split one of the others and allow the less similar opponent to win. Hell, it happened when Teddy Roosevelt split the Republicans and led to Woodrow Wilson's election.
At the local level, and even state level, it helps to vote your preference, even if it's useless (like me, hoping to God that Mark Sanford isn't elected to represent my district), but that breaks down for the national election. It IS scary to think of Mitt Romney selecting the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court judges. So vote for the lesser evil in the Presidential election, vote your heart in the locals and hope it filters up.
 
2013-04-08 06:44:50 PM

theknuckler_33: he was elected because he is a moderate.


um, how exactly?  Aside from his conservative social policies which all flipped a few months before the election, he's been anything but moderate.
 
2013-04-08 06:47:13 PM

cirby: plain old Chicago-style corruption


Please tell me other definitions you've made up.
 
2013-04-08 06:47:16 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: [www.realclearpolitics.com image 590x457]


The guy who took that photo was the best man at my parent's wedding.

/csb
 
2013-04-08 06:47:34 PM
If Obama is such a  regressive, authoritarian, corporatist, then why do Democrats defend him so zealously?
 
2013-04-08 06:49:34 PM

worlddan: theknuckler_33: Socialists think that because Obama was elected he should act like a socialist. He wasn't elected because he was a socialist, he was elected because he is a moderate. The far-left should take a deep breath and consider that before puffing out their chest.

This is exactly the point. Obama is not a moderate; in any other country in the West he would be considered a right-wacko. He is a right wing wacko. Only in America's twisted vision of the world could Obama be considered a "leftist".


No country's vision of the world is an objective base. There is no definition I know of that would consider Obama a right-wacko.  Saying he is right-of-center is just varying degrees of moderation. I'm not going to quibble of that. The point I was making is that the far-left here in the US better seriously consider their course of action because if they go all 'tea party', then all they will be doing is handing the reigns of control back to the Republicans. In other words, Democrats need to make sure they don't let the far left take over the messaging.
 
2013-04-08 06:51:45 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: But Republicans are so SCARY we don't have any time to force for representation of policies we actually like!
/that seems to be the actual bullshiat excuse given.

You've seen the razor thin margins with which presidents have won elections lately, right? In our system, a third party does nothing but split one of the others and allow the less similar opponent to win. Hell, it happened when Teddy Roosevelt split the Republicans and led to Woodrow Wilson's election.
At the local level, and even state level, it helps to vote your preference, even if it's useless (like me, hoping to God that Mark Sanford isn't elected to represent my district), but that breaks down for the national election. It IS scary to think of Mitt Romney selecting the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court judges. So vote for the lesser evil in the Presidential election, vote your heart in the locals and hope it filters up.


I totally understand the problem is systemic; if leftish people acknowledge that and vote for Obama I can't really complain. What I can't figure out is the enthusiastic support.
 
2013-04-08 06:54:33 PM

theknuckler_33: worlddan: theknuckler_33: Socialists think that because Obama was elected he should act like a socialist. He wasn't elected because he was a socialist, he was elected because he is a moderate. The far-left should take a deep breath and consider that before puffing out their chest.

This is exactly the point. Obama is not a moderate; in any other country in the West he would be considered a right-wacko. He is a right wing wacko. Only in America's twisted vision of the world could Obama be considered a "leftist".

No country's vision of the world is an objective base. There is no definition I know of that would consider Obama a right-wacko.  Saying he is right-of-center is just varying degrees of moderation. I'm not going to quibble of that. The point I was making is that the far-left here in the US better seriously consider their course of action because if they go all 'tea party', then all they will be doing is handing the reigns of control back to the Republicans. In other words, Democrats need to make sure they don't let the far left take over the messaging.


There is no "far left" in the US.

i48.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-08 06:59:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If Obama is such a  regressive, authoritarian, corporatist, then why do Democrats defend him so zealously?


*snort*
 
2013-04-08 07:00:02 PM

o5iiawah: theknuckler_33: he was elected because he is a moderate.

um, how exactly?  Aside from his conservative social policies which all flipped a few months before the election, he's been anything but moderate.


Repeal of DADT. Wanted a public option in health care reform. Wanted expiration of bush tax cuts on 250K and above incomes. Less sabre-rattling in international relations. He may not have GOTTEN all that he wanted, but that is hardly an indication of his location on the political spectrum. He flipped ONE social policy before the last election. ONE.
 
2013-04-08 07:01:00 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: But Republicans are so SCARY we don't have any time to force for representation of policies we actually like!
/that seems to be the actual bullshiat excuse given.

You've seen the razor thin margins with which presidents have won elections lately, right? In our system, a third party does nothing but split one of the others and allow the less similar opponent to win. Hell, it happened when Teddy Roosevelt split the Republicans and led to Woodrow Wilson's election.
At the local level, and even state level, it helps to vote your preference, even if it's useless (like me, hoping to God that Mark Sanford isn't elected to represent my district), but that breaks down for the national election. It IS scary to think of Mitt Romney selecting the next 2 or 3 Supreme Court judges. So vote for the lesser evil in the Presidential election, vote your heart in the locals and hope it filters up.


Although I didn't think his first term was all that much fun, I voted for Obama again last year. Sometimes, the 'lesser evil' argument is quite valid.
 
2013-04-08 07:02:18 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: theknuckler_33: No country's vision of the world is an objective base. There is no definition I know of that would consider Obama a right-wacko.  Saying he is right-of-center is just varying degrees of moderation. I'm not going to quibble of that. The point I was making is that the far-left here in the US better seriously consider their course of action because if they go all 'tea party', then all they will be doing is handing the reigns of control back to the Republicans. In other words, Democrats need to make sure they don't let the far left take over the messaging.

There is no "far left" in the US.

[i48.tinypic.com image 780x400]


Maybe no national politicians, but at boingboing... yea, it seems there are. We don't need a left-wing version of the tea party.
 
2013-04-08 07:03:44 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If Obama is such a  regressive, authoritarian, corporatist, then why do Democrats defend him so zealously?


Why would you expect anything different?

If you self-identify as a Democrat, that means you self-identify with the Democratic party.

In case you were unaware, (capital-D) "Democrat" doesn't mean "liberal or progressive." (Capital-D) "Democrat" means one who is loyal to the Democratic party.
 
2013-04-08 07:06:31 PM

NostroZ: [georgedonnelly.zippykidcdn.com image 300x225]
[www.missourah.com image 300x300]
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 350x350]


I realize those (probably) arent your originals, but... know how I know you know nothing about Che?
 
2013-04-08 07:06:41 PM

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: What I can't figure out is the enthusiastic support.


I do believe people had high hopes for him in the beginning, and that he's not been as terrible as even this article makes him out to be. And I did see his initial outreach to Republicans in an effort to end partisanship and change Washington and whatnot, only to have his hand slapped back and the rise of the Tea Party. He has definitely done a lot with the terrible hand he was dealt.
I do argue often in support of the the things he has done, but at the same time, it's just as much arguing against the stupidity that seems to dog the right's every policy position. Because they are seemingly against Obama's very existence much of the time, it always looks as though I'm coming to Obama's defense.
And truth be told, that gets more traction around here than actual leftist ideas. Most of us are here to argue.
 
2013-04-08 07:13:43 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: What I can't figure out is the enthusiastic support.

I do believe people had high hopes for him in the beginning, and that he's not been as terrible as even this article makes him out to be. And I did see his initial outreach to Republicans in an effort to end partisanship and change Washington and whatnot, only to have his hand slapped back and the rise of the Tea Party. He has definitely done a lot with the terrible hand he was dealt.
I do argue often in support of the the things he has done, but at the same time, it's just as much arguing against the stupidity that seems to dog the right's every policy position. Because they are seemingly against Obama's very existence much of the time, it always looks as though I'm coming to Obama's defense.
And truth be told, that gets more traction around here than actual leftist ideas. Most of us are here to argue.


Just to let you know I wasn't saying YOUR support was enthusiastic; was just making a more general statement. And I think the defending him against the right really has more to do with acknowledging reality than support of his policies because those dipshiats are off somewhere in the clouds.
 
2013-04-08 07:15:06 PM

RanDomino: fusillade762
OK listen, I have my problems with some of Obama's policies, but the NDAA and Monsanto things were nothing he could have prevented. They were part of bigger spending bills and he doesn't have a line item veto. Was he just supposed to not sign those bills and let the government shut down?

As if that's any better? That just means the political system is completely farking broken. Should we just be OK with that? Let me guess: We should try to fix the political system by voting... aka using the broken system to fix the broken system.

Motherfarking liberals are completely intellectually bankrupt. "If you don't support 100% everything Glorious Leader does, you're betraying us to !!!teh republicans!!! and millions of people will end up on the street and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT, PRINCIPLED PROGRESSIVES AND RADICALS!"


Have you been drinking heavily today? Or did you mean to reply to someone else's post?
 
2013-04-08 07:17:02 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: Most of us are here to argue.


I'm not! I'm here for abuse.
 
Displayed 50 of 128 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report