Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Obama's idol
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
No need to review his right-wing policies just now; I'm just looking at his language. He clearly thinks Reagan was the bestest president ever! He cites to him and quotes him constantly. Has anyone told Obama that he's a Democrat? Does he know of any presidents other than Reagan?
(Sorry this isn't so topical - just watched a DVRed clip of a speech.) |
Anonymous
| I know, I'm so sick of watching him trying to hedge his bets and vying to be liked. The people he wants to be liked by have always hated him, and he is totally alienating the rest of us. |
Anonymous
The funny thing is that the arrogance the right accused him of is evident nowhere more than in his overtures to the right. He had every reason to know that he would be attacked this way, but he told himself that he's so smooth that he would win everyone over - like when he tried to resolve race relations with that idiotic beer summit. What a bozo. |
Anonymous
|
Hey, just so you don't come off like Tea Partiers of the left ...
What WOULD you have been willing to compromise on in a deal? Something like the Obama-Boehner deal, which did some Medicare reform plus close some tax loopholes, would have been ideal IMO. Sadly, the Tea Partiers want 1950s taxation with 2010s benefits (because, as you all know, in their heart of hearts most 50+ Tea Partiers are opposed to Medicare cuts.) |
Anonymous
I have a 3-part answer: 1) They shouldn't have compromised at all, at least not for a deal anything like this. Obama should have taken one of his escape routes, of which there were at least three. Not only did he reject those options, but he made sure to tell the Republicans going in that he was rejecting them. 2) While there was a lot at stake here, they shouldn't have been in such a weak position to begin with. Because they caved* in the two earlier showdowns*, the non-TP Republicans knew that they were caught between the TP rock and a soft - or should I say flacid?* - place. Notice that 50% more House Dems voted against the deal than there are House TPers total. Each side had its hardliners**; the difference is that the Reps worship theirs while the Dems ignore theirs. Everyone knows it, and knows that you can therefore count on the Dems to flinch first. 3) Why is this my question to answer? I'm sick of being asked this question. Sometimes I have an answer and sometimes I don't, but this isn't my job. I don't get paid to think of good ways to get my policies enacted, because I didn't aggressively seek that role. I don't always know, but I know that I'm a fuck of a lot better at my job than they appear to be at theirs.* Why don't the Dems ever have an answer to the question, "What are we supposed to do?" For about 25 years, the Dems only answer to that question is "move to the right." * My use of these words isn't quite right, because it suggests that a lot of Democrats actually care about, say, dumping the Bush tax cuts. I won't speculate on what portion does, but Obama and Reid sure don't. ** You know, that crazy Dem fringe that thinks the party should be somewhere to the left of Reagan. And BTW, in this case the fringe was actually exactly half of the House Dems. |
Anonymous
| I see 8:16, in other words, you're just a Democratic version of the teabaggers, uninterested in actual governance. |
Anonymous
Thank you! Can we come up with a term for these de-railers? They're just hellbent on the destruction of anything the party does short of free BJ's for all of them...The hate any democrat who doesn't satisfy they're insecure need for crazy defeatist bravado. They are like impatient children stomping their feet for candy. You cannot reason with them; all demands must be met in full no matter the political suicide...*sigh* "Candybaggers"? |
Anonymous
You're amazing. I present you with multiple full arguments across these threads, and all you can ever do is spout this unsupported condemnation. You're obviously incapable of putting together any kind of argument in support of the position you fervently hold. You guys are a new political species - brainless ideologues for a party without an ideology. At least the Republican Kool-Aid has some flavor. |
Anonymous
Can't reason with us? Who's trying to reason here? All you guys are doing is namecalling at us; you haven't presented any kind of reasoned response to our complaints. How has the left derailed anything Obama has tried? Give one example. What has Reid fought for, that was apparently just short of free BJs for all? And BTW, have you noticed that it's now a huge portion of people who feel this way? Keep telling yourselves that we're the lunatic fringe, and see how the election goes. |
Anonymous
Let me repost this: *I repeat this: Why is this my question to answer? I'm sick of being asked this question. Sometimes I have an answer and sometimes I don't, but this isn't my job. I don't get paid to think of good ways to get my policies enacted, because I didn't aggressively seek that role. I don't always know, but I know that I'm a fuck of a lot better at my job than they appear to be at theirs.* You're acting annoyed that I'm asking you to give some substance to your complaints, it seems. It's like the thread I started, asking fiscal conservatives for ideas to cut spending. I got exactly ONE response to that thread, yet it seems there's plenty of Republicans here judging from the "Obama iz looser" posts I see on here. Another reply: "They shouldn't have compromised at all, at least not for a deal anything like this." Sounds like a Tea Partier unwilling to even consider any ideas that include tax increases (or even tax loophole closures.) |
Anonymous
Thank you for an actual response, though it's still pretty lame. I gave you a three-part answer, and you've only addressed one of those parts. Sticking with my original numbering: 1) You haven't said a thing about the substance of this. All you've done is name-called some more, comparing me to a TPer.* I said that before taking garbage like this, Obama should have exercised one or more of his three options that didn't depend at all on Congress. So I answered your question, and you have nothing to say about it. BTW, the Dems might also have refrained from bargaining against themselves.** Anyone who's ever been to a flea market could do a better bargaining job that that incompetent Reid. 2) As I said, they should have shown some backbone earlier, when it was a lot safer, so they wouldn't have been in this position. You've said nothing about that response of mine. 3) This is the only part of my response that you've addressed. Yeah, I am annoyed to always be asked what I would do. It would be one thing if the Dems were winning some and losing some, but all they do is move to the right, pushing the Reps even further in the same direction. It's like watching your local team lose badly for 30 years straight, without ever changing their approach, and you say "Jeez, you guys suck," and the GM say, "Well, what would you do, smart guy?!" You know, I can notice some very obvious problems, but I can't tell you exactly what to do because I'm not an NFL GM. I can't always tell you exactly what to do,*** but I can tell you that you should do a little more of what is done by those other guys who kick your asses every Sunday. * BTW, I'm not entirely clear why this is so bad. The problem with TPers is that they're ignorant and foolish, not that they're dogmatic. In case you hadn't noticed, they're basically running congress now with a very small minority. Maybe some other politicians (like - I don't know - ones in the party that's been losing ground for the last 30 years) could learn from them. ** As earlier, I'm generously assuming that most Dems actually wanted tax increases, when I don't think Reid cares at all about that. *** But in this case I did, and I said it at the start of his presidency. More relevantly, since I don't have the president's ear, many people have been saying these same things for years. |
Anonymous
Horseshit. The problem with folks like yourself is that you're interested in "compromise" for compromise's sake. So we end up with situations where, for example, most economists recommend a fiscal stimulus bill of at least $1.2 trillion. The Republicans are united as a block in their opposition to any sort of stimulus. So we get a small number of reasonable centrists from various farm states who manage to whittle the amount down to $700 billion. And they ensure that the lion's share of that is not spending, but tax cuts. When that's passed, folks like yourself cheer the fact that the "adults" have triumphed, and that "actual governance" has taken place. Of course, because the stimulus bill is far too small, the economy twitches, then falls back into the shitter. Then the Teabaggers all celebrate and declare "Obama's policies" to have failed. Same shit on medical reform. Same shit on cap and trade. Same shit every time. The problem with the Teabaggers is not that they drive a hard bargain. It's that their policies are fucking incredibly bad for the country. At some level, the problem is that our system of government is fundamentally broken. There are far too many veto points (a legacy of the slave-states fear of losing slavery during the constitutional convention). If you look at a parliamentary system, you have an election, the winner constitutes their government, and they go about enacting the policies they ran on. In our system, we privilege inaction and destruction over anything else, so that's what we get. But at least centrists can feel good about compromising on, say, rather than eliminating Medicare altogether, we'll just raise the eligibility age to 80 and privatize it. Hooray for governance! |
Anonymous
Totally agree. They self-identify as "adults" and the actual policies don't seem to matter a whit. What are the policies the most partisan 10% of the GOP want to implement? Well, then, *we* want to implement 50% of those! Hooray for compromise! |
Anonymous
You just made my point. You're going to tank the election with all this finger pointing. You're just this negative Greek chorus you don't want to govern really, you just live to complain. |
Anonymous
Your point? That I'm a doody-head? You continue to make my point that you can't form an argument to respond to anything I've said. |