• 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!

What is your opinion of Barack Obama now?

What is your opinion of Barack Obama now?

  • I'm glad I voted for him.

    Votes: 20 39.2%
  • I'm glad I didn't vote for him.

    Votes: 27 52.9%
  • I wish I had voted for him.

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • I wish I hadn't voted for him.

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • Total voters
    51
I can't find any legitimate Leftists who supported him. Why the Freepers keep calling him a 'Leftist' when he has far more in common with Republicans than any other gang of neo-liberals is a mystery.

You received the favorite of the left in office, and now leftists are saddened that their man seems to not be their man. I find the far more likely explanations for this being, 1) He was not as radical as he portrayed himself 2) The reality of office changes even the most ideologically determined man. I am leaning more toward number 2 than 1.

Ask and you shall not receive. Do not be let down by your ideology, reevaluate it and figure out if maybe there is something deeply flawed about your convictions, instead.
 
He is an illegal pos. A thief like his gorilla wife. Users and haters of white people. Producer of ugly children. Anti-american little BITCH. Crackhead who slurps sperm from homeless white men just for a rock. In other words he's a ****ing winner for the democrats.

Oh noes!!!

troll+detected.jpg
 
Moderator's Warning:
Get on topic. If you think a post breaks the rules, report it. If people continue to talk about who should be banned, or who is a troll, in this thread or others, they will be thread banned.
 
You received the favorite of the left in office, and now leftists are saddened that their man seems to not be their man. I find the far more likely explanations for this being, 1) He was not as radical as he portrayed himself 2) The reality of office changes even the most ideologically determined man. I am leaning more toward number 2 than 1.

Ask and you shall not receive. Do not be let down by your ideology, reevaluate it and figure out if maybe there is something deeply flawed about your convictions, instead.

The thing is he's not really a liberal, even going by his campaign. There are no serious liberal candidates, and there haven't been for quite a while. Even the most liberal of Dems (like Obama) are pretty centrist. It's just that the "center" in America has been pulled so far right that a reactionary is actually a viable candidate. Most of the household GOP is reactionary. Most of the Dems are simply trying to maintain things the way they are, or maybe partially adopt something the rest of the developed world has already been doing for decades. That's not liberal.

I'm an actual liberal. I always knew that Obama wasn't really a liberal, but liberals don't run from the supposed liberal party. There's probably only a handful of real liberals in the Democratic party.

Understanding this, it becomes a vote between a reactionary and a centrist. I voted for the centrist. He has turned out to be only a little less centrist than his campaign, which in terms of politicians, isn't too shabby. I'm still glad I voted for him, and I will again. Not because I think he's amazing or that he truly represents my beliefs. But because I won't vote for a reactionary, and he's doing ok considering what he has to work with.
 
Well, it's not like voting actually matters anyway; all the 'candidates' are chosen for you, and there is really only one 'Party', with two marginally different wings, targeted at different demographics, and in effect neutralizing them all from any influence.

At least the old Soviet Union gave you a better option in their elections: 'None Of The Above'.
 
Last edited:
You received the favorite of the left in office, and now leftists are saddened that their man seems to not be their man. I find the far more likely explanations for this being, 1) He was not as radical as he portrayed himself 2) The reality of office changes even the most ideologically determined man. I am leaning more toward number 2 than 1.

Ask and you shall not receive. Do not be let down by your ideology, reevaluate it and figure out if maybe there is something deeply flawed about your convictions, instead.

I don't have an ideology; ideologies are for illiterates, pseudo-intellectuals and those that are too lazy to do their own work.
 
I don't have an ideology; ideologies are for illiterates, pseudo-intellectuals and those that are too lazy to do their own work.

I know it's a fashionable thing to say, but do you know what you really just said?

"I don't have a comprehensive and cohesive principal that guides my beliefs. Being consistent is for illiterates, pseudo-intellectuals, and those that care to take the time to do something silly like make sure their beliefs don't conflict each other."

Taking the time to look at how your beliefs fit together takes far more work than to develop them in a vacuum, as though they have no effect on each other. No one ever said your ideology had to fit cleanly into any pre-existing ideology - that is simply your fashionable misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
I know it's a fashionable thing to say,

Fashionable with who? Not many people think so, but history proves otherwise. The only exceptions are minor non-issues, like Gay Marriage and local issues concerning local problems. On a national level, almost nothing gets done on issues of importance, especially if it adversely affects major campaign donors. All you get is the standard 'Good Cop- Bad Cop' run around at the state and Federal levels. Which 'side' is the 'Good Cop' or the 'Bad Cop' is almost entirely one of spin and personal perception.

but do you know what you really just said?

Yes, I do, and whether anybody likes it or not doesn't change a thing, and neither does re-writing what I said to fit into some straw man argument that fits into your own delusions about politics isn't a rebuttal, either.

Taking the time to look at how your beliefs fit together takes far more work than to develop them in a vacuum, as though they have no effect on each other. No one ever said your ideology had to fit cleanly into any pre-existing ideology - that is simply your fashionable misunderstanding.

Doesn't address anything I said, either, but I know some people just hate the idea that they're manipulated and indoctrinated, and it makes them very uncomfortable to see anything that doesn't fit into comfortable, pat little rhetorical cocoons and keep the Hive focused on whatever fictions the Leaders designate as 'acceptable'.

All ideologies do is polarize and divide, which of course is what they're designed to do.
 
The first part of what you said displays quite clearly that you don't know what an ideology is.

It is a comprehensive way of looking at ones expectations or goals, and trying to make their individual views be consistent within that framework. My re-writing is a perfect reflection of what you said, if you'd bothered to look up what "ideology" means.

Not having an ideology means you have put no thought into whether you contradict yourself, or what the outcome of your beliefs may be. And that is a true sign of laziness.

No one ever said that typical political parties fit an ideology. They usually don't, in fact - once against displaying that you have no idea what an ideology is. And these self-contradicting parties allowed to persist by a populace who rebukes the idea of having an ideology, thus they see nothing wrong with having conflicting beliefs.
 
Whatever rings your bell. You obviously like cramming all issues into some pat little framework, others don't, and since you have no idea what you're talking about, shopping around and finding some ideology that tells you what you want to hear and beleive is probably the best you can do.

Like I said, it's not like voting matters; some people just like to pretend their opinions and beliefs are important to powers that be, despite all evidence to the contrary, and certainly on message boards there are lots who are desperate enough to hope their 25,000 odd posts of rhetorical partisan wrangling is actually relevant, instead of merely entertaining fluff.
 
Whatever rings your bell. You obviously like cramming all issues into some pat little framework, others don't, and since you have no idea what you're talking about, shopping around and finding some ideology that tells you what you want to hear and beleive is probably the best you can do.

Like I said, it's not like voting matters; some people just like to pretend their opinions and beliefs are important to powers that be, despite all evidence to the contrary, and certainly on message boards there are lots who are desperate enough to hope their 25,000 odd posts of rhetorical partisan wrangling is actually relevant, instead of merely entertaining fluff.

Like I already said, ones ideology does not need to fit into any pre-existing ideology. You can make up your own. All you are doing is continuing to show you don't know what an ideology is, and that you simply don't like the word. An ideology is simply the consideration of purpose and consistency.

What you are saying is that purpose and consistency is bad. I sincerely hope that is not your honest position. If it is, then I think I've figured out what's wrong with our political discourse these days.

I fail to see what the second paragraph has to do with.
 
Last edited:
Barack Obama has been an absolute disaster in almost every way. It may take a generation for the Democratic Party to recover from his time in office. The sooner they divorce themselves from this man, the better off they will be. Of course, anyone who paid any attention to the 2008 nomination could have seen this trainwreck coming from a mile away.

At this point, I would say he gets beat in 2012 by a similar margin he won by in 2008.
 
Like I already said, ones ideology does not need to fit into any pre-existing ideology. You can make up your own. All you are doing is continuing to show you don't know what an ideology is, and that you simply don't like the word. An ideology is simply the consideration of purpose and consistency.

What you are saying is that purpose and consistency is bad. I sincerely hope that is not your honest position. If it is, then I think I've figured out what's wrong with our political discourse these days.

I fail to see what the second paragraph has to do with.

Re-write anything you want. You're just playing 'I Touched You Last!' now, and I'm not interested any more.
 
Barack Obama has been an absolute disaster in almost every way. It may take a generation for the Democratic Party to recover from his time in office. The sooner they divorce themselves from this man, the better off they will be. Of course, anyone who paid any attention to the 2008 nomination could have seen this trainwreck coming from a mile away.

At this point, I would say he gets beat in 2012 by a similar margin he won by in 2008.

You're probably right. It doesn't matter which House Boy gets the office, it's about as important as which high school wins their district in football; unless you're a gambler with some sort of bet to win, it's entirely irrelevant to the average citizen, and both gangs are going to look out for Goldman Sachs and the others dues paying Club members.
 
I cant answer the poll as I am not albe to vote for him

But

Between him and McCain of 2008 I supported Obama and still would.

Do I consider Obama the best of the potential candidates of 2008, no. But between the two final choices for US president in 2008 I am glad and still glad Obama wob
 
Oberon, exactly. Its not the team thats the problem -- its the league.

Although, it would certainly be nice to see someone in office with even a minimal level of competency.
 
He's done better than I thought he would do and far better than McCain/Palin would have done. It appears I made the correct choice in 2008. :sun
 
Oberon, exactly. Its not the team thats the problem -- its the league.

Exactly.

Although, it would certainly be nice to see someone in office with even a minimal level of competency.

At least in foreign policy.

It's truly bizarre re the 'choices' the parties offer as candidates. The average small town can provide a hundred candidates much better than what the parties offer, and with the entire national population base to choose from to boot.

It can't be an 'accident'. No way.
 
Whatever rings your bell. You obviously like cramming all issues into some pat little framework, others don't, and since you have no idea what you're talking about, shopping around and finding some ideology that tells you what you want to hear and beleive is probably the best you can do.

Like I said, it's not like voting matters; some people just like to pretend their opinions and beliefs are important to powers that be, despite all evidence to the contrary, and certainly on message boards there are lots who are desperate enough to hope their 25,000 odd posts of rhetorical partisan wrangling is actually relevant, instead of merely entertaining fluff.

I always think it's funny when someone on a message board, criticizes others...for being on a message board. ;).
 
Another exercise in distortion. Thanks for jumping in there and helping out. lol
 
Back
Top Bottom