defend this

[dali71]

TAOBT - Yet Another Obama Bashing Thread

That means he's doing a heck of a job :thumbsup:

Dave McOwned - too stupid to properly spell an acronym

 

[heyheybooboo]

Is this the guy the movie Rendition is loosely based upon ?




--

 

[chucky2]

No it doesn't make much sense that it's 'that', except to people who are a bit ignorant and paranoid, and to whom there's little doubt the 'secret info' is the answer.

If it was 'that', Obama would likely be explaining and defending his policy choices, at least in general terms. He's not. He doesn't talk about these issues, just does them.

An explanation that's more reasonable - and here I am saying something worse for Obama than you are - is what I said.

He knows he has 'his base' - for the most part - and that his vulnerability comes from moderates being won over by attacks from the right.

Consider all the liberal legislation Nixon approved of - and it worked, he won re-election with then the largest margin in history.

Between the politics and the benefits of giving the military and intelligence communities what they want, there's plenty of substance.

Just ask Carter how fun it is to be president against a non-supportive military. I've heard from one insider there's 'a lot of that story how the military undermind him that isn't known'.

So you're telling me Obama is risking having his base turn out next election so he can woo right-wingers who aren't going to vote for him anyways?

That it's that, instead of 'that'???

Why then did his tune change basically as soon as he was POTUS? He started on his re-election campaign almost immediately? I guess that would explain him being in campaign mode for so long...but still........

Chuck

 

[cubby1223]

First, they're not really 'conservatives', they're right-wing; second, many 'conservatives' are deluded, not understanding the real right-wing agenda (protect the rich/powerful).

This forum was so much nicer when you were gone. Grow up.

 

[CLite]

TAOBT - Yet Another Obama Bashing Thread

That means he's doing a heck of a job :thumbsup:

Wow, you might actually be more of a troll than Danube.

The civil liberties of this man was intruded upon, a grave injustice that should be acknowledged no matter his country of citizenship. Great article and I have to agree with others in this thread that Obama's handling of this quasi-legal area created by Bush has been a significant failure.

To those that fault the terrorists or the government, the unfortunate truth is we are the ones to blame. We have elected these folks and do not get worked up about it. Unfortunately tea parties/anti-capitalism rallies/anti-abortion rallies/anti-religion rallies/anti-intelligence rallies seemed to have gripped our nation as our fundamental civil liberties quietly slip away.

 

[sandorski]

I can understand why he was initially Flagged/Deported, but to wash hands of Responsibility after the fact is indefensible.

 

[Jaskalas]

Andrew Sullivan today referred to "the cult of the inerrant leader": the inability and refusal of our political class to acknowledge wrongdoing, apologize for it, and be held accountable. The Maher Arar case is a pathological illustration of that syndrome.

We'll hold them accountable! By electing more men like Bush and Obama. Romney is likely next in line.

 

[Craig234]

So you're telling me Obama is risking having his base turn out next election so he can woo right-wingers who aren't going to vote for him anyways?

That it's that, instead of 'that'???

Why then did his tune change basically as soon as he was POTUS? He started on his re-election campaign almost immediately? I guess that would explain him being in campaign mode for so long...but still........

Chuck

He's not after right-wing votes, he's after the votes of so-called moderates that can be influenced by attacks from the right.

As long as the right is frothing at the mouth with birther attacks and calls of "Marxist!" and pictures of Obama as Hitler, he's safe, the moderates will not pay attention.

But if there was a terrorist attack, he'd be very vulnerable with the moderates to the spin the right would put on it how it was all his 'change' to be 'soft on terrorism' to blame.

Note, there does not need to be a rational substance. If the right attacks him for not torturing the families of suspected terrorists, and he stands up to them, the next attack is his fault for being 'soft'.

Ironically, all the left's attacks on Bush for not respecting human rights on terrorists gave Bush a sort of political immunity for blame if there was an attack. 9/11 happens with him? No problem, he did all he could.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

To those that fault the terrorists or the government, the unfortunate truth is we are the ones to blame. We have elected these folks and do not get worked up about it. Unfortunately tea parties/anti-capitalism rallies/anti-abortion rallies/anti-religion rallies/anti-intelligence rallies seemed to have gripped our nation as our fundamental civil liberties quietly slip away.

This is what I was getting at when I asked if someone was an American.

Of the people, by the people...

 

[chucky2]

He's not after right-wing votes, he's after the votes of so-called moderates that can be influenced by attacks from the right.

As long as the right is frothing at the mouth with birther attacks and calls of "Marxist!" and pictures of Obama as Hitler, he's safe, the moderates will not pay attention.

But if there was a terrorist attack, he'd be very vulnerable with the moderates to the spin the right would put on it how it was all his 'change' to be 'soft on terrorism' to blame.

Note, there does not need to be a rational substance. If the right attacks him for not torturing the families of suspected terrorists, and he stands up to them, the next attack is his fault for being 'soft'.

Ironically, all the left's attacks on Bush for not respecting human rights on terrorists gave Bush a sort of political immunity for blame if there was an attack. 9/11 happens with him? No problem, he did all he could.

Er, that's great and all, but, the only reason those Moderates voted for Obama was because of BDS, thereby F'ing whoever ran for the Republicans. Jesus Christ could have ran as a Republican and even he would have had a hard time winning.

How is his current strategery going to keep those Moderates from staying on his side? Most anyone I know who is not far left F'ing cannot stand Obama at this point, and most I know are definitely in the Moderate column, even still.

Just saying, his strategy of keeping Moderates and any potential not-too-far-right folks is highly quirky.

Chuck

 

[Atreus21]

Are you an American?

Yes.

 

[Atreus21]

You really don't understand history, how government works.

Let me give you an example.

WWI had the Germans sink the Lusitania - an act that was part of the move to war.

But the British goverment did something later that I'm bringing this up for. A British man had some phony 'medallions' made that looked like Germany made them, sarcastically, for people he knew expressing his outrage for the sinking. The government got ahold of them, and had many more made and knowingly spread the false story they were real, and a story that German children had a celebration on the anniversary of the sinking, to stir the public's hate of Germany.

For that matter, the real location of the Lusitania, and the fact it had munitions on board as the Germans had alleged, were hidden by the government, to increase outrage.

There are always things to be found with 'the other side' that can by hyped - sometimes more real than others.

The terrorists might do wrongs, but the blame doesn't entirely lie with them when the government uses them to hype them and influence opinions.

Remember the first gulf war when it was Saddam who invaded Kuwait - but when the public didn't back war, President Bush's former chief of staff, now at a US PR firm, led a propaganda campaign, paid for by the Kuwaiti government, with the US media widely covering the lies of a woman who was unknown to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, with stories of Iraqi troops taking babies out of incubators? Saddam didn't do that.

You are too much an apologist for authority here, who sometimes manipulate opinion.

I wouldn't call myself an apologist, but you're right in that I give them some slack.

I agree that the government is at fault for whatever wrong it does, regardless of the impetus that brought it about. I extend that attitude to individuals as well (one wrong doesn't justify another). But if we are fair, we cannot and should not ignore mitigating circumstances: The government became more tyrannical after a terrorist attack. It's an expected response to increase security after this, which necessarily displaces some freedoms.

I extend to Obama the same relative leniency I extended to Bush: In the end, they're only one man. Being a leader means making decisions when sufficient knowledge is unavailable, which means your every decision is scrutinized to the last letter. And that's a bitch.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

No, he's correct.



First, they're not really 'conservatives', they're right-wing; second, many 'conservatives' are deluded, not understanding the real right-wing agenda (protect the rich/powerful).

For the most part, yes, the right wing is almost entirely the morally bankrupt political segment, however little the miguided minions are fooled otherwise.

The liberal bad morality is pretty much bread crumbs, rare exceptions, bad apples.



Yes, apart from the emotional, knee jerk, irrational react with rage blind response by the right, what does that phrase actually mean?

Simply that there are limits to the concentration of wealth that's good for society, that there's a point past which you allow the wealth of the nation to be owned by fewer and fewer people, with the rest poorer and poorer compared to them, through policies on taxation and other economic areas, that's bad for the country's people and even the economy. That we don't need to emulate South American nations where '14 families' might own 98% of the land while people starve.

But you aren't rational. You see what wasn't said - the government coming into every white American's home and taking their silverware to hand out to Africans.



As I recall, that was more a right-wing policy suggestion that Obama co-opted and the Republican only then, partly, denounced simplyfor opposing him.

That aside, the bottom line is that it's not a bad thing for every American to have health insurance - remember, progressives want single-payer, not mandatory private purchase.



That's idiotic. Of course people can pursue what's moral through politics. That's like saying 'money can't be used for morals', no matter if it's given to the poor or disease cure.

Political efforts can be morally motvated, or greed motivated, or for that matter idiocy motivated as with some ideologues.

I say again you can't mix morals and politics because one persons morals are not anothers.
You bitch and whine about the evit Right Wingers protecting the rich. You do know that a lot of those "evil right wingers" went from rags to riches. It's an amazing concept but not being a lazy fucking leach on society has it's rewards. Work hard and work towards your goals and you can accomplish great things.
Be a fucking leach and sit on your ass doing nothing and vote Dem and try to live off the success of others. You don't comprehend or are so jaded and bitter that you wont admit that the Democratic party's whole reason for being is to keep the poor people down. If they didn't have poor people to pander too they wouldn't have a voter base. They are the ones that impliment policies that make people poor. They just blame the outcome on someone else.
Like the Healthcare Bill. As the AT&T report showed, it would be significantly cheaper for AT&T to canel all health care coverage for their employees and pay the $2000 fine. If all the companies adopted this, it wouldn't directly be the Health Care bills fault, the evil captialistic pigs running the companies would be blamed.

 

[BoberFett]

You can always count on the apologists to make excuses for Dear Leader. Somehow everything the Obama administration fucks up is the fault of Republicans.

 

[tk149]

Assuming all facts posted in the OP are true, the entire situation is indefensible and morally egregious.

Obama and Bush share the blame for this, although I blame Bush more since he started it. Obama just doesn't think "change" applies in this matter.

 

[Fern]

So, a Syrian/canadian citizen was sent to his home country (in this case Syria) and that is an abduction/kidnapping?

I'm not familiar with this person/case, and the article doesn't say, but I'm curious why the US gov detained him and sent him home? Also, what was the Canadian government's involvement? Did Syria request him?

If a country contacts another and asks that one of their citizens be returned, normally countries do it. Elian Gonzales was returned to Cuba when they asked, our government even used force against US citizens (his family members) to make it happen, and the kid wasn't suspected of any crimes.

Fern