Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Obama's Declared War with Fox News Channel
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Carter??!!!!! Carter is a raging liberal! The man used the word "apartheid" to describe Israel. And appropriately so I would argue but regardless, his position is waaaaayyyyyy off from Obama's or the Democratic Party generally. He is way out there.
LBJ created the Great Society and expanded government entitlements far beyond what other recent presidents have done. And how is Obama's strategy for Afghanistan at this point in time any different from what JFK or LBJ did? See, that's what so crazy. Obama is exactly not pulling us out of our wars the way liberals had hoped he would. He looks more like JFK and LBJ to me every day. And guess what, being a community organizer when you're young is no guarantee you'll be a raging leftist when you're middle aged. Again -- bogeyman. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
See what Factcheck.org has to say about this: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/lying_about_being_liberal.html The claim is "true only for 2007 but not for his entire Senate career. He was rated 10th and 16th in his two previous years." Moreover, the difference between most liberal and middle of the pack is very little. For instance, over three years, Hillary Clinton and Obama differed on only 2 of the 99 votes used to rank Senators. Yet, she was ranked 16th. One of the votes was to set up an outside ethics office. Obama votes for it, which was judged the most liberal position. But, is that really a liberal position? Anyone who watched Obama's Senate career could accurately predict the mainstream course he has plotted. That's exactly how he acted in the Senate. In 2006 he gave a well-publicized speech at a church in which he criticized liberals for religious intolerance. I don't think he is that much different than Carter or Clinton. You are making some strange assumptions is stating that southern white guys must be conservative while northern black guys are immediately liberal. You are also forgetting that these designations are not cut and dry. Each of these presidents was more liberal on some issues than others. You can't just cherry pick one issue and use it to describe the individual's entire philosophy. |
Anonymous
|
so yesterday he writes "It's just not possible to take seriously people who are detached from reality" because some called Obama a liberal. Now he admits that Factcheck found Obama was the most liberal senator in the entire senate for one year, and one of the most liberal members over the course of his (all too brief) senate career.
Ummm, what is it? So you think the presidents who came from the senate were typically found to be the "most" liberal? No they were not, and yes Obama is. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
You have too short a memory. The people detached from reality don't simply think that Obama is a liberal. They -- you -- think he is "the most liberal president in at least 70 years". Just a word of advice: it's a poor strategy to misrepresent what I've written when it is right there in front of us. The "most liberal" label is meaningless. When a vote to set up an ethics office is judged liberal and results in a change of several places, it is a totally meaningless designation. Incidentally, when Kerry ran for president he was also labeled "most liberal". Do you think Kerry became less liberal after losing? It certainly doesn't seem like it. Hillary ran to the left of Obama during the primary, but she was ranked less liberal (because she opposed an ethics office). On any reality-based factor, Obama is a mainstream, if not right-leaning, Democrat. Democrats are generally liberal, so yes, Obama is liberal. He is not, however, fundamentally different than any of his Democratic predecessors over the last 70 years. That idea is purely a figment of your imagination. That is evidenced by your complete inability to cite actual quantitative measures to support your argument. And, none of this even comes close to the teabagger claims that Obama is a Nazi, communist, socialist, Muslim, fascist, etc., etc. Talk about detached from reality. |
Anonymous
|
let's put aside for the time being whether or not Obama truly will be the most liberal president, as it is really premature. I can't see how his life and actions before the presidency could equate to any other "liberal" president. Despite Carter turning completely insane as an older man, he governed Georgia fairly conservatively. As did Clinton in Arkansas. Compare that to Obama's rabble-rousing and doing drugs in Chicago. It is funny to me that any could deny it. Why is it even problematic? Why is liberal a bad name? If you truly are progressive than it should be a good thing.
but regardless, the point is that the liberals in this thread are being incredibly intolerant as to the basic right to assemble and protest your government. you can't see ANY reasonable explanation for why the true hard-core conservatives in this country are dissatisfied with Obama and disagree with his policies? if they truly have those conservative views (despite your mocking that outlook) than Obama, be he the MOST liberal or simply tied with John Quincy Adams, is going to scare the living daylights out of them. Reagan was probably the most conservative president we have had in a long, long while. Didn't the liberals who constantly protested during the 80s have reasonable grounds to do so? Of course they did - the president had a view on the world that was far from their own outlook, and they had a reasonable grounds to disagree. Whether or not they were correct is beside the point. We have a broad spectrum of political thought in this country, and the right to peacefully protest goes hand in hand. personally I find most protesters to be annoying and counter-productive, but i've never dismissed their very right to do so. |
Anonymous
|
Ah, the old straw man argument! Not one person has suggested that they don't have the right to assemble (and in fact at least one post said the exact opposite, that we are lucky to live in a country where they do).
The Tea Party faction is not attacking the true merits of the health care debate and Obama's actual policy. They are fearmongering and misleading and nothing more. Lots of people have said that you can disagree with Obama. Do you really want to associate yourself with the crazies? Why not align yourself with the people who actually understand the issues and aren't just buying into the idea that a PP stated, which is that Obama is the bogeyman. |
Anonymous
Your statement is self-contradictory. Either Fox is covering legitimate news, in which case you would be pointing out that legitimate news is also covered by Wash Post and NY Times. OR, Fox is slanted and you could show the same for Washington Post and New York Times. So which is it? I think you meant the latter, but you are then revealing what Fox News really is: red meat for the true believers. |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
I'm not surprised that the point is lost on you. I believe in accuracy and reporting things correctly. You don't appear to be concerned with accuracy. If Obama were the most liberal president, I would be pleased. I would not deny it. I would take extreme pride in it. But, an accurate analysis suggests otherwise. Similarly, I must point out that Obama was neither rabble-rousing (a derogatory word for working class people, to say the least) nor doing drugs in Chicago. His youthful drug use took place in Hawaii and California. On the other hand, Clinton -- while famously not inhaling -- smoked pot at a later age. It is not clear at what age George Bush finally kicked cocaine and alcohol, but it was also at a later age than Obama. So, by your measure, George Bush is more liberal than Obama. But, I must express some confusion over why drug use is considered a liberal activity? I've heard people say not to bogart a joint, but I didn't understand that was in order to distribute it to the masses. |
Anonymous
If I may expand on Jeff's comment: We who are liberal, and proud of it, don't argue about Obama's status because we love him and think "liberal" demeans him. Quite the opposite; conflating his pragmatic, almost principle-free, politics with liberalism demeans our view of the world. Sure we supported him over McCain-Palin, and think he is a major improvement over Bush, but that's because he is not dogmatically anti-liberal, not because he is particularly pro-liberal. Given how much more he has done for Wall Street than for DC voting rights or gay rights, I'd label him a Rockefeller Republican, if such a thing still existed. Still, the fact that he won't veto legislation on those issues, as Bush would have, is certainly an improvement. And it's good to hear a President speak in full sentences, even if he is a bit challenged on the grammatical difference between 'I' and 'me' whenever they are preceded by 'Michelle and'. |
Anonymous
Interesting point, pp! Intriguing! I believe you've got something there! (from the far leftist) |
Anonymous
Drug using and rabble rousing....who does that remind me of? Oh yeah, Rush Limbaugh! That famous liberal! 
|
Anonymous
| The "War on Fox" is starting to bum me out; reminds me of Hugo Chavez. Maybe not the extreme, but the shutting out is silencing. What is he scared of? Please. Shutting out media from the pool etc. is not a good road to go down. |
Anonymous
Isn't Major Garrett still at press conferences? |
Anonymous
| Picking fox out of the pool treasury department interview (only overturned when other networks questioned the move) is just bad mojo . |
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Site Admin Offline
The story that Fox spread was not quite accurate (surprise!). See this: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/wh-were-happy-to-exclude-fox-but-didnt-yesterday-with-feinberg-interview.php?ref=fpblg Basically, several networks asked for an interview. The pool camera was brought in and those who had asked were invited to conduct interviews. Fox hadn't asked, so wasn't invited. A pool reporter noticed Fox was missing and said they should be included, so Fox was then invited. Of course, in true Fox style, the only appropriate response was a hissy fit. |