Tweet
If I knew nothing about Obama other than his biography, I would think he is the same person that the vast majority of African Americans think he is. Nothing in his history tells me that the person I see ever existed. Almost nothing that is; there was one short lived incident which occurred in September of 08 that gave us a preview of what “President” Obama would be like.
When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came on the world stage screaming like “Chicken Little” that the sky was falling, and would fall if he didn’t get 700 billion dollars to stop it. No, that was the stock market and the entire economy would collapse if he didn’t get 700 billion dollars “yesterday” to save it. Senator Barack Obama came to his rescue. This was a Republican bill, that was presented about 16 September 08, and Senator Barack Obama pushed it through the Democratic Congress by 25 September 08, that’s less than 10 days. All the while he was doing this, he was talking like a progressive Democrat who had to do this in order to save the country. He was only doing his patriotic duty.
Senator Barack Obama delivered 700 billion dollars to the Republicans to save Wall Street shysters who had fleeced Main Street, and he did it in less than 10 days. All the while he was doing this, he never stopped sounding like a progressive Democrat who was doing his patriotic duty, and even African Americans would benefit.
I ask you, who is Barack Obama?
131 Comments
Flash from the past
Words can’t express how much I appreciate your very important contribution; however, I can’t find any exact precise dates, could you provide them?
He is the new smiling face of Fascism.
Obama is the man who could and then he didn’t and then he said “forward” and continued sideways. I can tell you what he isn’t – he isn’t a Democrat.
He’s the 21st century version of Reagan and G.H.W. Bush’s adopted son.
This is repudiation of the apologists constantly harping that Obomba can’t do anything due to Repug obstruction.
Anecdotally I’ve seen a few reports that after the bailout failed on the first vote, Paulson went to both Frank and Pelosi saying the bill would be updated to force the banks to write down mortgages, avoiding mass foreclosures and doing something for Main Street, but it would have to have President-elect Obomba’s approval. Its fairly obvious how that turned out
Who is this guy in the White House, and what has he done with the community organizer that we elected president? (h/t Robert Scheer)
A poor boy raised by his single mother who pushed them to succeed.
Subservient to the congressional “leaders”, and intimidated by the military martinets.
Just like Dollar Bill Clinton.
Good campaigner? No doubt.
But not a leader.
Also, Obama pushed the FISA Amendments Act, which was in a form he had promised to filibuster, through the House in a matter of a few hours.
He is whom i thought he was….,a guy who dispises poor people but used their narrative to get into office to then screw them in favor on the wealthy.
Anyone remember what Obama said about Trayvon Martin,”If I had a son he would look like Trayvon Martin”Someone really ought to ask him if he really meant that ?…..Cuz If he does,why was Anwar Al Awlaki’s son murdered by Prez Obama?And why are young muslim teenagers in Pakistan & elsewhere being murdered by Prez Obama ?
Why did you think what you thought before he became “President Obama”?
The reincarnation of Larry Parks.
I learned the basic facts about Obama back in April of 2007. . . .
Way back even long before the 2008 primaries began, that was all we needed to know about the future President Zero. We could see the pre-emptive caving, and the use of republitard talking points (specifically that anybody who wants to cut war funding is “playing chicken with the troops”).
cuz the report on whom he would be was coming from the AA-students of Harvard Law school on how he was a suck up to power once he became Prez of Harvard Law Review.
In addition,Stanley Crouch was making the case that this dude was not into helping ordinary peoples,especially minorities. Just go take a look at some of Crouch’s writing about Obama prior to him being elected Prez.
yep, “suck up to power” sums it up for me. But he spins it in the name of the Holy Facilitator. Like that’s what we care about.
Obama is a deliberately opaque, confidence man, ready and willing to give us the shaft in order to craft his way into what he feels is his true home, the 1%.
A grifter, if you will.
Good question; the kind we son’t want to ask because the answer is too destructive. The answer will be found by the person who picked him out of a large crowd to give the opening address to the 2004 Democratic Conventin. Follow the money.
Yes, Barack Obama is still working for the Cheney-Bush Administration. That was a coup.
He is a bright, pragmatic, slightly left of center pol.
He is a bright, pragmatic, slightly left of center pol.
Exactly, he’s a deliberately opaque, confidence man, ready and willing to give us the shaft in order to craft his way into what he feels is his true home, the 1%.
Barack Obama is the Pope of Hope
with a serious case of
Paramilitary Personality Disorder and
a License to Kill
your worthless anti-american ass and
a License to Fill
more motherfucking graves than he can count and
a License to Drill
Mother Earth to death cuz shit Lord
she ain’t nothin’ but a goddamn frack-whore anyway
Barack Obama is who we give thanks to for
the fact that we got a little bit of everything
we got prudent policies and grand bargains and
bold actions and crippling sanctions
the polite terminology of
death-squad diplomacy and
the ideology of infanticide
Barack Obama gives us the wisdom to see that
hell yeah we think it’s worth it
that’s the price of doing business
with the pathological prophets of our
techno-evangelical counterinsurgency
Barack Obama is the one who made it possible for
men, women, and little children to take a walk on the
wild side andstep into the collateral kill-zone of our
sclerotic spiritual paralysis for he is the
Weaponized Celestial Behemoth of Multigenerational Murder
whose every proclamation is a liturgy of lies
Barack Obama is the head ghoul of a gang
preaching the ghastly gospel of
goon government from the sanctuary of their
sinister sanatoriums and congressional consortiums
where they cackle and cavort in cauldrons of innocent blood
Barack Obama is the inspired author of a
divine doctrine of defiance which declares that
homicide is holy and
every option is always on the table and
every general is a saint and
every soldier is an angel
doling out dose after dose of doomsday democracy
to disposable third-world wogs who
take delivery at midnight and
are dead as dirt by daybreak
for every foreign life
is one more devil to destroy
for every butchered corpse
is one more vanquished demon
Barack Obama expresses his explosive love for the world
by dropping American bombs which are laser-guided sacraments
each one ripe with the shrapnel of salvation
Skip the Bush, and call it what it was, it was the Dick Cheney Administration. Although I know the fact that he’s working for Dick Cheney is gospel truth, do you care to elaborate?
Twain,”Obama is the man who could and then he didn’t and then he said “forward” and continued sideways. I can tell you what he isn’t – he isn’t a Democrat.”
Wigwam,”Who is this guy in the White House, and what has he done with the community organizer that we elected president?” (h/t Robert Scheer)
BMcGarth,”….,a guy who dispises poor people but used their narrative to get into office to then screw them in favor of the wealthy.”
bolloxref, “Obama is a deliberately opaque, confidence man, ready and willing to give us the shaft in order to craft his way into what he feels is his true home, the 1%.”
These posts together, give a better description of Barack Hussein Obama, than I’ve ever seen; plus, he used the hopes, dreams and aspirations of a people whose ancestors came to this country in the belly of slave ships to forward his agenda of getting into the 1%, and according to his bio, he is one of them.
It’s not often I fail to respond to even one poster because 90% of the posts made are just too friggin excellent. From the succinctness of Ohio Barbarian, lakota, and mzchief to the excellent hip hop of poet mojada, I don’t see how I can say something that hasn’t already been said.
It’s a damn shame we aren’t simply malcontents who didn’t get their unicorn-pony. I still remember turning the TV up very very loud back on Election Night 2008, and dancing along with all the kids in Grant Park, Chicago. Who knew any elation we felt would be so short lived?
Now hold on just a darn tootin’ minute there, silly peoples. You know very well that he did NOT say those exact words in that exact order regarding that exact context. And you all knew that before you elected him in 2008, as you have been assured countless times.
Only if you define the “center” as the mid-point between Mitt Romney and Max Baucus.
fredcdobbs @26
In my opinion the center, that being the nation’s current ideological mean, is left of the midpoint between Baucus and Romney, but, unfortunately, not all that far to the left of it.
As far as Obama goes, Nate Silver has done some analysis of his ideology. Very generally speaking, Silver found that Obama’s ideology is left of center.
Well I admire Nate Silver’s work on baseball and election predictions but if he’s basing his conclusions on a system that classifies Obomba as “slightly more liberal” than FDR I think he should go back to the drawing board. And in that article Silver himself points out a significant caveat in the D-W nominate methodology.
Look, the “center”, at least as defined by Beltway pundits, the MSM and Dem/Obomba apologists, has been moved so far to the right that being “slightly left of center” still means you’re a right-wing, market fundamentalist, militarist, civil liberties destroyer and safety-net slasher – all of which perfectly describe Obomba.
And I’m still waiting for any Obamapologist to explain to me how, if Mitt Romney was such a dangerous, right-wing nut, that Obomba can trumpet his implementation of Romney’s (and the Heritage foundation’s health-insurance “reform” plan on national scale as a “progressive” achievment. Or how a guy who agrees with Romney on Social Security and most foreign policy issues is not a dangerous right-wing nut himself.
A smile, a suit and a speech. A snake oil salesman descended from the left testicle of Ronald Reagan. The love child of laissez-faire Neoliberalism and “the talented tenth.” White America’s official proof that they are not racist towards well spoken, light skinned Negroes -not at all!- if they observe the proprieties and respect the sanctity of class privilege. The newest inductee into Augusta National Golf Club. Future Wall St. royalty by marriage, like his predecessor Wm. Jeffferson Clinton.
From your link (my bold):
I’ve given a lot of credence to the DW-Nominate scores in this article, assuming that they do a reasonable job of capturing shifts in the ideological positions of Congress over time. In truth, after having read “Ideology and Congress,” I’m not entirely persuaded that they can capture all of these dynamics. The system is essentially blind to the content of legislation…
In my comment @27, I attempted to make clear that Silver’s analysis was not definitive.
I refered to “some analysis” and characterized the findings as
in terms of “Very generally speaking.”
Having said that, I stand by my opinion that Obama is slighly left of center in terms of where ideological mean is currently located.
Most folks seem to agree with me. When Americans were asked by Gallup to asssess Obama’s ideology they responded as follows.
A majority of Americans, 57%, perceive Obama to be liberal, with 23% describing his views as moderate and 15% as conservative.
As with Silver’s analysis, this poll is not definitive, but adds some evidence in support of my opinion.
look here and weep
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/exclusive-how-obamas-early-career-succes-was-built-on-fronting-for-chicago-real-estate-and-finance.html#jBzsKRDMKKt71Hsi.99
Without a poll that asks people what they mean by liberal, or what specific policies they consider liberal, or what it is about those policies that makes them liberal, what do those numbers mean? There are people who call Obama a socialist, and people who call him a fascist.
Huge percentages of people poll favorably about a public option, or removing the SS cap rather than cutting benefits. Then Congress and Obama are rated on whether they support a right wing health care plan or an even more right wing approach, or cutting SS benefits a lot or cutting them even more. Calling one vote “liberal” and the other one “conservative,” those labels don’t seem to mean much of anything as far as I can see.
Perfect
In the end we were retarded to believe in him !
The problem with your assessment about people’s attitudes is that most Americans are like the people in the following you-tube video (they’ve been told by the media that Obama is very far to the Left, but they don’t really know what his policies are) :
(Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama’s Policies)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts
We did have a general election just a few weeks ago. Approximately 128 million citizens participated.
One person got over 50% of the vote.
The person many of you favored got 0.36 of the vote.
These results might be some indication that my position has some validity. Of course, you are free to disregard the Silver’s analysis, the polls and the general election as you assess where the ideological mean is in this country.
Yeah, and the person who got over 50% of the vote had his campaign funded by big business (even if they gave more to Romney) to the tune of nearly a billion dollars and was also supported by a horde of MSM sycophants who barely even acknowledged that candidates other than those of the the duopoly even existed. Furthermore, the candidate that got more than 50% of the vote was granted a national platform on public airwaves of a series of “debates” that excluded any candidate other than those of the duoploy, were funded by big business and organized by the duopoly itself.
Give Jill Stein, who actually ran on a platform that most Obomba voters support (and delude themselves into thinking he supports), a fraction of those advantages and she would get a lot more than 0.36% of the vote. In fact, she probably would have gotten enough votes to really cause problems for Obomba.
A tremendously successful con-man who can screw the people while he smiles a purdy smile and assassinates or detains indefinitely his ‘enemies’ wherever they may be. Even those who our ‘allies’ deem as dangerous to their states. A Puppet Emperor of the most duplicitous kind.
And the President is a very strange sort of “Constitutional Scholar” to boot.
One of the more chilling things he has ever said was when talking about how he would never employ the Section 1021 portion of the NDAA, he went on to state: “as rights are a tradition in this country.”
A tradition? No, eating turkey on Thanksgiving is a tradition. My inherent rights are inherent and inalienable rights!
My issue is what do the labels progressive or liberal mean, if people who use that label to descibe themselves consistently vote for/make excuses for/in some cases actively endorse policies that would meet a generally accepted textbook definition of neoliberal/neoconservative/authoritarian.
Without polling on specific policies, and polling that clearly defines what a particular label means in terms of policies, I can’t say what the “ideological mean” of the country is. I hope it’s not neolib/neocon/authoritarian, but neither the election nor the polls are informative on that.
And without elections where ballot access, debate access, media access, and access to funding are available with some degree of fairness, elections are even less informative about the “ideological mean” of what policies people would actually choose if they had a choice.
Exactly.
If the media had challenged the binary-choice thinking of the duopoloy and had given third parties the same credibility-enabling coverage afforded the duoploy, I can’t help but think that third party support would have been much, much higher. High enough to scare the bollocks out of the PTB despite the lack of mega-million corporate contributions.
HAHAHA
Yeah, right.
I guess the fact that at one time everybody thought that the Earth was flat and was at the center of the Universe proves that perspective has validity too?
Here is also a good video to get perspective on who Obama showed himself to be, even back before the 2008 election. . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5WiE6MnmCM&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLBE1DC4AC6F51EE77
Public opinion is a reflection of the effectiveness of TV media on the uninformed masses. Since this media is owned by the oligarchs, it projects the daily programming designed by the oligarchs, which benefits “The Oligarchs”.
People at FDL know this, and not only do we have the ability to think, we don’t rely on the same people who are exploiting us for the truth. Those same two “bailouts” that were presented for discussion contain more lies and liars than I can count. If public opinion believes all the lies and liars, what does that say for public opinion?
Tell me, oldgold, how is cutting the social safety net “bright” or “pragmatic”?
How is using drones, “bright” and “pragmatic”?
How is allowing a bloated Military-Industrial-Congressional-Complex to siphon off huge portions of our collective wealth, “bright” and “pragmatic”?
Is secrecy, the destruction of the Rule of Law, and the curtailment of civil rights, “bright” and “practical”?
How is refusing to hold the bankers accountable for criminal fraud, “bright” and “pragmatic”?
How is pretending that a slight tax increase on the obscenely wealthy (with NO mention of taxing corporate profits), can only be “balanced” by severe cuts to “entitlements”, “bright” and “pragmatic”?
Let us talk about the issues, the real issues, and not some BS about how many people “believe” what. Once upon a time, the majority of people in Europe “believed” that the world was flat … once upon a time many of those same people “believed” that the Sun revolved around the Earth.
Might you explain why you think think these things, and spying on Americans, cracking down on whistle blowers and declaring Bradley Manning “guilty” BEFORE a trial, and then permitting Manning to be abused, failing to close Gitmo and a thousand other things are “bright” and “practical”?
Was choosing Geithner and Summers, “bright” and “practical”?
Do YOU think all these things are “bright” and “practical”?
“Bright” and “practical” for whom?
Are YOU “good” with them, with these ACTIONS and projected actions, with these POLICIES?
Or so any, any at all, cause you pause AND concern?
Instead of going on and on, about drivel, why not address actual and real concerns of real flesh and blood human beings?
Or, would you rather just play silly political “games”?
DW
Good point
But that works against you as well; George Bush the Lesser “won” two elections. And, I don’t know if “ideological mean” is accurate either. I think he just benefited from better marketing (someone people would like to have a beer with) and that voting for him gave a segment of the pop. a status symbol to vote for
Third line from the end should read, “Or do any of these things, any at all, cause YOU pause and concern?”
DW
Oldgold, I hear you but I think most of the folks commenting here need to hate Obama. They need to.
I don’t know why.
Most people are operationally liberal, but symbolically conservative
http://www.unc.edu/~jstimson/Working_Papers_files/Pathways.pdf
Demi, there is, as you well know, a genuine difference between “hating” Obama, and being concerned that his policies are destructive, hurtful, and even criminally wrong.
So, are you “good” with what Obama has done, with what it appears he intends to do?
Or, do you suggest or propose that we “wait and see” … just how bad things become?
Somehow, you seem to be confusing actual, genuine concerns with “hate”.
Why is that?
DW
Instead of going on and on, about drivel, why not address actual and real concerns of real flesh and blood human beings?
In my experience, oldgold comes in and says in a fairy short clear way. If anyone goes on and on, …it’s you.
I’m saddened to see your voice get more and more pretentious and pedantic. I can live with the pendantic, but I wish you wouldn’t judge so.
Yes, exactly. A mandate based on the fiction that two right wing candidates pre-vetted by the 1% represents a real choice cannot be extrapolated to make broader ideological assumptions. Add in the universal blackout in the MSM of alternative opinions and policy approaches on a broad range of critical issues and the 50% “mandate” represents essentially nothing usefully expository as regards where we as Americans exist on the ideological continuum.
This sort of reasoning is akin to asserting that the Soviet one party election results represented a “mandate” for the winners of those elections as welll.
This is in fact so overtly obvious to anybody paying attention– and more so to FDL members who have ready access to better information– that it can only astonish that some FDL members can’t see that obvious. It is worse than ignorance, it is deliberate ignorance. That this ignorance serves the purposes only of a tiny minority of whom none of us are members adds stupidity into the descriptive mix.
Oh sure, there’s no valid factual criticism of Obama that’s possible. It all must be inspired by some irrational hatred.
But then again, I guess it’s a lot easier to just issue a flip dismissal than to meaningfully address any of the substantive factual arguments people are making in this thread.
I’m not doing that. You aren’t reading me well.
You have taken a stand that you cannot step down from. It seems anyone who doesn’t “See” things the way you do has a serious moral deflaw. That’s how I read you.
“Oldgold, I hear you but I think most of the folks commenting here need to hate Obama. They need to.
I don’t know why.”
If you can’t figure out the underlying causes of our antipathy towards Obama and his elitist neoliberal corporatist warmongering– and more astonishingly after we have enunciated our reasoning in clear and unambiguous terms ad infinitum– then you are either terminally lacking in reading comprehension or simply unable to process information that contradicts your delusionally hagiographic take on Obama. Sorry honestly to have to be so blunt but there is no other plausible explanation for your inability to understand.
I didn’t say that. So, your comment seems to be more personal attacking than anything else.
I would suggest, demi, that you tend to very judgmental, that you have a very low tolerance of those who have genuine questions about the direction of this nation, about the state of the world, as THIS nation and its elite “leadership” affect and afflict it.
I rarely see your comments on Jeff Kaye’s posts, or Kevin Gosztola’s.
I understand your weariness with things and even with some people.
However, by now you must have realized that we are, each of us, who we are, and that such reasonable discussion as we may share, and such information as becomes available to us regarding what is going on is ALL fair game to that discussion.
Whether the “information” is “appropriate”, is for each of us to decide.
Perhaps you consider that, if discussion does not “change things” that then, it is useless, worthless, and a waste of time?
It is your right to think and say anything that you wish, as it is the right of everyone else to do likewise.
Accusing others of “hating”, is a wee bit over the top, in my opinion, and, IF you consider that I go on and on … then, that is YOUR opinion, and you are welcome to it as well as entitled to have and to share it.
DW
It’s not a “moral flaw” (although it obviously has moral implications), it is a demonstrable inability to process both clearly enunciated reasoning and objective reality.
And, this kind of response to me will help the world how?
Kurt, you’re not helping.
That, demi, is bullshit.
If you wish to suggest that I have a “moral” yardstick, then do so. That is not how I look at other human beings … when they have the power of life and death over others, I do consider that they have a great obligation of humanity, compassion and reason, which qualities I consider Barack Obama to be quite deficient in … not because I say so, but because his consistent actions say so.
However, so far as I am concerned, when you say that others are “hating”, it would seem that YOU are the one ascribing moral failure and turpitude …
Perhaps, though, I am “reading” you “wrong”?
DW
DW.
I would say how I see things is not bull shit.
However, I guess we should leave each other along.
Very, very disappointed.
Alone.
You’ve got me a little upset.
Well, demi, we shall each have to deal with our own disappointment.
However, my serious and reasonable questions for oldgold stand, and I hope that he might be willing to answer them.
As for what I feel about you, I say … with heartfelt meaning and sincerity …
Namaste
DW
I am sorry you are upset, demi,it was not my intent to upset or annoy you.
We have known each other quite a long time.
You will continue, always, to have my best wishes, my respect, and my sincere appreciation.
Namaste
DW
Don’t waste a moment being disappointed with me.
Interesting comment.
oldgold, if I recall correctly, had some positive reasons for voting for Obama, but people on other threads have been highly critical of Obama (with many of the same criticisms as seen in this thread) but were voting for him anyway, at least in part because they “hated” Romney, or, to use a more reasonable terminology greatly opposed what they saw as his policies and what those policies would mean for our country.
Would you say that the many, many posts and comments on FDL which are largely criticisms of Republicans/conservatives are just people who “need to hate” or would you say that they are discussing, advocating, criticizing, etc. important issues, and trying to evaluate the world as it is and figure out a way forward?
I would say I’m not sure what their motivations are.
I think it just might have something to do with the whole assassination thing.
I think some of us need to hate fascists, and even more so if the fascists run around posing as democrats. I expect that sort of fascist behavior from republitards, but it would be nice to have better behavior from the democrats.
I am not disappointed with you, demi, in the least. For, whatever my failings, which are certainly legion, friendship and mutual respect rather than apparent accord matter to me. When I challenge you, it is not to make you feel attacked, just as when you challenge me, I do not feel that you are “threatening” me or “disapproving” of me, it is simply that we see “some” things differently, and we do, sometimes. My sense of you is not lessened or diminished, as I hope that you might understand? As long as we disagree civilly and with respect and affection, then nothing is lost, and we each have received “feedback” … what use we shall make of it, we must each determine. Frankly, however you are … whatever you say … is alright with me, just as I hope that you might feel the same way about me.
Nothing ventured, as they say, nothing “gained”.
Namaste
DW
Thank you for an answer.
That’s fair. Why not extend the same benefit of the doubt to Obama critics?
I cannot think for you. You offer nothing substantive to refute our criticisms of Obama’s policy choices, only blinking incomprehension and personal affront.
Here’s a suggestion that is meant as constructive: instead of dismissively saying “I don’t know why” engage in bilateral communication; rebut our arguments with useful specificity, point out where you think we have misread the situation and offer an alternative explanation. Not just an emotional response but one grounded in empirical fact and that relates to real policy. Then listen to our response and make your own points based on that response. In other words debate, discussion, the mutual interchange of ideas and viewpoints. We can help you understand our viewpoints if you listen and you then offer a coherent and cogent counterargument. I will in turn promise to respectfully listen to your point of view and offer my own based on that. But this process cannot take place if only one side is willing to participate in a polemic.
You’re welcome!
Kurt Sperry @
Well, excuse me! Stupid, am I? Could be.
Well, back to Obama and who he is. He is a Democrat who appoints a Republican, Tim Geithner, to negotiate the big ole cliff crisis for we the people.
He is a Democrat who wants to appoint a pal who happens to be heavily invested in the Keystone Pipeline Project to be the decider in the future of that project. Today, to me, that is who Obama is.
I find him not too swell, not too fine, so i am mighty damn glad i voted for Jill Stein.
I don’t know why was my honest response. It is not my way to be dismissive.
But, thank for you constructive advice.
“I ask you, who is Barack Obama?”
http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/
You don’t have to do the blinking incomprehension or personal affrontery act. You could rebut my posts substantively and force me to defend my position. Then argue against that defense. It’s honestly more fun and engaging than throwing bald assertions out there in the blogosphere and then making cute non-replies or simply declining to attempt to reply with a cogent counterargument.
I can absolutely respect a smart substantive rebuttal of my assertions and arguments. Even if that rebuttal defeats my argument. Really, especially if that rebuttal defeats my argument. What I cannot respect is vacuous indignation or snark.
I hate people who randomly kill people- janitor or the President, an unrequited hate.
You may debate viewpoints but not attack other people. Please show basic respect towards each other on MyFDL.-MyFDL Editor
(deleted by me)
Well just read those of us who are antipathetic towards Obama on policy grounds. We aren’t shy about offering our take nor generally incapable of cogently enunciating our positions.
I don’t have to agree with somebody’s positions to understand them or the reasoning behind them provided that reasoning is offered in a logical way. And neither do you.
Ah, oldgold, did you miss my questions to you?
Or, do you propose to simply blather on about “the center” and “a little bit left” and how many people “believe” that x number of angels may twirl like dervishes on the head of a pin?
Now that Obama is re-”elected”, do you have any intent to put his “feet to the fire” and demand that he change some few or even many of his “ways”?
If so, then what might you like to see changed?
If you wish no changes, and applaud cuts to the social safety net, more wars, and fewer rights of assembly, then, elucidate … tell us why “what” he is doing is “bright” and “pragmatic”.
Surely you might manage to do one of these things?
Tell us what is right, why and how, with his policies, or what you consider should be different.
Obama is president, and those who voted for him are responsible for what he does.
A good beginning would simply be to … respond … to discuss the issues that others raise … for those ARE the things which everyone will judge Obama ON … that shall be his “legacy”, what he has done and seeks to do. And it will be your legacy, too … if you are proud of it, then speak to it, tell us why it is the best, not only that we may “hope” for, but that there effectively … is …
Hold forth, speak out, speak up … polish his policies with candor and rigorous exposition. Let us know what you think about THOSE things.
You might even enjoy the process, don’t be bashful, don’t be shy, lay it out, the how and the why …
;~DW
The guy who thinks whistleblowers are more deserving of the full force and penalty of law than torturers, war criminals, those who commit massive fraud, or those who spy on Americans in contravention of said law.
That’s who Obama is.
Kurt. Being mean to me doesn’t do f**k.
You and Sadly Sadly will have to find someone else right now, because I’m getting reading to take the chili I made down to the homeless.
I’m sure you all will carry on without me.
what does the word hate mean anyway?One can revile somebodies actions,but hate would mean a personal agenda and antipathy individually placed,i dont think anybody HATES BHO…they revile his actions,or lack of actions,that is how mature people judge things imo
your a peach,good girl
Reading. Ha. I meant ready, but you know what I meant.
Trying to participate in some of these threads does get me upset.
i think the more i get to know the guy,i dont respect him very much. Now Jimmy Carter,cetainly not perfect,but WHATA GUY,you too Rosalynn
I’m putting it on top of pasta so it will go further.
Fortunately for all of us, a friend who heard I have been feeding the homeless, face to face, on the corners, gave me a whole bag of individual containers with lids.
And, now, Ta.
what to do about,him Durbin,and all the other Vichy Dims
I’m not intending to be mean demi. Really. What comes across as that is mostly my own frustration with my inability to communicate in any meaningful way as I like to flatter myself as being a reasonably adept communicator. I don’t have any antipathy at all towards you.
And bless you for your charity but at the same time spare a moment to think about what supporting a system that is built and designed to create and profit from creating homeless people means in that context. It is surely better to treat the causes of homelessness through political awareness and action than to merely treat the symptoms of that system. The Democratic Party is very much part of the system. It is only through cognitive dissonance that one can at the same time help the victims of a system that sides with the financiers who profit from creating homeless people and throw one’s political allegiance behind a party working in common purpose with the very people who throw people out of their homes, disempower them and export their means of livelihood for profit. Yes, help the homeless but at the same time don’t feed the beast creating their homelessness by supporting it. And let’s be clear, the Democratic Party led by Obama is very much in league with the financiers and corporate interests that are causing such misery and poverty and hopelessness among so many Americans.
Do you disagree with this?
I very much appreciate the patient and well-considered “cut” of your jib, Kurt, always.
;~DW
How am I feeding the beast?
How am I supporting Obama?
I hate the droning, tarsand pipeline. I’m not happy about a lot of our current policies and I don’t know why you think I’m fine with it all. I’m not. And, I’ve never said I was.
But, thanks.
I’m almost out. (The penne pasta is taking forever to fully cook.)
I’m fairly educated about the corporate/media/government bullshit.
And, I will feed and feed the homeless and not the bad guys.
You’re just going to have to trust me on that.
Oh, he’s a Democrat – i.e. the center wing of the rightwing Uniparty (there is no left wing). O is the far – right representative of the Uniparty center.
It’s only one small example, but a man was here to repair some tile this week, and we conversed at lunch. After getting past his attempts to convert me to Bible-based Christianity, we talked about the state of the world in general, our government, and this President. The conversation was indeed heated on both sides, but he apparently enjoyed it immensely.
At one point in my questioning, since we talking about twelve long years in Afghanistan (not to mention losing a war that cannot be won in any event), I straight out asked him if wars to secure and control oil and other resources were okay with him.
He said yes, plus a few more things about ‘the women’. But I congratulated him lavishly for at least acknowledging what things he was willing to have our government kill for. He was shocked along the way that I wasn’t afraid that Muslims intended to establish a global caliphate, though, and heartily supported killing ‘Jihadists’ by drone assassination. (That program has now expanded to the point the US is killing purported ‘rebels’ in our loosely allied nations in the ME and Africa, but I didn’t bring that up…)
@ Kurt Sperry at 93: a particularly good comment; you are a very good communicator.
Bazinga.
Entire life ambition: sit at the cool kids table.
Like I’ve said before – no more Plutocrat wanna-be’s with Daddy issues.
OG I’m ususally with you, but all that is proof of is the MSM’s successful branding job. MSM promotes the labeling, the electorate buys it. No different than any other consumer branding.
Obama’s policies are to the right of Nixon. Barry Goldwater would never have messed with civil liberties the way this “left of center” pol has.
You may debate viewpoints but not attack other people. Please show basic respect towards each other on MyFDL.-MyFDL Editor
Indeed.
I heartily agree.
There’s only one thing clear to me from your response.
Amen, amen amen.
As usual, well and truly stated.
Bulls-eye.
And the best response is that you’re “being mean”?
From now on I’m going to skip over all comments by demi – there does not seem to be much “there” there. (demi: THAT could be construed as “mean”.) No way is anyone that clueless – not interested in wrestling with the utterly disingenuous.
Tremendous link, thank you.
it all makes semse now
mores the pity
and your very wecome
Stunning. Thank you!
yw, greenwarrior, and thank YOU.
“Hate is the darkness, that’s no good. And yet we’ve got to hate Fascists, and that’s considered perfectly all right. How is that possible? It’s because we hate them in the name of the light, I guess, whereas they hate only in the name of darkness. We hate hate itself, and for this reason our hate is better than theirs.
But that’s why it’s more difficult for us. For them everything is very simple, but for us it’s more complicated. We’ve got to become a little bit like them in order to fight them so we become a little bit unlike ourselves. But they don’t have that problem; they can do away with us without any qualms. We first have to do away with something inside ourselves before we can do away with them. Not them; they can simply remain themselves, that’s why they’re so strong. But they’ll lose in the end, because they have no light in them. The only thing is, we mustn’t become too much like them, mustn’t destroy ourselves altogether, otherwise they’ll have won in the end…”
― Harry Mulisch, The Assault
You asked me to respond to 14 questions. That seems a bit much to ask of me.
The gist of these 14 questions seems to be how could I possibly consider Obama to be a bright and pragmatic pol in light of the policies he has pursued.
My shorthand answer is that Obama was convincingly re-elected POTUS. Winning elections is the mark of bright and pragmatic pols.
In contrast, 99.64% of voters decided to cast their vote for someone other than your preferred pol.
If you really believe that, I suggest you go check out this site:
http://bushchimp.homestead.com/
My apologies to anybody who feels that chimps are being insulted by comparing Bush to them.
If the man had any kind of vision, he could have been the greatest president ever in the history of this country. Evidently he never heard of FDR, the president who knew that the economy works from the bottom up, not the top down. Yacht builders never hire enough people.
President Obama could have started works projects in different parts of the country. That would have instantly taken a chunk out of unemployment. Where would he get the money? The same place he got the money to expand the war in Afghanistan. War in that country bankrupted the Soviet Union, and every other empire builder who set foot on their soil with that intention.
Everyone with a job pays taxes, buys houses, cars, and many other items. That money finds it’s way to the top. It even cuts the deficit, because all of the people selling the goods that the man with a job purchases, have to hire more people, and all of those people pay taxes.
I’m no genius. If I know this, why didn’t President Barack Obama know this. Maybe it’s because he was too busy pandering to the 1%, or maybe it’s because he’s not Presidential material, but professional politician material.
Agreed 100%, 2008 had the possibility to be a critical turning point.
Worse, Obama took up the space of the presidency, the crucial point, which kept out other, better candidates, who might have risen to become the next FDR.
Obama continues to carry out the Cheney agenda. News items manipulated during the Bush years elected Obama.
The CIA-Bush groups always plays the coup card when it’s time for a political transition:
Iran-Contra at the end of Carter’s term; GHW Bush started a bombing-and-killing campaign against Iraq January 17, 1993, just before he left office (so that when Clinton took office, the US and Britain were waging war against Iraq, bombing reporters at the Baghdad Hilton); then there was the coup election of 2000, and then the installation of Obama.
Yes, it is a “bit much”, oldgold.
Why don’t you pick ONE. I’ll leave it to you. Pick any ONE that YOU choose.
Might you be willing to do that?
Are you “good” with that ONE, do you favor and support that ONE?
If so, then why?
If not, then why not?
Take on the questions incrementally, if you wish, why you can even take the rest of next year, or two or three, but do consider beginning; consider actually doing more than telling us that your man has “won”, and rather than pushing political “platitudes” that praise winning please consider (and discuss) actual policies, past and planned, that have and will have real world consequences for real live, or soon to be injured or murdered, human beings. Consider the plight of the many rather than the adulation of the few. Might you?
Frankly, oldgold, you seem unwilling to consider discussing anything substantive and your “suggestion” that those who “win” elections are “bright” and “pragmatic” and that that is ALL that matters … leaving you “open” to rather more than 14 questions.
However, carry on as you are, saving us … from ourselves … and from our abysmal ignorance about the “real world” and “business” of political intrigue … and so on and so forth.
DW
It’s truly amazing how many people say the same thing about Obama in regard to Cheney.
Dick Cheney voted against a 1980 resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela. Dick Cheney voted against imposing sanctions on South Africa. Did that mean he supported aparthied? Was Dick Cheney a racist? Did he play a part in denying those people trapped in that dome in New Orleans food and water for three days while they had to urinate on the floor like animals and sleep with dead bodies around them, while the best disaster relief team in the entire world was 2 hours flight time from New Orleans at Scott AFB with huge C5A aircraft. Those planes could have flown a military hospital and staff to New Orleans in 2 hours.
How could any African American be connected to somebody like Dick Cheney?
and also to a comment you made earlier today on another thread:
Nearly all of those millions voted for war, drilling/mining/fracking, austerity, a security/surveillance state, “free” trade agreements, privatization of public services, and the relentless upward transfer of wealth (D or R version).
I try to hold onto a belief that most of them did so out of ignorance and exhaustion, bombarded by mainstream media’s promotion of those policies, and too busy trying to survive the effects of same to seek out other sources of information.
You seem not be uninformed or exhausted, so it’s unclear why it seems to be such a source of pride that your preferred version of those policies won the election, and not something on which you care to elaborate. That’s your choice of course, though it wouldn’t necessarily stop others from asking about it from time to time.
Why you also resorted on another thread to name-calling the people on this thread who want to understand what it means that such policies win elections, and implying that we don’t belong at the Lake at all is also unclear. It was sad to see, especially on a thread where such a negative comment from a different political perspective would be profoundly unwelcome.
Demi, I understand your emotions, you “like” Barack Obama. Millions of people “like” Barack Obama. My next door neighbor “likes” Barack Obama, and he’s not speaking to me because I don’t think the man represents poor working class people. Everyone I know personally “likes” Barack Obama. To quote Tina Turner “What’s love got to do with it”. We’re not discussing a personality contest, we’re talking about policies that affect millions and millions of people’s lives who are suffering in these very hard times. I can’t see where the decisions he’s made is benefiting those people as much as they are benefiting banks and Wall Street.
If you can show me where this Democratic President’s policies are benefiting the people who elected him, I would like him as much as you like him
Here.
I am curious, lakota, are you convinced by oldgold’s link?
Does that link suggest that “the people who elected him” are benefiting from the President’s policies, or does that “list” rather purposely leave “out” very many things, instead glorify things which are of dubious human value, even when considered in the most jingoistic and selfishly “American” sense, and seem more a political screed than an objective assessment? Or is it just that I cannot comprehend the deeper significance of simplistic half-truths and the glory of murder and organized mayhem?
Do you now like Obama as much as oldgold does?
As you may gather, the list, does not move me into the Obama camp. In fact, far from it, as that list strikes me as appallingly simple-minded and knee-jerk gullible to an extreme.
Ah well.
BTW, I long ago activated the recommend button for this post of yours lakota, and hope that it might yet garner more comments and attention, that more members of the FDL community might share their thoughts and opinions, might join in the debate of what, actually, is and will be the legacy of Barack Obama … as well as the legacy and responsibility of those who voted for him in 2012. Of those who voted for him in 2008, some chose not to do so in 2012, and have, often, shared their reasons for not doing so. Those who voted for him a second time might well wish to consider sharing their reasons and reasoning and, as well, their personal sense of responsibility for so doing regarding any negative consequences which might arise, at a cost to themselves or other human beings, or not They might, however, choose to justify those costs by claiming that the costs would have been greater had Romney won, yet they ought to consider whether Obama, now, has any interest in what they think or what they would be willing to suggest regarding how he might, possibly, improve his policies. On the other foot, if they are totally happy with Obama’s policies then they might explain why they find those policies proper and necessary … or even expedient or “pragmatic”.
DW
If you are so concerned about the truth, why didn’t you direct the author of this post to my comment @ #95.
Do you not read the comments on Your Post?
This is why I’d rather not get into the Circle Thingy with you folks.
How could Obama not speak up when 35 African Slaves in South Africa were massacred for Platinum?
How could Obama conduct the Genocide against Black Africans in Libya, as he did?
Every African-American who supports Barack Obama is supporting Cheney; hook, line, and sinker.
I’m no more impressed by that link than I am by the phony unemployment numbers. When people quit looking for a job they are no longer counted. If you count all of the people who quit looking, the unemployment rate is staggering.
Looking for a job has become an exercise in futility. Anyone who can qualify for the jobs advertised already has a supervisory job in that capacity, or he just got laid off and someone is fishing for him at a lower rate of pay. Since all of the jobs require experience, recent college grads need not apply. I’m an old man and this is the first time in my life when a college grad couldn’t get a job.
Obama spent 3 years arguing about health care when people needed jobs. He expanded that useless war in Afghanistan as soon as he took office. He’s often stated how much he liked “trickle down Ronnie” but never mentioned FDR, who was the “Democratic” president who knew how to create jobs.
Everyday on the evening news, I see the police arresting young people who commit senseless crimes out of desperation. I see boarded up houses in the neighborhoods where families used to live in the lower middle class parts of the city where I live. Results are what counts, not some phony cooked up numbers.
Demi, I worked at a homeless shelter years ago when times were nothing like they are today. Most of the people there had drinking or mental problems, and for the rest it was just a temporary condition.
Most people go to work, and when the get home they want entertainment, consequently they aren’t as well informed as some of the people here at FDL. I want you to be informed, so I’ll give you an example of how this works. Someone posted that Judge Robert Leon Wilkins, who was appointed by Barack Obama, threw out the Dodd-Frank provision that empowered the CFTC to set position limits on commodity trading. Now why would a judge who was appointed by Barack Obama want us to get exploited by the same people who exploited us under the Bush Administration by manipulating the price of gasoline.
Go to this website to get an idea of what I’m talking about, and we can discuss it farther. http://wp.me/p2vRlu-4
I suspect, norman, that you have seen these already, others, perhaps, might not have …
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/second-wave-genocide-looms-congo-susan-rice-point
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/humanitarian-coverup-why-obama-silent-over-new-congo-war
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/tragedy-goma-shame-un-and-rwanda%E2%80%99s-western-allies
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/arabblack-conflict-colonial-gift-africa-keeps-giving
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/america-and-politics-genocide-africa
http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/africom-preparing-another-%E2%80%9Chumanitarian%E2%80%9D-military-intervention
And so on …
DW
I hope that demi and others might check out your superlative work on these issues, lakota.
DW
DWBartoo, I have some good news. This is the first good news I’ve seen in 8 long years. The CFTC will appeal a judges ruling that rejected efforts to curb “speculative derivative trading”. Bart Chilton said “Your deep pockets can’t protect you from what the law clearly states”. He was addressing people with pockets deep enough to buy anybody who can be bought. That means there are still some people who can not, and will not be bought at any price.
I thank you so very much for this new information. I’ve been so consumed by “commodity market manipulation” that I haven’t been able to digest anything else. It’s very difficult to take something that’s as complex as “commodity market manipulation” and simplify it enough for everyone to understand it.
From the very first exposure that I had to your work, lakota, I have been very impressed with your success in making that manipulation (and what that manipulation both implies, on a political level, and what it means in the real, human universe) accessible and understandable. No one has come close to what you have accomplished and I urge you to re-publish your posts concerning these issues on FDL every few months or so. It is a singularly important contribution which you have made, to lifting the veil of deceit and collusion between powerful monied “interests” and those who are charged with regulating them as well as making clear, to the public, to the people of this nation, the foul and destructive relationship between those monied interests and the political class who, by oath and by necessary social expectation, owe their first and ONLY allegiance, as “representatives OF the people” … TO the people.
I also appreciate the good news you mention @128 and hope that you might consider an in-depth post about that news … as you are one of the very few qualified, so far as I am concerned, to do so.
DW
Judge Robert Leon Wilkins, who was appointed by Barack Obama, threw out the Dodd-Frank provision that empowered the CFTC to set position limits on commodity trading. Now why would a judge who was appointed by Barack Obama want us to get exploited by the same people who exploited us under the Bush Administration by manipulating the price of gasoline.
Now that the CFTC is taking a public stance against “commodity market manipulation”, Barack Obama supports the CFTC. That was awhile back that the Obama Judge threw out the limits. If this had gone quietly without any news Obama wouldn’t have said anything. Now that it’s gone public, he’s against the action that the judge he appointed took by throwing out the Dodd-Frank provision.
He consistently plays both sides of the fence.