Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Hobby Talk! > Politics
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-05-2011, 02:17 PM
Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a liberal)

Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a liberal)

The president has the political muscle to enact a progressive agenda, but he doesn't want to

Quote:
Barack Obama is a lot of things -- eloquent, dissembling, conniving, intelligent and, above all, calm. But one thing he is not is weak.

This basic truth is belied by the meager Obama criticism you occasionally hear from liberal pundits and activists. They usually stipulate that the president genuinely wants to enact the progressive agenda he campaigned on, but they gently reprimand him for failing to muster the necessary personal mettle to achieve that goal. In this mythology, he is "President Pushover," as the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman recently labeled him.

This story line is a logical fallacy. Most agree that today's imperial presidency almost singularly determines the course of national politics. Additionally, most agree that Obama is a brilliant, Harvard-trained lawyer who understands how to wield political power.

Considering this, and further considering Obama's early congressional majorities, it is silly to insist that the national political events during Obama's term represent a lack of presidential strength or will. And it's more than just silly -- it's a narcissistic form of wishful thinking coming primarily from liberals who desperately want to believe "their" president is with them.

Such apologism, of course, allows liberals to avoid the more painful truth that Obama is one of America's strongest presidents ever and is achieving exactly what he wants.

Obama is not a flaccid Jimmy Carter, as some of his critics insist. He is instead a Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- but a bizarro FDR. He has mustered the legislative strength of his New Deal predecessor -- but he has channeled that strength into propping up the very forces of "organized money" that FDR once challenged.

On healthcare, for instance, Obama passed a Heritage Foundation-inspired bailout of the private health insurance industry, all while undermining other more-progressive proposals. On foreign policy, he escalated old wars and initiated new ones. On civil liberties, he not only continued the Patriot Act and indefinite detention of terrorism suspects but also claimed the right to assassinate American citizens without charge.

On financial issues, he fought off every serious proposal to reregulate banks following the economic meltdown; he preserved ongoing bank bailouts; and he resisted pressure to prosecute Wall Street thieves. On fiscal matters, after extending the Bush tax cuts at a time of massive deficits, he has used the debt ceiling negotiations to set the stage for potentially massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare -- cuts that would be far bigger than any of his proposed revenue increases.

As hideous and destructive as it is, this record is anything but weak. It is, on the contrary, demonstrable proof of Obama's impressive political muscle, especially because polls show he has achieved these goals despite the large majority of Americans who oppose them.

Importantly, though, Obama himself has not suffered from equally negative polling numbers. While his approval rating is not terrific, he is in decent shape for reelection -- and, more significantly, he has suffered only a minimal erosion of Democratic support. He is relatively popular, in other words, despite advocating wildly unpopular policies. Thanks to that reality, every one of his stunning legislative triumphs now has the previously unprecedented imprimatur of rank-and-file Democratic support.

In forging such bipartisan complicity with what were once exclusively right-wing Republican objectives, Obama has achieved even more than what he fantasized about when he famously celebrated a previous bizarro FDR. In an illustrative 2008 interview with a Nevada newspaper, Obama lauded Ronald Reagan for "chang[ing] the trajectory of America" and "put[ting] us on a fundamentally different path."

Reagan was a truly strong executive -- but the Gipper was nothing compared to our current president.
  #2  
Old 08-05-2011, 02:26 PM
I agree he isn't really a liberal but how would you define the political spectrum QUENTIN?


Obama is left-wing in American politics but in terms of European politics, he's center-right.
  #3  
Old 08-05-2011, 02:49 PM
If he was a true leftist Washington would have become a totally different realm of politics. For the most part it's business as usual.
  #4  
Old 08-26-2011, 10:22 PM
I'd say Obama is pretty much square in the middle of American politics. That's probably why both sides of the fence hate him.

If you believe the old adage that if both people walk away from a deal feeling like they lost then it was a perfect compromise then Obama is at least good at finding middle ground.

I guess I should add that the middle ground between crazy and stupid isn't exactly a good place to be.

Last edited by jolanar; 08-26-2011 at 10:29 PM..
  #5  
Old 06-03-2012, 04:30 PM
Reportedly Obama had a dinner with George Will and a bunch of other people from the conservative intelligentsia right before becoming President and he claimed to be a Burkean, which they laughed at him for.

I submit to you that if you look at his track record he is rather unambiguously a Burkean. Of course, this doesn't make him a conservative in the American sense, since, say, claiming you can tear down Iraq and build a new country from the ground up based on American values is pretty much the quintessential anti-Burkean position.

But, let's consider the way he is a Burkean: He clearly sees the individual as encumbered and prone to irrationality, and he definitely believes in slow incremental change based upon existing historical forces. For example, his health care bill -- which, regardless of how a new healthcare law tilted ideologically, it was no doubt economically necessary -- was based upon an incremental shift using a previous Republican plan. His military maneuvers have also been slow and steady, using the previous historical blue print as a means of slowly moving in a desired direction.

Well, whatever: we can go on and on with this but I suppose my point was made.
  #6  
Old 06-05-2012, 01:20 AM
Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a revolutionary)
  #7  
Old 06-05-2012, 07:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postmaster General View Post
Obama isn't weak (he just isn't a revolutionary)
He's actually taken a quite revolutionary approach to executive power, interpretation of the Constitution, and use of force. They're radically neo-conservative and imperial, but radically new and outside established procedures and principles nonetheless.

Do you think he has primarily governed as a liberal? Enacted primarily liberal laws and policies, advocated a liberal agenda, even a decidedly non-revolutionary one?

I'm genuinely curious to talk to someone I respect who views him this way and curious how they can square that image with his overwhelmingly conservative actions in office, even just those mentioned in this article for instance.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 06-05-2012 at 08:12 AM..
  #8  
Old 06-05-2012, 02:03 PM
I have but two words to say to this: Mitt Romney.
  #9  
Old 06-05-2012, 02:25 PM
Obama's governed like his main priority is to get a second term, and he'll get it.
  #10  
Old 06-05-2012, 02:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
I have but two words to say to this: Mitt Romney.
What about him?
  #11  
Old 06-05-2012, 04:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
I'm genuinely curious to talk to someone I respect who views him this way and curious how they can square that image with his overwhelmingly conservative actions in office, even just those mentioned in this article for instance.
See, this is why I find Obama supporters more frustrating than Bush supporters: most of them don't actually support the policies he's implemented. When confronted with his record of wiretapping, drone-striking, union-busting and immigrant-deporting, they usually reply with something to the tune of, "Well, would you rather it was [insert scary Republican name here] bombing foreigners and bailing out the capitalist class??" Bush's supporters actually tried to defend Bush's policies -- they gave terrible reasons, of course, but at least there was a potential space for a semi-constructive dialogue to occur.

I'd seriously recommend the book The Democrats: A Critical History by Lance Selfa to anyone who believes the Democrats are the "lesser evil".
  #12  
Old 06-06-2012, 02:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
He's actually taken a quite revolutionary approach to executive power, interpretation of the Constitution, and use of force. They're radically neo-conservative and imperial, but radically new and outside established procedures and principles nonetheless.

Do you think he has primarily governed as a liberal? Enacted primarily liberal laws and policies, advocated a liberal agenda, even a decidedly non-revolutionary one?

I'm genuinely curious to talk to someone I respect who views him this way and curious how they can square that image with his overwhelmingly conservative actions in office, even just those mentioned in this article for instance.

I hate to evoke a recent political cartoon to say how I see it, but here it goes...

  #13  
Old 06-06-2012, 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
I'm genuinely curious to talk to someone I respect who views him this way and curious how they can square that image with his overwhelmingly conservative actions in office, even just those mentioned in this article for instance.
While Obama's presidency has been a bit baffling to me, I don't think we can categorize him in the same way as we did his predecessors. He's a neoconservative on foreign policy who's genuinely (in my view) trying to govern by consensus on other issues. Despite the Congressional advantage he had very early in his term, that dissipated really quickly. We're kidding ourselves if we really think that the so-called "Blue dog" Democrats were going to give him a true majority. Not only is he dealing with severe upheaval in Congress, but we have maybe the most arch-conservative Supreme Court since....(Frame of reference, anyone? Slavery times? Pre-Warren?)

While I don't defend Obama's lack of action on a number of issues, I don't feel I'm apologizing for him when I say that he's dealing with more upheaval and sabotage from his opposition than any other president in recent history.
  #14  
Old 06-10-2012, 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
While I don't defend Obama's lack of action on a number of issues, I don't feel I'm apologizing for him when I say that he's dealing with more upheaval and sabotage from his opposition than any other president in recent history.
This.
  #15  
Old 06-10-2012, 01:53 PM
Yeah, that was well said and a good point.

I'm just throwing out some ideas here on why its like that, trying to get some discussion. I'm far from well-knowledged on this, but Obama, I think has a sort of Bush Senior-itis thing going on. I'm not comparing them in terms of their policies and those effects, but Bush Sr. was also regarded as weak. They both had this sort of "We just don't like you." thing happening from the public that seemed to be surrounding partisanship more than what they were actually doing. Bush Sr. was hated before he even entered office, almost like he was going to be continuing everything that people (Dems) didn't like about Reagan. Obama was seen as some kind of commie or radical change and that freaks out the conservatives. Whereas Bush was all "Stay the course" Which freaked out the Dems.

Of course, like Bush Sr. saying "Stay the course." he put himself in that vote of being hated before doing anything, Obama was all about "Change." Both were saying what they thought their voting base wanted to hear and I think both shot themselves in the foot because of that. I'm not saying neither truly believed it was the right thing to want for the country.

That's what sucks about all of this as far I can see it. People make it out like these presidents are some kind of super villain type masterminds set out in some evil conspiracy to hurt everyone. I don't think that but maybe it's just a mix of me being naive and/or optimistic. These presidents are saying what they know we want to hear because it's goddamned thing we tell them we want, not because we've been duped. It kind of bothers me that people make it into that. At least the conservatives come right out and call us sheep. Liberals think the same thing but are just polite enough to be passive-aggressive about saying it.

Not being involved in the voting process is one thing, but that doesn't mean you can't be actively writing letters to the people who serve us and that you can't be involved in grassroots type stuff, or whatever. 9 times out of 10, (arbitrary statistic) it seems, though that when people speak out against the president, it's more about making people feel bad for supporting that president than it is trying to engage in fixing thing. It's like idle complaining, I feel. Our two party system is what it is and over time I think it will evolve, but I think it will be more within the parties than anything else.

The US is generally pragmatic, I think. We see what's given to us and don't go into ideologies as much as we'd like to believe. The people we pick are sort-of composites of what we really want - representatives. Those people who might most likely to support our revolutionary ideas, not those who are actually going to do them. It really is a lessor of two evil things and...

I don't man, I think I'm just starting to ramble.

Social issues are probably my biggest concern. I can take care of myself economically, although that might mean hustling from time to time. Foreign affairs, while I'm sympathetic about them, it's still not on my radar. And while I don't' want us making enemies in the world, I do look for a guy who's going to make the most allies, even though I know with our current administration there are a lot of worst case scenarios happening, at least they are being done with some modicum of global support. (I'm the kind of person who'd probably sign up for AmeriCorps before the Peace Corps.) I get that there are things more important to other people, and that they should probably even be more important to me, but I really do believe a big thing about this country is that it's not what it does for us but what we do for it. (Some other guy came up with that line, it's not mine) I want to the guy in office who is going to most enable me to that, and maybe one day me or my kids can do something great for this country. The simple fact that Obama wants to help my kids go to college speaks loudly. The fact that he wants (now) to help my gay friends be able to start families speaks loudly…

I mean, this just goes on and on with so many issues. Obama is not evil, and neither is Romney, but one has my best interest in mind, and it's up to me, not them, to make my best interest to help the country myself, not through who I vote for and support doing it for me. Just make don't make it a pain in the ass for me to try and be a good citizen. No one is perfect so let's work with that and stop shitting on what everyone believes is best for them.

Again, I'm just throwing out random thoughts and not trying to argue or make a better point. <--That should probably be my signature around these parts, as it feels that's how I'm always mis-taken.

Last edited by The Postmaster General; 06-10-2012 at 02:04 PM..
  #16  
Old 06-29-2012, 03:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
If he was a true leftist Washington would have become a totally different realm of politics. For the most part it's business as usual.
This.

What bothers me more than anything though is that, since Clinton, as a country we have slowly but surely completely redirected our frustrations with the problems in Washington from just being aimed at whatever current Pres. is in office to also include normal everyday American citizens like ourselves based sole on claiming the same party as said Pres. Guilty by association, basically. Normal people berating other normal people over association..with the President of the United States. Right.

It's disheartening to see us lose track of the real problems and people behind the problems in exchange for turning on each other, as if the other person willingly put that Pres. into office out of spite for America. That is ridiculous. Sure, we have always treated Republicans and Democrats like a competition but lately it more closely resembles a shootout! I would never have imagined that we would be so easily distracted into arguing over party affiliation and treating elections like a circus, while some of the most bogus and unconstitutional laws in history (i.e R.I.A.A) have passed. Especially when anyone with the ability to read and think for themselves has access to literally millions of different news sources online. The most common excuse I hear- that all news is bullshit therefore it's somehow ok to remain misinformed goes out the window because we simply arent restricted to mainstream media in the slightest anymore. If you can form your own opinions, you can find a news site you feel you can trust.

I don't want to ramble anymore but I feel that Obama isn't really the solution or problem. I hate to be that guy but at this point I do truly believe that the only difference between Dem. and Rep. once someone is elected, is the title. While the highest up continue to misinform, dissuade from making positive steps towards change, and threaten things like martial law and the collapse of America as we know it unless bills and regs. are signed (sometimes sight unseen..?!) to members of Congress, who for the most part actually DO want whats best for us.
Press anyone hard enough against the wall though and they will usually try to make a compromise to get out of that situation. In the same sense, once they are willing to make a compromise, the fear that they may get pushed harder next time makes them more susceptible to agreeing with whatever terms you have set. No one wants to lose their job. I'm not sure what's going on behind closed doors these days. I like to think I am MAYBE moderately paranoid, but not too far out or prone to jumping to the most extreme theories out there, but I admit I'm scared of what all we may not know yet.

To be more on topic though, at the end of the day I think Obama gets a really bum rep. For no reason other than the fact that he had the smartest campaign in decades in 2008 and alot of people felt akin to how a lot of us did the first time we saw Prometheus...like we were promised something more. Like Postmaster said though, I see a lot of really good things come out of that administration, regardless of the mistakes that might have been made or the mess they were left with. Want to blame someone for the state of things? I'm not quite sure any of us low level citizens will every be able to put a name or face to that answer for sure, though these days I sadly obviously don't believe the Pres. is in fact the end all, be all leader of America that we are told, and more a vessel for others' motives. IMO most signs point to The Federal Reserve for 99% of our problems, and DEFINITELY 100% of our economic downfall. I also blame the election process and how much of a spectacle it's become. As if it is designed to keep you focused on "All the Drama!"..."The Kardashians Go to The White House" if you will. Hell, I blame myself for not staying as well informed as i probably should have...

Maybe that's the problem? We are so busy blaming this guy or that guy, looking for the easy way out of every problem we face that we simply lost track of what made us American in the first place: Being grateful for the luxuries we ARE afforded and having the balls to say "NO" to truly out of line Government, "STOP" to bullshit laws and regs, and "MORE" help for the people who need it. Not stopping there though, but continuing forward and having the guts to say "We will not let you do this or that to this country without a very serious fight." It's exactly like Jeff Daniels' Will McAvoy said on the first episode of "The Newsroom" in reference to the differences between Americans 30+ years ago and Americans today- "...We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for in the last election...and we didn't scare so easy." Instead we start with those aforementioned things, begrudgingly accept the usual reply of "You idiots just don't understand, we're trying to save the country, which means you will have to suffer for a little while." and end at "Well they aren't listening, so all I can do is wait until the next election and try to get someone better in, in the mean time though- fuck this guy!" It all seems so off base.

Last edited by marilynMONROBOT; 06-29-2012 at 07:22 AM..
  #17  
Old 06-29-2012, 04:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
While I don't defend Obama's lack of action on a number of issues, I don't feel I'm apologizing for him when I say that he's dealing with more upheaval and sabotage from his opposition than any other president in recent history.
Also, this is probably the most obvious reason why I feel the pure hatred I see and hear a lot of people spewing at Obama is wildly misguided. W. was arguably THE worst President in American history, and although he too recieved much misguided hate at times, by the end of it all it was obvious he had never been fit for the Presidency.

So regardless of what really goes on behind closed doors as far as party relations or how out of control that aspect has become, let's pretend for a minute that the government has been 100% honest about the way the system works. The fact that people could be ignorant enough to want to put a Rep. back in office after the disaster of an 8 years we had prior to Obama, with a President who was almost UNIVERSALLY hated is absolute insanity. At least give the man 2 terms to get something done, the Reps had 8 years to bury us, it's only fair right? And that's only if you believe everything you're told! If you open you're eyes a little it all just gets way too ridiculous

Last edited by marilynMONROBOT; 06-29-2012 at 04:52 AM..
  #18  
Old 07-01-2012, 01:22 PM
Being a democrat I support Obama. He may not be the best president. But he isn't a bad one either. Much better than Bush. Bush really messed up this country after Clinton had fixed so much of it. Bush was never my president.

Obama is a great speaker and that will help him. Seeing that more than likely he will be reelected (who will really voe for Mitt I am so rich why don't I run for president Romney?). I think he needs time to be able to fulfill what he has set out to do. He has some good ideas.
  #19  
Old 07-01-2012, 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
He may not be the best president. But he isn't a bad one either. Much better than Bush.
Even though he's continuing, and in some cases expanding, policies that were started under the Bush administration?
  #20  
Old 09-17-2012, 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
Even though he's continuing, and in some cases expanding, policies that were started under the Bush administration?
Yeah, the two wars in the middle east are Bush's babies, and he is baby sitting them for now, plus he is basically carrying out the withdrawal clause in the plan Bush supposedly had. But there is still a insane amount of Illegal wiretapping, the NYPD monitoring the Muslims in NYC, and the drone strikes which I don't get.
  #21  
Old 09-22-2012, 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericdraven View Post
Yeah, the two wars in the middle east are Bush's babies, and he is baby sitting them for now, plus he is basically carrying out the withdrawal clause in the plan Bush supposedly had. But there is still a insane amount of Illegal wiretapping, the NYPD monitoring the Muslims in NYC, and the drone strikes which I don't get.
No. After 3 plus years, they are now Obama's. How long does he have to be President before what he does count?

And you don't need to worry about the illegal wiretapping and monitoring of Muslims. Every phone call and email you make is being monitored, just not as closely as by Muslims. Your government is doing what it has to in order to keep us safe. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Americans are and have always been spolied. Have a coke and smile and be quiet about it.
  #22  
Old 09-22-2012, 10:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
And you don't need to worry about the illegal wiretapping and monitoring of Muslims. Every phone call and email you make is being monitored, just not as closely as by Muslims. Your government is doing what it has to in order to keep us safe. If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Americans are and have always been spolied. Have a coke and smile and be quiet about it.
"Go back to bed, America..."
  #23  
Old 09-22-2012, 10:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
LOL I love Bill Hicks

But what he said is true. Chew on this
Everyone wants to eat steak, but no one wants to see me slaughter the cow.

The truth hurts
  #24  
Old 09-28-2012, 03:01 PM
Obama is trying to put America on the same level as the Third World.
  #25  
Old 09-28-2012, 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
Obama is trying to put America on the same level as the Third World.
Mind you, I am on your side when I say this.

You are coming off like a right wing wacko, racist who just hates Obama. You come out with these blanket statements with nothing to back it up at all. One line statements like that will earn you that rep.

There is some truth to what you said, but you need to add a lot more to back it up. Why do you feel he is trying to put the USA on the same level as a third world country. Quite frankly, I doubt you will come up with anything decent to say. Just be aware how you are being understood here.
  #26  
Old 09-28-2012, 10:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
Obama is trying to put America on the same level as the Third World.
i dont think that Obama is trying to make a third world country out of America

i have to say that times are tough in America with job losses and other things that are going on

It is hard to put a country back on top straight away it is a huge job

Just say you were in his shoes it would be a diffrent story

i can tell you America is still up the top just like Australia even though both countries are still fighting all diffeent kinds of things to keep money flowing in

Do you know when Bush was in he spent most of the money on fighting while Obama is stuck with having to fix alot of things up
  #27  
Old 09-29-2012, 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
Obama is trying to put America on the same level as the Third World.
Not only are you not providing information to back up this claim of yours, you're using an outdated term that is geopolitically invalid and derogatory.

From the rules:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoBlo View Post
Please DO NOT ASK PERMISSION if you don't think you're ready to participate in mature, constructive and above all, RESPECTFUL discussions about politicus conversatus.

Last edited by Vong; 09-29-2012 at 09:16 AM..
  #28  
Old 09-29-2012, 09:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
Not only are you not providing information to back up this claim of yours, you're using an outdated term that is geopolitically invalid and derogatory.

From the rules:
LOL you make me laugh. Third world country is still a current and not a derogatory term.

Handicapped is not handicable. They are handicapped. Congo is still a third world country
  #29  
Old 09-29-2012, 01:09 PM
The "Third World" was used to describe the areas of the world that did not conform to communism or embrace capitalism (the First and Second World). Since the Cold War is over, and people rarely (if ever) talk about the world in terms of capitalism/communism, it is an outdated term. The term "developing countries" has replaced it to represent the status of non-economically sufficient countries or those who are a budding capitalist country.

And the term is derogatory, as if you were to label a Native American an "Indian". The terms are not politically correct and represent the ignorance of the time they were widely used.
  #30  
Old 09-29-2012, 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
The "Third World" was used to describe the areas of the world that did not conform to communism or embrace capitalism (the First and Second World). Since the Cold War is over, and people rarely (if ever) talk about the world in terms of capitalism/communism, it is an outdated term. The term "developing countries" has replaced it to represent the status of non-economically sufficient countries or those who are a budding capitalist country.

And the term is derogatory, as if you were to label a Native American an "Indian". The terms are not politically correct and represent the ignorance of the time they were widely used.
I guess we agree to disagree. Like you said (sort of) it is an economic measure not a means of insulting anyone.
  #31  
Old 09-29-2012, 01:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I guess we agree to disagree. Like you said (sort of) it is an economic measure not a means of insulting anyone.
Sure.
  #32  
Old 09-29-2012, 02:23 PM
A recent video by The Young Turks reminded me of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iji_-...&feature=g-u-u
  #33  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:31 PM
Obama has done NOTHING to improve things. 6 trillion dollars of Obama debt. 23 million unemployed. 47 million on food stamps. Four more years of the same, and America will be on its knees.
  #34  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
Obama has done NOTHING to improve things. 6 trillion dollars of Obama debt. 23 million unemployed. 47 million on food stamps. Four more years of the same, and America will be on its knees.
Anything else to add beyond the talking points?

There are many people who will be more than happy to take another free government program in a year or two (obama care) that people like me will pay for. I am sure those people think that is an improvement.
  #35  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:43 PM
Respectfully I have to disagree that Obama isn't a Liberal. Although he is willing to lean across the aisle more than most he is a Liberal. These are the type of statements (excuses) that Republicans use with Bush. "W.'s second term was a failure because of all the spending he did. He was more a democrat than a republican. That's why he failed." Each side uses these types of phrases to try and defend their side. There's a reason Obama got elected by the Democrats. Because he is a Liberal Democrat brought in for many reasons but one in particular is that his beliefs, behind the useless Nancy Pelosi were to sway the political pendulum that W. had shoved as far right as possible, and swing them all the way back to the left. That is the problem with these two parties. They each think their mindsets are in the middle but they couldn't be more off. Just because it's your belief doesn't make it the middle.
  #36  
Old 10-01-2012, 10:47 PM
Obama wants to borrow another half billion dollars to give to Egypt. When is America going to stop funding its enemies? We need a change in the White House, and I pray the American people will make that happen.
  #37  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
Obama wants to borrow another half billion dollars to give to Egypt. When is America going to stop funding its enemies? We need a change in the White House, and I pray the American people will make that happen.
You do realize that we have been funding Egypt for decades now? Both sides of the aisle??? We do it for that country to protect Israel.
  #38  
Old 10-02-2012, 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
Obama wants to borrow another half billion dollars to give to Egypt. When is America going to stop funding its enemies? We need a change in the White House, and I pray the American people will make that happen.
I know I'm going to get crushed for saying this, but the constant focus on "a half billion dollars!" in American political discourse is at best asinine and at worst down right subversive. A half billion dollars, while I know it sounds like a lot in individual terms, is absolutely nothing in the federal budget -- like refusing to shell out money for socks because you're poor, but buying a new Mercedes. Fiscal policy damage is entirely from big spending programs like the war in Iraq, Medicare, etc.
  #39  
Old 10-02-2012, 03:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon View Post
I know I'm going to get crushed for saying this, but the constant focus on "a half billion dollars!" in American political discourse is at best asinine and at worst down right subversive. A half billion dollars, while I know it sounds like a lot in individual terms, is absolutely nothing in the federal budget -- like refusing to shell out money for socks because you're poor, but buying a new Mercedes. Fiscal policy damage is entirely from big spending programs like the war in Iraq, Medicare, etc.
I am not going to crush you, but $500 million is a lot of money and can be spent within the USA and would do a lot more good than in Egypt. The point is not what percentage of the budget it stands for. The same thing was said of Pakistan and how much we give them after we got Bin Laden
  #40  
Old 10-02-2012, 08:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotch View Post
Respectfully I have to disagree that Obama isn't a Liberal. Although he is willing to lean across the aisle more than most he is a Liberal. These are the type of statements (excuses) that Republicans use with Bush. "W.'s second term was a failure because of all the spending he did. He was more a democrat than a republican. That's why he failed." Each side uses these types of phrases to try and defend their side. There's a reason Obama got elected by the Democrats. Because he is a Liberal Democrat brought in for many reasons but one in particular is that his beliefs, behind the useless Nancy Pelosi were to sway the political pendulum that W. had shoved as far right as possible, and swing them all the way back to the left. That is the problem with these two parties. They each think their mindsets are in the middle but they couldn't be more off. Just because it's your belief doesn't make it the middle.
What of Obama's policies has been far left? What has he tangibly done to try to move the country far left?

What do you make of his conservative and neo-conservative policies in regards to waging war all over the globe, attacking and removing basic civil liberties, being remarkably friendly to big business interests and the major banks, his healthcare policy borrowed from Republicans (it's Bob Dole's plan) and written by healthcare industry lobbyists, his incredible secrecy, his anti-Unionism, his attempt to dismantle the social safety net, his assault on whistleblowers, his assassination of American citizens and broad claim of executive power and privilege, etc? How do those reasonably fit into this mold of being liberal and pushing the country to the left?
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump