• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Frustrated liberals want more from Obama [W:299]

Billy the Kid said:
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. :peace
Click to expand...

Doesn't say much for you that you don't know who he is. Two term governor of New Mexico means he has a little more experience in governing than old Mitt. Perhaps Mitt could put in his application at the 7-11.
 
Billy the Kid said:
Your right we have "tried, convicted and housed" in the past. But IMO, the GITMO terrorist are a whole different problem. And IMO, Senator Obama should have known the "ins and outs" on this issue and not promised he'd have GITMO closed by the end of his 1st year in office. Rookie mistake? Or did he promise something he knew he couldn't pull off?

That is what I'm talking about. President Obama hasn't the skills set to be POTUS. He opens his mouth says something ignorant, "the private sector is doing fine", and then has to walk it back. Either he won't listen to his advisors or his advisors are dumb as rocks. Either way he is the best example of Peter's Principle I've seen in a long time.
Click to expand...


Explain how they would be different. There is no logical difference that I can think of.

And remember, we just had Bush as president who made serious mistakes, who was reckless, who got us into two was and occupying two countries. Seriously, how much credibility do you think those who supported Bush have in calling anyone inexperienced.

The private sector issue is another issue, but define what is fine and what isn't.
 
Grant said:
It's not often that an army announces when it will be retreating. I believe that's a recent trend.
Click to expand...

We didn't announce in VN; how did that work out?
 
Grant said:
If the American forces went in and did what they were capable of doing there would be a far less chance of a terrorist attack happening ever again. Doing something just halfway is why there was WWII and why they didn't repeat the same mistake when that was done. The aggressive countries were soundly beaten and Germany, Japan and Italy have been docile ever since, often to a fault.

Churchill, MacArthur, Eisenhower or Patton would never have announced their time of departure from any battlefield, but now 'withdrawal' is often the second item on the agenda.
Click to expand...


Those leaders had the capability to do what the said they'd do. Today is war by committe and none on the committe wants to be accused of making a dicision, just in case it's wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
Explain how they would be different. There is no logical difference that I can think of.

And remember, we just had Bush as president who made serious mistakes, who was reckless, who got us into two was and occupying two countries. Seriously, how much credibility do you think those who supported Bush have in calling anyone inexperienced.

The private sector issue is another issue, but define what is fine and what isn't.
Click to expand...


President Obama had/has no experience. He talked the people into voting for him. Now it shows. He's picked a group that are inept, IMO.

Bush was a businessman and the Gov or a state. Did he spend to much? Yup. Was the greatest? Probably not. But Bush was way ahead of Obama in in category.

Obama doesn't have a clue as to how to get the country out of this depression. He hasn't a clue that govt doesn't create jobs, private industry/small business do. Taxpayers pay for govt jobs. And if the taxpayer is employed who pays the taxes that pay for the govt jobs?
 
ThongPounder said:
Doesn't say much for you that you don't know who he is. Two term governor of New Mexico means he has a little more experience in governing than old Mitt. Perhaps Mitt could put in his application at the 7-11.
Click to expand...

Good for your guy. But I'll still be voting for the only person running that has a snowballs chance of booting Obama.
 
Billy the Kid said:
President Obama had/has no experience. He talked the people into voting for him. Now it shows. He's picked a group that are inept, IMO.

Bush was a businessman and the Gov or a state. Did he spend to much? Yup. Was the greatest? Probably not. But Bush was way ahead of Obama in in category.

Obama doesn't have a clue as to how to get the country out of this depression. He hasn't a clue that govt doesn't create jobs, private industry/small business do. Taxpayers pay for govt jobs. And if the taxpayer is employed who pays the taxes that pay for the govt jobs?
Click to expand...

I don't think you're addressing what I've said. I think you're stuck in a talking point loop.

Bush made amjor mistakes. There's no way around that, and he made more than Obama has.

BTW, if the government employees people, they pay taxes. Those taxes go to the government. Also, if you cut those jobs, you increase unemployment. There may be jobs to cut, but when we do, we have to say we're willing to have higher unemployment.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think you're addressing what I've said. I think you're stuck in a talking point loop.

Bush made amjor mistakes. There's no way around that, and he made more than Obama has.

BTW, if the government employees people, they pay taxes. Those taxes go to the government. Also, if you cut those jobs, you increase unemployment. There may be jobs to cut, but when we do, we have to say we're willing to have higher unemployment.
Click to expand...



I realize there are folks that hang on every word that comes from "their" partisian hacks, but I don't watch TV, except for local news. I do read papers with a grain of salt, but they do seem a tad better than the normal blather from those everyone calls the mainstream media.

Not gonna argue the "Bush made mistakes" issue with you. This thread is about Obama. Bush is no longer in office and even tho you'd like to blame him for what is happening currently, you can't. I'll give you he did makes mistakes.

Sure govt employess pay taxes. But you can't honestly being trying to convince me that the economy can survive if we take in money from govt employees and them pay it back to them and pay the down the debt this country has riding on its shoulders, can you?

Private companies and their ability to grow and make jobs and PAY TAXES is the reason we can attempt to pay down the debt and those that work for the govt.

President Obama evidently doesn't have a handle on this either.
 
samsmart said:
Well, thanks to Congress blocking the closing of GITMO, Obama is now just killing every supposed terrorist he can, and all the people caught in the collateral damage of the drone strikes are being retroactively labeled terrorists.
Click to expand...

While it is true that the administration attempted and was countered by congress it is also true that internal investigations by the justice department revealed that those the administration wanted to bring to trial also would not have stood a chance for a trial in the court system. Being disappointed in the ability to pursue charges against individuals sincerely considered terrorists by the administration was another large problem in addition to the block by congress.
 
Fiddytree said:
While it is true that the administration attempted and was countered by congress it is also true that internal investigations by the justice department revealed that those the administration wanted to bring to trial also would not have stood a chance for a trial in the court system. Being disappointed in the ability to pursue charges against individuals sincerely considered terrorists by the administration was another large problem in addition to the block by congress.
Click to expand...

As In recall, this was largely due to the previous administration using torture and other methods that wouldn't hold up in court.
 
Billy the Kid said:
I realize there are folks that hang on every word that comes from "their" partisian hacks, but I don't watch TV, except for local news. I do read papers with a grain of salt, but they do seem a tad better than the normal blather from those everyone calls the mainstream media.

Not gonna argue the "Bush made mistakes" issue with you. This thread is about Obama. Bush is no longer in office and even tho you'd like to blame him for what is happening currently, you can't. I'll give you he did makes mistakes.

Sure govt employess pay taxes. But you can't honestly being trying to convince me that the economy can survive if we take in money from govt employees and them pay it back to them and pay the down the debt this country has riding on its shoulders, can you?

Private companies and their ability to grow and make jobs and PAY TAXES is the reason we can attempt to pay down the debt and those that work for the govt.

President Obama evidently doesn't have a handle on this either.
Click to expand...

The bush made mistake is about credibility of your complaint. You present someone you see as experienced, and yet, his record is not stellar, but in fact full of serious errors. SO, this brings your judgment into question.

As for government employees, I'm not trying to convince you of much. Only that they do pay taxes, and that if they lose their jobs, it will increase unemployment. And nothing you have said or presented supports that Obama doesn't have a handle on either. I've asked you to show something specific.

One last thing, if you don't watch or read much, doesn't this hinder your knowledge? Is it really good to speak from a position of ignorance (as in lack of knowledge)?
 
Obama plays a deep game. That can be frustrating to impatient supporters.

-o-
 
Boo Radley said:
OK. What does that mean?
Click to expand...

I think he's implying that Obama gets to his goals in round-about ways with jujitsu politics instead of going right at the policy implementation that he wants. A lot of people saying this. Not a fan of that style either.
 
poweRob said:
I think he's implying that Obama gets to his goals in round-about ways with jujitsu politics instead of going right at the policy implementation that he wants. A lot of people saying this. Not a fan of that style either.
Click to expand...

Another possibility. I hope he answers.
 
Boo Radley said:
The bush made mistake is about credibility of your complaint. You present someone you see as experienced, and yet, his record is not stellar, but in fact full of serious errors. SO, this brings your judgment into question.

As for government employees, I'm not trying to convince you of much. Only that they do pay taxes, and that if they lose their jobs, it will increase unemployment. And nothing you have said or presented supports that Obama doesn't have a handle on either. I've asked you to show something specific.

One last thing, if you don't watch or read much, doesn't this hinder your knowledge? Is it really good to speak from a position of ignorance (as in lack of knowledge)?
Click to expand...


The thread is about liberals being frustrated with Obama. You'd have to have lived in a cave somewhere to not know that Libbys hate Bush. So IMO, that fact is a given and doesn't need to be rehased on a thread about "frustrated Obama liberals".

Of course you will say "this brings you judgement into question". That way you don't have to answer the thread question. This tactic isn't new and has been done over and over by others and IMO done better.

As to the "if you don't watch or read much", I said I read newspapers, that's usually where most news stories on TV come from, right?

IMO your comment "Is it really good to speak from a position of ignorance" would be better asked of yourself. And it's not the best dodge I've seen on DP. But it is your attempt to get off the hook. :lamo
 
@Boo Radley:

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It's been busy here.

At first blush we might dismiss Obama's as the usual fate of a moderate, appearing like "a big-government liberal" to Righties and as having "succumbed to the corporate influence" to Lefties. This is similar to the decline in the fortunes of CNN and of the Liberal parties in Canada, Australia and Britain: the centre gets squeezed out by the extremes. (It also explains why there will never be a viable third party in the U.S. until preferential voting or run-off elections are instituted...but I digress.)

Boo Radley said:
OK. What does that mean?
Click to expand...

Actually, I meant what I said. I trust we agree that anyone who thinks Obama is prone to impulsive errors needs only ask poli-sci students about his 2008 campaigns. Pick an issue. Seriously. Any issue. Obama's decision to support same sex marriage? Dems who wondered why it took so long can look at the list of things he'd done previously and ask how they missed so many signs:

eQualityGiving - Accomplishments by the Administration and Congress on LGBT Equality

Note the predictable timing, too: rather than dodge a festering controversy Obama gets it out of the way early by "hanging a lantern on it", as he did in 2008 with Ayers, Wright and his father.

Universal health care? Watch how this plays out, starting with the ACA opening gambit.

Now consider any or all of the other initiatives that the Left is demanding from Obama. If he had attempted a quarter of these--even if they weren't doomed due to the obstructionist Congress--in his first term do you think there would be a second? Some think 2012 will be close enough as it is! No one understands the politics of the possible better than Obama.

For his supporters, the second term is the payoff. The voters' decision to TP Congress a week after Hallowe'en, 2010, will have made its point. The RepTealian party will have failed in its singular, stated goal of unseating Obama and will fade into footnote. Its remnants will then have to turn their attention to {gasp!} serving their constituents and country. Statements by Jeb Bush and others are already presaging a Thermidorian reaction among Republicans. As for Obama's supporters, are they patient enough to let the 22nd Amendment play out? Do they understand that it takes 16 continuous years to change a nation's course fundamentally? For examples, see Reagan/Bush and the statesman with whom Obama has so much in common it's spooky:

Commercial Poetry: The Politics of Coincidence

Because it is like reviewing a movie in progress, Obama's far-seeing approach doesn't have long coattails. For example, compare the success of Obama's endorsements to those of Bill Clinton. If Democrats want four contiguous terms they may need to rely on a 69-year-old Hillary in 2016; right now, they lack the Republicans' bench strength (e.g. Jeb, Christie, Martinez, et cetera).

Thanks for your interest, Boo.

HTH,

Pirvaya

***
 
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
Click to expand...

Thanks. I spent half my career focusing on small details and local happenings during my deployments. I missed the point throughout the 90s. From 9/11 on I pulled back and started looking at wider meanings. We could choose to see Somalia as Somalia or Bosnia as Bosnia....or we could look for the related themes of these places and get to the heart of the problem. I believe people who look at Iraq as Iraq, Afghanstan as Afghanistan, Libya as Libya, Syria as Syria, etc. are missing the point. They prefer to see the world as a series of well defined organized borders, despite the unified civilizations that transcend those borders.

Protestors of virtually everything going in the Middle East from one event to the next (Arab Spring, Iraq invasion, Aghanistan efforts, Libya bombing, etc.) are on record for preaching about how military can't solve the problem. But the problem, as I see it, is that by preaching this, protestors are really only using this sermon to protest the local single event. They deny themselves the ability to pull back. They aren't looking at the bigger picture and how these unnatural bordered nations are mere pieces of the puzzle. And how quickly did the bigger European picture fall apart when the pieces didn't fit? In other words, protestors mire themselves in the bull just to satisfy their own allegiances to politicial parties and impractical ideologies.
 
Boo Radley said:
I think you are buying into the hype.
Click to expand...

The hype was very real in 2008. I remember it quite clearly. I laughed at the notion of "Obama the savior" as much as I rolled my eyes at the notion that a "vote for McCain is a vote for Bush." Of course, the other side was all about refusing to place a timeline on our Iraq exit despite Bush already laying it out and the military making preparations. Ask me who I voted for? Neither. They both had their heads up their asses. Obama's hype just had the benefit of promising to be the opposite of Bush. That was the hype. I'm a realist. I got what I expected. It's everybody else that wound up being dissapointed.

Today, there isn't much hype going on at all. "Change" proved to be impractical. Obama seems to be stepping in it constantly these last couple months and attacking Romney seems to be his administration's only method to prove that it could be worse. If "Hope" and "Change" wasn't a hype, wouldn't he have a better record to stand on for re-election?
 
MSgt said:
The hype was very real in 2008. I remember it quite clearly. I laughed at the notion of "Obama the savior" as much as I rolled my eyes at the notion that a "vote for McCain is a vote for Bush." Of course, the other side was all about refusing to place a timeline on our Iraq exit despite Bush already laying it out and the military making preparations. Ask me who I voted for? Neither. They both had their heads up their asses. Obama's hype just had the benefit of promising to be the opposite of Bush. That was the hype. I'm a realist. I got what I expected. It's everybody else that wound up being dissapointed.

Today, there isn't much hype going on at all. "Change" proved to be impractical. Obama seems to be stepping in it constantly these last couple months and attacking Romney seems to be his administration's only method to prove that it could be worse. If "Hope" and "Change" wasn't a hype, wouldn't he have a better record to stand on for re-election?
Click to expand...

Real? Most of it was a republican invention. Sure, there were some huge expectations, but not among anyone with any political awareness. BTW, Bush not only alid out the timeline, but made it public. He agreed, in public to the Iraqi timeline.

As for stepping in it, I think both candidates have been doing a fair job at that. At the end of the day, there ahs to be a reasonable expectation that Romeny will be better. It's the nature of battling an incombant. At this point, I don't see that yet.
 
Billy the Kid said:
The thread is about liberals being frustrated with Obama. You'd have to have lived in a cave somewhere to not know that Libbys hate Bush. So IMO, that fact is a given and doesn't need to be rehased on a thread about "frustrated Obama liberals".

Of course you will say "this brings you judgement into question". That way you don't have to answer the thread question. This tactic isn't new and has been done over and over by others and IMO done better.

As to the "if you don't watch or read much", I said I read newspapers, that's usually where most news stories on TV come from, right?

IMO your comment "Is it really good to speak from a position of ignorance" would be better asked of yourself. And it's not the best dodge I've seen on DP. But it is your attempt to get off the hook. :lamo
Click to expand...

Question? I think you're still stuck in that loop of yours. I stated clearly that Obama did disappoint. That is a clear answer to the question. However, we went into specifics, and found you lack some knowledge. Read back, I have clearly point out things you did not know. Instead, you again rely on what you THINK you know. :coffeepap
 
Pirvaya said:
@Boo Radley:

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. It's been busy here.

At first blush we might dismiss Obama's as the usual fate of a moderate, appearing like "a big-government liberal" to Righties and as having "succumbed to the corporate influence" to Lefties. This is similar to the decline in the fortunes of CNN and of the Liberal parties in Canada, Australia and Britain: the centre gets squeezed out by the extremes. (It also explains why there will never be a viable third party in the U.S. until preferential voting or run-off elections are instituted...but I digress.)



Actually, I meant what I said. I trust we agree that anyone who thinks Obama is prone to impulsive errors needs only ask poli-sci students about his 2008 campaigns. Pick an issue. Seriously. Any issue. Obama's decision to support same sex marriage? Dems who wondered why it took so long can look at the list of things he'd done previously and ask how they missed so many signs:

eQualityGiving - Accomplishments by the Administration and Congress on LGBT Equality

Note the predictable timing, too: rather than dodge a festering controversy Obama gets it out of the way early by "hanging a lantern on it", as he did in 2008 with Ayers, Wright and his father.

Universal health care? Watch how this plays out, starting with the ACA opening gambit.

Now consider any or all of the other initiatives that the Left is demanding from Obama. If he had attempted a quarter of these--even if they weren't doomed due to the obstructionist Congress--in his first term do you think there would be a second? Some think 2012 will be close enough as it is! No one understands the politics of the possible better than Obama.

For his supporters, the second term is the payoff. The voters' decision to TP Congress a week after Hallowe'en, 2010, will have made its point. The RepTealian party will have failed in its singular, stated goal of unseating Obama and will fade into footnote. Its remnants will then have to turn their attention to {gasp!} serving their constituents and country. Statements by Jeb Bush and others are already presaging a Thermidorian reaction among Republicans. As for Obama's supporters, are they patient enough to let the 22nd Amendment play out? Do they understand that it takes 16 continuous years to change a nation's course fundamentally? For examples, see Reagan/Bush and the statesman with whom Obama has so much in common it's spooky:

Commercial Poetry: The Politics of Coincidence

Because it is like reviewing a movie in progress, Obama's far-seeing approach doesn't have long coattails. For example, compare the success of Obama's endorsements to those of Bill Clinton. If Democrats want four contiguous terms they may need to rely on a 69-year-old Hillary in 2016; right now, they lack the Republicans' bench strength (e.g. Jeb, Christie, Martinez, et cetera).

Thanks for your interest, Boo.

HTH,

Pirvaya

***
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying. I will keep this post in mind as it plays out. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Question? I think you're still stuck in that loop of yours. I stated clearly that Obama did disappoint. That is a clear answer to the question. However, we went into specifics, and found you lack some knowledge. Read back, I have clearly point out things you did not know. Instead, you again rely on what you THINK you know. :coffeepap
Click to expand...


Glad you can finally admit that Obama hasn't lived up to his hype.

That was all the thread was about, like I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom