Page 8 of 36 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 360

Thread: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

  1. #71
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by ThongPounder View Post
    Let's see, Obama has continued along with Bush's foreign policy, and what do we see Mitt doing...hiring massive amounts of former Bush advisers. Mitt raised a bunch of fees in Massachusetts so he could then lower state taxes. Guess what though...fees are taxes. So he took money from one area and gave it to another to give the taxpayers the false illusion that he lowered taxes.

    You failed to address Mitt's support of ethanol subsidies as well...I'd like to hear how you reason that one.

    So who are you going to vote for? Or are you not gonna vote?

  2. #72
    Stable Genius
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,305

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Even if you're correct, which I don't agree you are, a wise man keeps quiet at the risk of being thought a fool. A fool opens his mouth and removes all doubt.
    Well I didn't say he wasn't a foolish President. What else would you call man who relied upon the guidance of fools like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Rumsfeld was hated by the military as much as he hated them and Cheney's worldly perspective relied upon a Cold War with Soviets.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I can't say those techniques don't persist, and it bothers me that they may. But we're no longer lying to people that things like waterboarding isn't torture. We've stopped giving credence to that lie. This is important. I also notice the military, hardly a liberal group at any level, has stopped leaking such abuses. It was the military as much as anyone who tried to stop the abuses Bush promoted.
    This is because the military constantly finds itself between a rock and a hard place and this has become more frequent since the end of the Cold War. The military is frequently at odds with the White House and always at odds with the media. Consider that it was the military that was trying to warn the White House of an impending radical problem in the Middle East throughout the 90s when talking about religion was a huge no-no in our intel circuits. Consider that it was the military that demanded more numbers in order to properly invade Iraq so as to deal with the inevitable tribal fallout. Consider that the military has manuals on interrogation and prisoner control that do not call for waterboarding. Consider how quickly Iraq turned around once Rumsfeld (a civilian) was taken out of the game and Patreaus (a military general) was put in the lead. The Pentagon had been at odds with Rumsfeld since before 2003. The hatred went both ways. The frustration of the military after the last two decades of being ignored by Washington suits who declare to know better could be seen from Mcchrystal's comments about the White House in 2010.

    But the military has another problem. A U.S. Army problem. The lack of institutional discipline can be seen from Koran burnings, mass murder, Abu-Ghraib, and WikiLeaks reporting. The very few "leaks" came from idiots merely looking for YouTube fame. Actual whistleblowing came from Generals who were either retired or on their way to retirement and had a duty to deal with the base problem of abuses which were stemming from the CIA and looked towards the military to go against code. You see, a Sergeant or a Captain will be Court Martialed. A civilian CIA agent will merely get re-assigned.

    And do you think these intel leaks coming from Washington make the military happy? And what is the media's role once again? I tell ya, sometimes it feels like the military is doing it's best to work loyally for children who are doing their best to make it harder. This is why the military has a long history of shoving away the media and divisions between White House and Pentagon.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So, while I agree there is not enough difference, there are differences. real difference.
    Not enough to merit "Hope" and "Change" as a slogan. He was elected because of this. And now that we see barely any change, Liberals look the other way and pretend that gays in the military was all that really ever mattered.
    Last edited by MSgt; 06-09-12 at 05:14 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  3. #73
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    36,008

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by unapologeticdan View Post
    I disagree, I think the left thinks he's too liberal. However, a February gallup poll shows that the left thinks Obama is just about right, proving both of us wrong on that point. Half Say Obama Too Liberal, but 47% Agree With Him on Issues

    You have to remember though, the Democratic platform of today is further left from the Democratic platform of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. Same with the Republican platform. We've all been slowly migrating left while there are those like myself who see that migration and want both parties to return to their original beliefs, focusing on the foundations of this country that made it great.
    I love it when a conservative drops in to tell the world what I'm thinking. It's awesome. Wrong as usual... but awesome.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  4. #74
    User ThongPounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    06-13-12 @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    No, you stop. Either you really don't understand the geo political landscape, and what a true pull back from these things overnight would cause, or you are purposely ignoring the entirety of that quote, that you didn't address, in which case is transparently disingenuous.
    An absolute pullback would have been fine, worst case it would have left the place in as much of a mess as it is in now. The whole deck of cards is going to crumble whenever we decide to leave, so just get out and get it over with already. We can't continue to prop up Karzai and expect somehow "democracy" is going to flourish. I wasn't being disingenous, I just wasn't going to allow you steer my points off to something else.

    I see, so you get to attack Romney for calling on former Bush administration people, but when it is pointed out to you that Obama nearly made up his entire administration with Clinton people, you want to ignore that? Get outta here
    Why does an attack on one candidate automatically have to resort in an attack on the other? I thought it was a big joke that Obama hired all those Clinton supporters after claiming he was going to be different. But that fact has nothing to do with the fact that Mitt is hiring all these Bush advisers.

    Does one have to pay a fee if they don't use the service?
    Semantics here...the people had to pay less of a fee for these services before Mitt was Governor, and for 33 of these services they never had to pay a fee before. I could play silly little games like the Neocons play and say Mitt was redistributing wealth with this scheme. He was taking from the few who had the resources to pay these fees and redistributing to the whole. Either way, he derived a set of funds from taxpayers to offset another set of funds coming from the taxpayers.

    I agree, however, if you are like most, I have the feeling that the businesses YOU think are necessary, are ok to subsidize....
    I don't think the government should subsidize any businesses. Business should be able to stand on the merits of their labor.

    Yeah, what ever dude....Go ahead and write in Paul, see what that gets us....
    Actually, I was going to vote for Gary Johnson. He's the most qualified of the three candidates. And, even if he loses, sooner or later the Republicans are going to have to realize that if they keep giving us wishy washy subpar candidates that we aren't going to vote for them. I'd rather sacrifice an election or two where I might have gotten a miniscule improvement if it means strengthening the party as a whole.

  5. #75
    User ThongPounder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    06-13-12 @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    11

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy the Kid View Post
    So who are you going to vote for? Or are you not gonna vote?
    Gary Johnson

  6. #76
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Well I didn't say he wasn't a foolish President. What else would you call man who relied upon the guidance of fools like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Rumsfeld was hated by the military as much as he hated them and Cheney's worldly perspective relied upon a Cold War with Soviets.
    Actually, Cheney and Rumsfeld are pretty smart. They knew exactly what they were doing. They're goals just may not have been what yours might have been.


    This is because the military constantly finds itself between a rock and a hard place and this has become more frequent since the end of the Cold War. The military is frequently at odds with the White House and always at odds with the media. Consider that it was the military that was trying to warn the White House of an impending radical problem in the Middle East throughout the 90s when talking about religion was a huge no-no in our intel circuits. Consider that it was the military that demanded more numbers in order to properly invade Iraq so as to deal with the inevitable tribal fallout. Consider that the military has manuals on interrogation and prisoner control that do not call for waterboarding. Consider how quickly Iraq turned around once Rumsfeld (a civilian) was taken out of the game and Patreaus (a military general) was put in the lead. The Pentagon had been at odds with Rumsfeld since before 2003. The hatred went both ways. The frustration of the military after the last two decades of being ignored by Washington suits who declare to know better could be seen from Mcchrystal's comments about the White House in 2010.

    But the military has another problem. A U.S. Army problem. The lack of institutional discipline can be seen from Koran burnings, mass murder, Abu-Ghraib, and WikiLeaks reporting. The very few "leaks" came from idiots merely looking for YouTube fame. Actual whistleblowing came from Generals who were either retired or on their way to retirement and had a duty to deal with the base problem of abuses which were stemming from the CIA and looked towards the military to go against code. You see, a Sergeant or a Captain will be Court Martialed. A civilian CIA agent will merely get re-assigned.

    And do you think these intel leaks coming from Washington make the military happy? And what is the media's role once again? I tell ya, sometimes it feels like the military is doing it's best to work loyally for children who are doing their best to make it harder. This is why the military has a long history of shoving away the media and divisions between White House and Pentagon.
    It's also because the military believes it (torture) is not only wrong, but ineffective. I do not fault the military, being a hammer, for seeing solutions in the context of using a hammer. Often what the military thinks is their mission is not what the civilian leadership thinks is their mission. It is not unusual for the two to see things differently. What I fault Bush most for is misusing the military for a purpose that was neither wise nor beneficial to the US. He spent US lives for no valid reason.


    Not enough to merit "Hope" and "Change" as a slogan. He was elected because of this. And now that we see barely any change, Liberals look the other way and pretend that gays in the military was all that really ever mattered.
    Never saw a slogan that matched the performance. I think that is the nature of political slogans. But, we saw the change I expected, not the change I hoped for. We discussed this before the election, and the radical right missed what was being said as much as the radical left. We wanted torture called what it was. We wanted the focus back in Afghanistan. We wanted Iraq done. We wanted Gitmo closed (because of the torture and violations of rule of law). Most of that was done.

    Now I wanted more attention to the home front. I wanted healthcare reformed tackled. I wanted both a reduction in spending and increases in taxes, and wanted that in order to get a handle on the deficit (something conservatives/ republicans largely ignored during 8 years of Bush).

    I realized the president isn't king. I knew congress would matter. I voted form Grassely here in Iowa. He let me down badly. I wanted a divided government that knew it had to work together. Both parties let me down. But it isn't like I didn't understand this could happen.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #77
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by unapologeticdan View Post
    [...] You have to remember though, the Democratic platform of today is further left from the Democratic platform of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago. Same with the Republican platform.
    Hardly.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected to the presidency in 1932, came forth with government programs called the New Deal. New Deal liberalism meant the promotion of social welfare, labor unions, civil rights, and regulation of business. The opponents, who stressed long-term growth, support for business, and low taxes, started calling themselves "conservatives."

    Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Quote Originally Posted by unapologeticdan View Post
    We've all been slowly migrating left [...]
    I will agree that the country has been slowly migrating left, due to nudging by Democrats (keeping in mind that the southern Democrats are actually conservatives, so I not include them as true Democrats) but, as we can see by the frenzied rhetoric and actions of Tea Party politicians, today's conservative has hardly moved left (in fact they are tugging the mainstream GOP to the right with efforts to shut down the gov't, outlaw abortion, repeal the Civil Rights Act, increase foreign military adventurism, etc.).

  8. #78
    Sage
    Karl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    12-18-14 @ 09:35 AM
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,561

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Do you mean you criticize Obama while on the phone with your friend or with friends over dinner? Because on the national level I have heard nothing....

    1) Let's hit the biggie...Guantanamo Bay. Leading the cry about GITMO was the Democratic Party. We heard comments about Nazi germany and Russian Gulags. Closing GITMO was a campaign promise. Yet, once in office, Obama struggled with the same question Bush had about what to do with the prisoners that nobody wanted. GITMO remains open and in use to the silence of the Left. [...]
    Obama was stymied by Congress, who blocked him at every turn on GITMO (not to mention a pansy-ass NYC who didn't want a trial there). The Left understands that, meaning there is no need to get on Obama's case about it.

    Were the shoe on the other foot, the right would probably fume and insist the president disband Congress and institute martial law. Therein the difference between pragmatism and fanaticsm.

  9. #79
    Professor
    Kane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    09-09-13 @ 09:13 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,661

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Remember how shocked liberals were at the 2010 Congressional Election results?

    Many of us weren't. The American people have good BS detectors. And with two NeoCons running for Prez. in 2012, computer voting machines will select one of them.But it won't be Obomber.

  10. #80
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    181,761

    re: Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    But Obama wants to make it 50 times worse. Romney doesn't.
    some so called conservatives don't understand the tenth amendment and whine because Fiscal left-winger-social fascist Santorum got his ass handed to him by Romney.

Page 8 of 36 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •