Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

Boo Radley · Jun 9, 2012

MSgt said:
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.

Karl · Jun 9, 2012

unapologeticdan said:
[...] 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

unapologeticdan said:
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.).

Karl · Jun 9, 2012

MSgt said:
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.

Kane · Jun 9, 2012

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.

TurtleDude · Jun 9, 2012

Grant said:
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.

Kane · Jun 9, 2012

TurtleDude said:
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.

Doesn't Obamas/Hillary Clintons embrace of Bush/Cheneys pre-emptive war doctrine, categorize them all as NeoCons now?

Obamas foreign Policy is identical to Richard Pearls, Defense Policy Board, yes?

j-mac · Jun 9, 2012

ThongPounder said:
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.

You'll excuse me if I don't immediately buy into the global perspective of a guy calling himself "Thong Pounder" won't you?

I wasn't being disingenous, I just wasn't going to allow you steer my points off to something else.

Well, I thought we would have a conversation, but as it turns out you just want someone to agree with you....Good luck with that....

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.

Ok, that's a fair point, but this race is going to be Romney v. Obama and the contrast between those two. So in apples to apples comparison it is not straight up in my opinion to just bash one, without looking at the other.

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.

Wouldn't you rather people who actually use the services in question, pay the fees, instead of spreading them out to people who don't use the services?

I don't think the government should subsidize any businesses. Business should be able to stand on the merits of their labor.

Ok, I'll remember that.

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.

You might as well vote for Obama.

You said that you were against all subsidies, yet Johnson, the guy you want to vote for co sponsored a Governors assn. resolution to further tax incentives to the coal industry for their R&D. You don't consider that a subsidy?

j-mac

The Man · Jun 9, 2012

Obama is the first black president, and that alone was enough to impress liberals four years ago. Perhaps now Obama needs to morph into a giant taco that craps ice cream, and maybe that would impress liberals???

Boo Radley · Jun 9, 2012

The Man said:
Obama is the first black president, and that alone was enough to impress liberals four years ago. Perhaps now Obama needs to morph into a giant taco that craps ice cream, and that would impress liberals???

Well, it matters. But, I think you're leaping to conclusions. Blacks had run before and not won. There had to be a perception that he was the better choice. I still think he was the better choice.

zgoldsmith23 · Jun 9, 2012

The Man said:
Obama is the first black president, and that alone was enough to impress liberals four years ago. Perhaps now Obama needs to morph into a giant taco that craps ice cream, and maybe that would impress liberals???

The fact that he could so how morph into THAT should be enough alone to impress anyone and, if he won, that would only show how weak of a candidate Romney is.

StillBallin75 · Jun 9, 2012

Kane said:
Doesn't Obamas/Hillary Clintons embrace of Bush/Cheneys pre-emptive war doctrine, categorize them all as NeoCons now?

Obamas foreign Policy is identical to Richard Pearls, Defense Policy Board, yes?

Holy crap this post is so stupid i don't know where to begin.

Fiddytree · Jun 10, 2012

Holy crap this post is so stupid i don't know where to begin.

I think it would help to suggest that the person doesn't even know what a neoconservative actually is and how people are in any way compared to them.

Kane said:
Doesn't Obamas/Hillary Clintons embrace of Bush/Cheneys pre-emptive war doctrine, categorize them all as NeoCons now?

Obamas foreign Policy is identical to Richard Pearls, Defense Policy Board, yes?

Not really, guy. Oversimplification is fashionable around these parts, but don't go pushing it to the limit like Alex Jones (though as we have gathered before, that might seem like a reasonable mentor to some of the posting habits displayed).

First off, Richard Perle's (Perle, not Pearl) foreign policy is not identical. This was a guy who fought tooth and nail against the Soviet negotiation team and the US State Dept.'s attempt to give up some ground after the Soviets gave on one concession. Do you think that this guy would have taken that most recent nuke deal? Gimme a break.

Bob Blaylock · Jun 10, 2012

j-mac said:
You'll excuse me if I don't immediately buy into the global perspective of a guy calling himself "Thong Pounder" won't you?

You know what my first thought was when I saw that name? I was thinking “sock puppet”.

Thong Pounder

Not so, apparently. There seems to be, in this person's postings, at least a hint of normal intelligence, which is not seen in those of the person whose sock I initially suspected him of being.

MSgt · Jun 10, 2012

Boo Radley said:
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.

How can you say that? They had no idea what they were doing. In 1991 they were among the many that were affraid of the tribal turmoil in Iraq were they to have their dictator removed. In 2003 they insisted on the bare minimum of troop strength launching across the border following a "Shock and Awe" display. All of sudden the fear of the tribe ceased? Rumsfeld in on record for believeing that technology alone would win future wars while some of our troops merely collected up the surrendering masses. The had no clue what they were doing and absolutely expected the Gulf War to serve as the example. Their goals did not meet their applications. This is what happens when you have a Vice President that was spoiled beyond his expiration date and a SECDEF that never even served in the military.

Boo Radley said:
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.

I do fault civilian leadership. Is nation building a military basic function? How about humanitarian missions? The military has been dropped into one mission after another that it is not trained for since the end of the Cold War. The military has had to learn in the fire just to satisfy the unnacceptable inexperience of politicians who default to the military whenever the answers don't come easy. The military has had to learn how to approach a rediculous diversity of missions since Somalia when the recognization that it will not be allowed to finish the job. This is why the military did not trust Bush when he sent it to Afghanistan or Iraq. Rumsfeld compounded the problems. Our politicians have behaved very poorly because they assume to know better about war than the practitioners. I do believe in Iraq (done correctly). I do believe in Afghanistan (done correctly). I do believe in Libya. I do believe in what will soon be Syria. Because I believe this Arab Spring is the big picture that will usher in true stability, which will offer greater security to U.S. interests. This is about region. Always has been. It's historical.

And the problem with "wasting US lives" is that everybody uses this to protest what they don't believe in. I believe it's a waste of US lives to pretend that small problems will always sort themselves out before they evolve into bigger events.

Boo Radley said:
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.

Bush had already set the time table for leaving Iraq. Obama merely continued it.

Bush tried to close GITMO. He failed. Obama promised to close GITMO. He has failed.

With Iraq on the outs, focus was naturally going to go back to Afghanistan.

So what did Obama do? He promised much and failed at most. He failed because he assumed to be able to apply his liberal perspectives to a very defined brutal world. Once realizing this, he shifetd fast and has dissapointed Liberals everywhere. This is why he rushed to apologize to Europe and wound up spurning Europe even more than Bush. This is why his promises that focused on countering everything he and others criticized about Bush, shifted to a focus on Universal Health Care and gays. And the truth about gays in the military was that the Federal court was already on its way to countering DADT with the Pentagon more than willing to end that burdensome policy.

He is not the great Liberal dream. Neither was Clinton, who defied the UN over Bosnia and Kosovo. Neither was Kennedy who put us in Vietnam. Carter was closer to the Liberal dream than any of them. Ironic enough, he is placed beneath the other three.

MSgt · Jun 10, 2012

Karl said:
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.

The alternative here is to paint Obama as lame and excuse him for making stupid promises. Bush seemed to get away with doing exactly what he felt he needed to do. Obama, with Pelosi leading the charge, couldn't? And he's the great "Hope?"

You have noticed that the military very much follows the orders of a single man right? Closing GITMO would have happened within wekks given the Presidential order.

MSgt · Jun 10, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Well, it matters. But, I think you're leaping to conclusions. Blacks had run before and not won. There had to be a perception that he was the better choice. I still think he was the better choice.

Well if you remember, the choice was to either vote for "Hope and Change" or Bush II, because a "Vote for McCain is a vote for Bush." As I have shown before, there had virtually no change between Bush and Obama. At least with McCain we wouldn't have had four years of express focus on Health Care at the expense of everything else. Hispanic voters are disillusioned. Black voters are disillusioned. Even many Democrats have displayed their dissapointments.

This is what happens when people lose sight of the world they live in and swoon for a politician's impractical promises. Apparently, a vote for Obama was also a vote for Bush. I believe Obama knows this today, because he seems to be triping all over himself lately trying to re-capture that "Hope and Change" mood among the sheep.

Liberals want more, because Obama promised them more.

j-mac · Jun 10, 2012

MSgt said:
Well if you remember, the choice was to either vote for "Hope and Change" or Bush II, because a "Vote for McCain is a vote for Bush." As I have shown before, there had virtually no change between Bush and Obama. At least with McCain we wouldn't have had four years of express focus on Health Care at the expense of everything else. Hispanic voters are disillusioned. Black voters are disillusioned. Even many Democrats have displayed their dissapointments.

This is what happens when people lose sight of the world they live in and swoon for a politician's impractical promises. Apparently, a vote for Obama was also a vote for Bush. I believe Obama knows this today, because he seems to be triping all over himself lately trying to re-capture that "Hope and Change" mood among the sheep.

Liberals want more, because Obama promised them more.

In many ways I think you are spot on here, however, Obama and liberals are faced with a monumental problem should they accept the reality of the thought you express.

1. They have to acknowledge that their endless well to blame Bush for any, and every failure of Obama is evaporated.

2. They would have to come to the reality that this past three plus years is a lie, or a series of lies told bold faced, and with no shame to the American people that gave them a chance.

We are a forgiving people here in America, but we don't like liars, and we don't like charlatans.

j-mac

Billy the Kid · Jun 10, 2012

ThongPounder said:
Gary Johnson

Good for you. Don't know who he is, but if you like him, then he's your man.

I'm voting for Romney. Who's chance of winning are a great deal better and I'm looking for someone who has experience in running something bigger than a 7-11.

eace

samsmart · Jun 10, 2012

Snake_Plissken said:
"Associated Press By STEVE PEOPLES | Associated Press – 13 hrs ago"

"They are trying to be hopeful, but the Democratic Party's most passionate voters are struggling to hide their frustration with President Barack Obama."

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama - Yahoo! News

I think many had Hoped Obama was the lesser of two evils last time, I wonder how that Hope will work this time?

However it will, the GOP isn't providing any to anyone.

MSgt · Jun 10, 2012

j-mac said:
In many ways I think you are spot on here, however, Obama and liberals are faced with a monumental problem should they accept the reality of the thought you express.

1. They have to acknowledge that their endless well to blame Bush for any, and every failure of Obama is evaporated.

2. They would have to come to the reality that this past three plus years is a lie, or a series of lies told bold faced, and with no shame to the American people that gave them a chance.

We are a forgiving people here in America, but we don't like liars, and we don't like charlatans.

j-mac

Unfortunately, many Americans have shown that they do prefer a good old fashioned liar. The contradictions of war protestors, in light of their lifestyles, is perhaps the most embarrassig thing about us. We, as a people, are becoming more European like ever day and the Global Left are on record for being great liars and charlatans.

There is a difference between a Liberal and a Leftist. We are all liberals, hence democratic/republican governance with prescriptions of social equality, justice, and opportunity. But some Liberal Democrats travel so far left (Pelosi and Co.) of the spectrum that they actually envy the European socialist mood, which has historically manifested into the Hitlers and Stalins. And reality has no weight for the Leftist ideologues who cannot live without the conviction that only the United States is ever guilty. This is why genocide and ethnic cleansing goes unmentioned until America puts boots on the gound. This is why the the embarrassing formation of prisoners in an Abu Ghraib photo takes precedence in the world's media for months over hanged civilian contractors from a bridge. The apologies from Obama for American attitudes swept Europe as soon as Obama could get across the Atlantic. There will always be wars and three types of people; the oppressors, the liberators, and the ones that stand smugly on the side line not understanding enough to choose a side or simply not caring enough as they pretend to be our voices of conscience. Obama, as a member of the Global Left, is in the uncomfortable position of having to accept reality beyond his criticizing Bush during his entire two terms. His indecision over the Arab Spring (whether or not to support "the people" or the dictator) manifested into his begrudged movement over Libya. His escallated sanctions all over the world is merely his way to avoid the obvious use and stigma of force (military) while quietly starving out and ruining societies (no dictator or religious theocracy ever sufferred under sanctions). The Global Left, through their sanctimonious preachings of the liberators, encourage dictators and oppression. Russia currently supports the Syrian government as much as they do the Iranian govenrment as they preach to the world about "soveriegnty." Western Europe preaches (as always), because they would rather wait for Syria and Iran to innevitably erupt so that their action can be defined in history as "retaliation" not "pre-emptation" no matter how much more blood and treasure this causes......or that America will take the lead prior to in order to take all blame. But the problem is that we have a member of this Global Left sitting in the White House who is thinking the same way.

The Global Left frequently preach about right and wrong from the sidelines. Just like what Obama did for 8 years under Bush. But Obama isn't on the side line anymore is he? Obama made the mistake of applying his Leftist ideals on his campaign trail and the American people ignorantly ate it up. He learned quickly that his ideals are impractical and that you can only buck the world grain so far, per presidency, before you have to accomodate the garbage it provides.

j-mac · Jun 10, 2012

MSgt said:
Unfortunately, many Americans have shown that they do prefer a good old fashioned liar. The contradictions of war protestors, in light of their lifestyles, is perhaps the most embarrassig thing about us. We, as a people, are becoming more European like ever day and the Global Left are on record for being great liars and charlatans.

There is a difference between a Liberal and a Leftist. We are all liberals, hence democratic/republican governance with prescriptions of social equality, justice, and opportunity. But some Liberal Democrats travel so far left (Pelosi and Co.) of the spectrum that they actually envy the European socialist mood, which has historically manifested into the Hitlers and Stalins. And reality has no weight for the Leftist ideologues who cannot live without the conviction that only the United States is ever guilty. This is why genocide and ethnic cleansing goes unmentioned until America puts boots on the gound. This is why the the embarrassing formation of prisoners in an Abu Ghraib photo takes precedence in the world's media for months over hanged civilian contractors from a bridge. The apologies from Obama for American attitudes swept Europe as soon as Obama could get across the Atlantic. There will always be wars and three types of people; the oppressors, the liberators, and the ones that stand smugly on the side line not understanding enough to choose a side or simply not caring enough as they pretend to be our voices of conscience. Obama, as a member of the Global Left, is in the uncomfortable position of having to accept reality beyond his criticizing Bush during his entire two terms. His indecision over the Arab Spring (whether or not to support "the people" or the dictator) manifested into his begrudged movement over Libya. His escallated sanctions all over the world is merely his way to avoid the obvious use and stigma of force (military) while quietly starving out and ruining societies (no dictator or religious theocracy ever sufferred under sanctions). The Global Left, through their sanctimonious preachings of the liberators, encourage dictators and oppression. Russia currently supports the Syrian government as much as they do the Iranian govenrment as they preach to the world about "soveriegnty." Western Europe preaches (as always), because they would rather wait for Syria and Iran to innevitably erupt so that their action can be defined in history as "retaliation" not "pre-emptation" no matter how much more blood and treasure this causes......or that America will take the lead prior to in order to take all blame. But the problem is that we have a member of this Global Left sitting in the White House who is thinking the same way.

The Global Left frequently preach about right and wrong from the sidelines. Just like what Obama did for 8 years under Bush. But Obama isn't on the side line anymore is he? Obama made the mistake of applying his Leftist ideals on his campaign trail and the American people ignorantly ate it up. He learned quickly that his ideals are impractical and that you can only buck the world grain so far, per presidency, before you have to accomodate the garbage it provides.

Man, I couldn't have said it better. Your clarity, and straight forward writing style are a breath of fresh air in here MSgt. I may not always agree with the way some things are laid out in some of your valuable postings, but your direction of thought, and ability to cut through the bull are respected by myself.

Thanks for the response.

j-mac

Grant · Jun 10, 2012

j-mac said:
Man, I couldn't have said it better. Your clarity, and straight forward writing style are a breath of fresh air in here MSgt. I may not always agree with the way some things are laid out in some of your valuable postings, but your direction of thought, and ability to cut through the bull are respected by myself.

Thanks for the response.

j-mac

I agree. The summation of all the issues was brilliantly put. Thanks MSgt.

Boo Radley · Jun 10, 2012

MSgt said:
Well if you remember, the choice was to either vote for "Hope and Change" or Bush II, because a "Vote for McCain is a vote for Bush." As I have shown before, there had virtually no change between Bush and Obama. At least with McCain we wouldn't have had four years of express focus on Health Care at the expense of everything else. Hispanic voters are disillusioned. Black voters are disillusioned. Even many Democrats have displayed their dissapointments.

This is what happens when people lose sight of the world they live in and swoon for a politician's impractical promises. Apparently, a vote for Obama was also a vote for Bush. I believe Obama knows this today, because he seems to be triping all over himself lately trying to re-capture that "Hope and Change" mood among the sheep.

Liberals want more, because Obama promised them more.

I think you are buying into the hype. Too many try to simplify things so they don't have to digest long nuanced differences. This is ashame and largely works to our detriment, but if you saw it as hope and change versus Bush II, you are aprt of the problem.

McCain showed poor judgement (Palin) and had to do too much appeasing or more radical elements to get through the process. This hurt him badly.

What you say about disappointment is true, but just like Bush / Kerry, the failure to produce a valid candidate could leave Obama in office. Who the candidates are amtters.

And yes, we want more. Like all candidates, the promises were more than was possible. Most of us know this, but we do tend to expect more. Not sure we should stop that.

Now, as for healthcare, the topic isn't new, didn't begin with Obama, and has long needed to be dealt with. Nor does it have to come at the expensive of anything. Thsi is largely a myth created by those who oppose Obama. Without healthcare reform, there is no evidence anything else woould have been done than what has been done. There is very little that government can do without taking control, something I think you oppose at least as much as I do. NO topic gives too much blame and too much credit as does the economy. In our system, government can only do so much.

Boo Radley · Jun 10, 2012

MSgt said:
Unfortunately, many Americans have shown that they do prefer a good old fashioned liar. The contradictions of war protestors, in light of their lifestyles, is perhaps the most embarrassig thing about us. We, as a people, are becoming more European like ever day and the Global Left are on record for being great liars and charlatans.

There is a difference between a Liberal and a Leftist. We are all liberals, hence democratic/republican governance with prescriptions of social equality, justice, and opportunity. But some Liberal Democrats travel so far left (Pelosi and Co.) of the spectrum that they actually envy the European socialist mood, which has historically manifested into the Hitlers and Stalins. And reality has no weight for the Leftist ideologues who cannot live without the conviction that only the United States is ever guilty. This is why genocide and ethnic cleansing goes unmentioned until America puts boots on the gound. This is why the the embarrassing formation of prisoners in an Abu Ghraib photo takes precedence in the world's media for months over hanged civilian contractors from a bridge. The apologies from Obama for American attitudes swept Europe as soon as Obama could get across the Atlantic. There will always be wars and three types of people; the oppressors, the liberators, and the ones that stand smugly on the side line not understanding enough to choose a side or simply not caring enough as they pretend to be our voices of conscience. Obama, as a member of the Global Left, is in the uncomfortable position of having to accept reality beyond his criticizing Bush during his entire two terms. His indecision over the Arab Spring (whether or not to support "the people" or the dictator) manifested into his begrudged movement over Libya. His escallated sanctions all over the world is merely his way to avoid the obvious use and stigma of force (military) while quietly starving out and ruining societies (no dictator or religious theocracy ever sufferred under sanctions). The Global Left, through their sanctimonious preachings of the liberators, encourage dictators and oppression. Russia currently supports the Syrian government as much as they do the Iranian govenrment as they preach to the world about "soveriegnty." Western Europe preaches (as always), because they would rather wait for Syria and Iran to innevitably erupt so that their action can be defined in history as "retaliation" not "pre-emptation" no matter how much more blood and treasure this causes......or that America will take the lead prior to in order to take all blame. But the problem is that we have a member of this Global Left sitting in the White House who is thinking the same way.

The Global Left frequently preach about right and wrong from the sidelines. Just like what Obama did for 8 years under Bush. But Obama isn't on the side line anymore is he? Obama made the mistake of applying his Leftist ideals on his campaign trail and the American people ignorantly ate it up. He learned quickly that his ideals are impractical and that you can only buck the world grain so far, per presidency, before you have to accomodate the garbage it provides.

Nicely said, but holds what I see as a major error in reasoning. It is largely that presidents are not kings, and as such have to build consensus. This means they cannot act as if they were dictators. So, the balme rests not with one, but all. Republicans, who are more disciplined than democrats, allowed Bush to act more like a king, passing the buck to him. Obama had no such opportunity (nor should he have had). He met resistence from all sides.

This matters.

j-mac · Jun 10, 2012

Boo Radley said:
Nicely said, but holds what I see as a major error in reasoning. It is largely that presidents are not kings, and as such have to build consensus. This means they cannot act as if they were dictators.

I am going to break this down regardless of the fact that Boo will come back and either dismiss, or completely say I am wrong. But, if you will look at what I have separated above, I think it is a huge insight into what not only Boo, but many liberal/progressives think today. Without saying so, Boo reveals that he believes the system to be too cumbersome, too many hurdles to overcome in arriving at consensus. He would rather that Obama be a dictator so that with a wave of the pen, the progressive agenda could be thrust upon us without recourse.

He has no use for the Constitution, or the structure of Government it set up, it is in the way.

So, the balme rests not with one, but all.

Purposely designed that way so that Barry "the One" can deflect responsibility for initiatives he wanted, but failed. He does it with blaming Bush, he does it with health care and the Supreme Court, and now for his election he is trying to do it with Congress, lying through his teeth. Obama is a weasel that needs to be ousted.

Republicans, who are more disciplined than democrats, allowed Bush to act more like a king, passing the buck to him. Obama had no such opportunity (nor should he have had).

You have got to either think that everyone is stupid, or be kidding here. Obama had as near a veto proof majority as a President could get for his first two freaking years! He got every thing he wanted, and now complains because his party lost one house?

He met resistence from all sides.

He met resistance? Bull, what he got is what he wanted. He gave a tele prompted speech, dictating what congress should pass, then sat back and instead of offering anything of his own pen as a proposal, he left it up to the partisan back room dealing of Nancy Pelosi....What a joke.

This matters.

To you maybe, but opinion only really matter to those that agree with them. You have strong opinions on subjects Joe, Problem is, that your information, and what you base your opinion on is so skewed it is near impossible to have a conversation with you. If I want your opinion I can watch any of the hack MSNBC shows spewing the same propaganda.

j-mac

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

Boo Radley

Karl

Karl

Kane

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Kane

j-mac

The Man

Boo Radley

zgoldsmith23

Antichrist

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist

Fiddytree

Neocon Elitist

Bob Blaylock

Electrician

MSgt

Read Some Books

MSgt

Read Some Books

MSgt

Read Some Books

j-mac

Billy the Kid

samsmart

MSgt

Read Some Books

j-mac

Grant

Boo Radley

Boo Radley

j-mac