Author Topic: "A black sheriff?!": The Official Topic of Obama and New Era American Politics  (Read 1870760 times)

0 Members and 10 Guests are viewing this topic.

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Don't forget "activist judge who legislates from the bench".

LESBIAN activist judge who legislates from the bench.  I mean, it would be one thing if she were a lesbian into bondage, but APPARENTLY SHE'S NOT!
yar

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
I was listening to Michael Savage (lol) and he said she's a liberal crazy batshit woman  :o
010

Mandark

  • Icon
[youtube=560,345]X6MsGsNkFqI[/youtube]

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
"sounds like she was chief prostitute" :smug
010

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Also, William Rehnquist had no "judicial experience" when he was nominated, and of course there's a long history of justices with no judicial experience. This is like the push to make the oil spill "Obama's Katrina," this time it being "Obama's Harriet Miers."
010

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
solicitor general/clerk for THURGOOD MASHALL/dean of a premier law school is the new community organizer
010

Mandark

  • Icon
The worst thing is I think Obama could have made a much more solid, liberal pick than Kagan (Greenwald, Scott Lemieux, and Dahlia Lithwick don't like her), but I'm going to wind up defending her because the criticism from the right is going to be just as misguided and batshit as it always is.

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
so basically, we libtards can't hate on kagan because we'd be helping the insane in their ludicrous agenda? fuck that. i want a straight-up marxist on the court. better yet, i want hopey to cold nominate richard dawkins just to make heads asplode.
duc

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Obama will probably get another SC pick in his term, I wonder if he'll appoint a liberal then
010

Eric P

  • I DESERVE the gold. I will GET the gold!
  • Icon
Obama will probably get another SC pick in his term, I wonder if he'll appoint a liberal then

if he were going to, i think he would have already
Tonya

Human Snorenado

  • Stay out of Malibu, Lebowski
  • Icon
Obama will probably get another SC pick in his term, I wonder if he'll appoint a liberal then

if he were going to, i think he would have already

Pretty much.  Sotomayor was pretty indicative of what Obama wants in a SC Justice- middle of the road on most things.  A shame, really.
yar

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Seems like some people are excited about the senate unanimously voting to "audit" the fed, something Ron Paul, Alan Grayson, and others have been saying for some time. But...it only applies to the 2 trillion dollars used within the last couple years to address the financial meltdown. Obama would have vetoed his own bill if a real open and through audit was included in the bill, so this quick turn around in support should  really tell people this is a toothless affair.

I hate to go all  :hans1 but jeez
010

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Ma man, Cenk Uygur knows the score:

Quote
I have no idea what kind of Justice Elena Kagan is going to be, and almost no one else does either. She might be a terrific progressive or she might move the Court to the right, as some fear. My problem with her isn't her stated positions, as she doesn't have very many.

My problem with her is my problem with Obama. Cheney and Bush moved the ball 80 yards down-field, whether that was on executive power, warrantless wiretapping, pre-emptive wars or just about any other issue you can think of. And Obama's bold and brilliant response is to move the ball 10 yards in the opposite direction. Not good enough. Not remotely good enough.

His every action drips of conciliation, compromise, gradualism and incrementalism. The conservatives take miles of ideologically territory and convert it into the status quo. Then Obama brags about converting inches back. This isn't change we can believe in. This is pocket change.

So, when conservatives yelled at him about trying Gitmo detainees in civilian courts, his instinct was to back down. When they yelled at him for giving detainees Miranda rights, he is now on the verge of backing down. When they yelled at him about foreign wars, he escalated them. When they yelled at him about the $50 billion "bailout" fund in the financial reform bill, he asked to take it out. When they yelled at him about offshore oil drilling, he gave them more. How did that turn out?

Did you know that after Joe Wilson yelled out "You lie!" on the issue of how immigrants would be treated in the healthcare bill, they quietly gave into him and changed that provision? Is there anything that this guy can't get bullied on? Well, of course, there is. Everything from the left.

So, that brings us to Elena Kagan. Bush picked arguably the two most conservative judges in the country to fill his Supreme Court vacancies. He easily shoved it down the throat of the Democrats. What has been Obama's response - let me pick a centrist!

He can't help himself. He loves establishment players. Look at nearly all of his appointments. Rahm Emanuel, Tim Geithner, Ben Bernanke. These are the pillars of the establishment. What kind of change is this? He nominated for the head of the Fed the same exact guy who helped destroy our economy for George W. Bush. He can't help himself. He is a politician through and through, and he desperately wants the approval of those around him. And those around him now are the power players in Washington.

So, we get the blank slate of Elena Kagan, with almost no record to speak of, except her affinity for executive power. Joy. Could she turn into a lion of progressivism? Sure. But why do we have to hope against hope on that? Why can't we get a progressive Justice if we elected a progressive president? Because the ugly truth is that we didn't elect a progressive president.

Obama (and Rahm Emanuel) are going to love it if progressives attack Kagan. They will brandish that as a signal that they are soooo centrist. They will crow to their Washington reporter friends that they are being attacked from the left and brag about how much credibility that gives them. And when they win this nomination (non)fight, they will declare victory again, as if they accomplished some major objective. No one loves beating up progressives and winning easy battles in DC more than this administration.

My guess is that at some future date this article will be misinterpreted to say that I argued against Elena Kagan. Except for executive power (where I am as progressive as anyone in the country), I am a judicial moderate. Kagan might wind up being exactly my kind of justice. And so far, Sonia Sotomayor has been great - and Obama picked her (which some will argue is evidence to "trust" him again). My point isn't that Kagan is terrible or can't do the job. My point isn't that Obama secretly wants to pick a conservative (or a progressive, as his defenders would claim). My point is that Obama has no intention of burning up political capital (according to his perception) by publicly standing up and fighting for for his own so-called side and will defer to the center or right-wing given any opportunity to do so. And this is another example of that.

Elena Kagan - safe, no record, never challenged power in any meaningful way, never stood up for progressive ideology, beloved by the establishment in Washington - the perfect Obama candidate. I'm tired of it. The ball is down against our own goal line and the guy thinks he just scored a touchdown.

He is never going to throw the ball down the field. If you like two yard pick-ups by a running-back going straight up the middle, you'll love Obama. It's the Eddie George presidency. What he doesn't seem to get is that the other side is eventually going to get the ball back and then it won't seem like a major accomplishment that we went from our own two-yard line to our own twelve-yard line. It'll be viewed as a tremendous disappointment.

Ichirou

  • Merry Christmas
  • Senior Member
Pretty much.  Obama sucks.
PS4

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Good point on him constantly backing down on issues big and small. I've been in numerous arguments with friends, defending Obama/legislation only to be undercut by the type of caving that suggests the other side is right.

"the bill doesn't offer health care to illegal aliens"
"well why did democrats just revise the bill? :smug"

"the bill is not a fucking bailout"
"well why did they just yank that 50b huh :smug"

"how can you have a constitutional fetish but act like Miranda rights are irrelevant?"
"oh yea, well how come even Obama disagrees with you? :smug"


If this was an episode of Lost, these various caves would be spliced with flashbacks of Obama trying to get his father's attention.  
010

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Most disappointing socialist dictator ever.  :'(

Ichirou

  • Merry Christmas
  • Senior Member
Arizona gov. signs bill targeting ethnic studies


PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has signed a bill targeting a school district's ethnic studies program, hours after a report by United Nations human rights experts condemned the measure.

State schools chief Tom Horne, who has pushed the bill for years, said he believes the Tucson school district's Mexican-American studies program teaches Latino students that they are oppressed by white people.


Public schools should not be encouraging students to resent a particular race, he said.

"It's just like the old South, and it's long past time that we prohibited it," Horne said.

Brewer's signature on the bill Tuesday comes less than a month after she signed the nation's toughest crackdown on illegal immigration — a move that ignited international backlash amid charges the measure would encourage racial profiling of Hispanics. The governor has said profiling will not be tolerated.

The measure signed Tuesday prohibits classes that advocate ethnic solidarity, that are designed primarily for students of a particular race or that promote resentment toward a certain ethnic group.

The Tucson Unified School District program offers specialized courses in African-American, Mexican-American and Native-American studies that focus on history and literature and include information about the influence of a particular ethnic group.

For example, in the Mexican-American Studies program, an American history course explores the role of Hispanics in the Vietnam War, and a literature course emphasizes Latino authors.

Horne, a Republican running for attorney general, said the program promotes "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites while segregating students by race. He's been trying to restrict it ever since he learned that Hispanic civil rights activist Dolores Huerta told students in 2006 that "Republicans hate Latinos."

District officials said the program doesn't promote resentment, and they believe it would comply with the new law.

The measure doesn't prohibit classes that teach about the history of a particular ethnic group, as long as the course is open to all students and doesn't promote ethnic solidarity or resentment.

About 1,500 students at six high schools are enrolled in the Tucson district's program. Elementary and middle school students also are exposed to the ethnic studies curriculum. The district is 56 percent Hispanic, with nearly 31,000 Latino students.

Sean Arce, director of the district's Mexican-American Studies program, said last month that students perform better in school if they see in the curriculum people who look like them.

"It's a highly engaging program that we have, and it's unfortunate that the state Legislature would go so far as to censor these classes," he said.

Six UN human rights experts released a statement earlier Tuesday saying all people have the right to learn about their own cultural and linguistic heritage, they said.

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman didn't directly address the UN criticism, but said Brewer supports the bill's goal.

"The governor believes ... public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people," Senseman said.

Arce could not immediately be reached after Brewer signed the bill late Tuesday.
PS4

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
All k-12 history classes are basically a joke, full of biases and white-washing.  at least let them choose to hear biases that support their own race.

It's a common joke among college history professors to call the intro level history courses iconoclasm 101 because often students have no knowledge of history that they didn't get out of a Texas-Cali approved textbook.

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
I'd go make a sign that says, "Support institutional sabotage. Vote Republican!" and stand outside there.
©ZH

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Conservatives/republicans have been targeting ethnic studies for years, and look at them with disdain. I've taken a few African American studies...it's nothing revolutionary. Anyone who complains about "white bashing" doesn't know (or doesn't care) about actual history. Seems like the point of this history revision is to highlight a republican freeing the slaves, ignore post-reconstruction oppression, then breeze through civil rights while praising MLK and demonizing just about everyone else who got more fed up/loud. And even that seems kinda new because when I was homeschooled all my Christian history books said MLK fought the good fight until he started criticizing Vietnam and showing sympathy for communism.
010

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
What these people want is a history book that says the US is completely awesome. America never did anything wrong. And the rest of the world is inferior.

Unless the history book stands by those principles at all times then its clearly a biased piece of liberal work.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
Slavery doesn't fit their purpose...well unless they use it as a comparison to the way Obama/gov is treating tax paying Amuricans today
010

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Not that I've heard of. It's NRA propaganda designed to scare people into buying more shit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123984046627223159.html

Quote
Many gun dealers are fanning the fear on the Internet and in other advertising that President Obama will try to restrict the Second Amendment right to bear arms -- despite signs that major changes in federal weapons regulations are unlikely. The White House says there are no imminent plans to reinstate the federal assault-weapons ban. "The president supports the Second Amendment and respects the tradition of gun ownership in this country," a White House spokesman said.

Restoring the ban on assault weapons has limited support in Congress, even among Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have signaled reluctance in recent weeks to renewing the ban.

FUD
©ZH

Mupepe

  • Icon
Prices of ammunition have also gone up.  Most shops around here will tell you it's because Obama is getting ready to levy a new tax on ammunition or ban it altogether.  But lots of manufacturers have just said that prices of materials have gone up

Prices on used guns have begun skyrocketing too.  I walk into gun shops here and hear dumbasses always talking about "You better get it before Obama makes it illegal."  "You want that AR 15?  Get it now because in 6 months you won't be able to." 

It's fucking embarrassing to love guns :'(

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
He hasn't said anything about guns. Makes for a great way to sell guns/ammunition though.
010

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
It's the same dumb shit anytime a Democrat gets into office on the national level.

"He's going to take away my guns!"

Actually I'm all for more gun control but Democrats on the national level abandoned these ideas along time ago as vote losers. Same as they abandoned the idea of reducing defense spending.

Eric P

  • I DESERVE the gold. I will GET the gold!
  • Icon
Slavery doesn't fit their purpose...well unless they use it as a comparison to the way Obama/gov is treating tax paying Amuricans today

as john lennon said "the tax payer is the distinguished black fellow of the world"
Tonya

Mupepe

  • Icon
I will be pissed if they take my guns away  :maf

But I don't believe Obama or anyone in my lifetime will do it.

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
Quick question for folks who follow politics a lot more closely than I do: Has Obama introduced any gun control legislation or discussed introducing any?

He did just the exact opposite. Well, he didn't introduce any legislation, but he signed into law two bills that allows people to carry guns on National Parks and Amtrak. The NRA however, is making a killing with their fear mongering, so it's not like they'll be acknowledging such things any time soon.

Amusingly enough, Obama's probably the only president I can think of that's gotten an "F" grade from both the NRA and the Brady Association. :lol

Mupepe

  • Icon
I just don't understand.  I mean, don't they realize black people love guns??  Tupac??  Biggie?!  All the classic hood movies!

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
I guess Obama's not a real black like Bill Clinton.
©@©™

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
I will be pissed if they take my guns away  :maf

But I don't believe Obama or anyone in my lifetime will do it.

Both my roommates are completely and utterly confident that Obama will do that at some point in time. Sure, he hasn't even brought up the issue and has eased regulations in fact, but they JUST KNOW that wascally socialist has these fiendish thoughts in his mind.



In other news, this is pretty awesome. Roger Ebert tweeted this on Cinco de Mayo:

Quote
Kids who wear American Flag t-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.

Which didn't sit well with the teabaggers:

Quote
“I mean honestly. How many pieces need to fall off @ebertchicago before he gets the hint to shut the (expletive) up” and “You know, @ebertchicago, I’m not as expert on flag etiquette as you. Tell me, which do I fly when you die of cancer?”

Which led to Ebert responding:

Quote
    The impression is spreading that I have drawn an equation between the American flag and the hammer and the sickle. I'm currently serving for target practice on some right-wing websites, and a group of Tweeters are having jolly fun portraying me as an America hater and worse.[..]

    [My post] was tweeted at the height of the discussion over five white California kids who wore matching t-shirts to school on Cinco de Mayo, and were sent home by their school. This inspired predictable outrage in the usual circles.
    Tweeted from lonestarag05: Its the USA not Mexico. They are allowed to be proud of their country. I wonder sometimes why you even stay here.

    Many others informed me that Americans have the right to be proud of our flag, and wear it on T-shirts. Of course they do. That isn't the question. It's not what my Tweet said. What I suggested, in its 108 letters, is that we could all use a little empathy. I wish I had worded it better.

    Let's begin with a fact few Americans know: Celebrating Cinco de Mayo is an American custom. The first such celebration was held in California in 1863, and they have continued without interruption. In Mexico itself it is not observed, except in the state of Puebla--the site of Mexico's underdog victory over the French on May 5, 1862.

    Cinco de Mayo's purpose is to celebrate Mexican-American culture in the United States. We are a nation of immigrants, and have many such observances, for example St. Patrick's Day parades, which began in Boston in 1737 and not in Ireland until 1931. Or Pulaski Day, officially established in Illinois in 1977, and not observed in Poland. The first Chinese New Year's parade was held in San Francisco in the 1860s, and such parades began only later in China. In Chicago this August we will have the 81st annual Bud Billiken Parade, one of the largest parades in America, celebrating the African-American heritage.[..]

    The question is obviously not whether Americans, or anyone else, has the right to wear our flag on their t-shirts. But empathetic people realize much depends on context. If, on Cinco de Mayo, you turn up at your school with a large Mexican-American student population wearing such shirts, are you (1) joining in the spirit of the holiday, or (2) looking for trouble?

    I suggest you intend to insult your fellow students. Not because they do not respect THEIR flag, but because you do not respect their heritage. That there are five of you in matching shirts demonstrates you want to be deliberately provocative.

Pinko commie liberal AND hated A Clockwork Orange.

:bow :bow :bow

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
Ebert annihilated everyone. :lol
PSP

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
Quote
Pinko commie liberal...


:hyper

Quote
...AND hated A Clockwork Orange.

........ >:( >:( >:( >:(
püp

Joe Molotov

  • I'm much more humble than you would understand.
  • Administrator
And no wearing a rainbow colored shirt on Heterosexual Pride Day (March 14th), either!
©@©™

Mandark

  • Icon
Quick question for folks who follow politics a lot more closely than I do: Has Obama introduced any gun control legislation or discussed introducing any?

Hasn't introduced any yet, isn't considering it now, and won't in the future.

On the topic of constructing one's alternate realities, here's a couple of very thoughtful posts on the subject by an ex-evangelical, with the taking-off point being the (apparently popular) conspiracy theory that Proctor and Gamble is run by Satanists.

Though really, the whole phenomenon could be summed up by my favorite blog comment ever: "It's the main lesson of the Internet age, that something that's untrue is much harder to challenge than something that's true. The most obvious reason being that because it's untrue, people are, necessarily, believing it because they want to."

Van Cruncheon

  • live mas or die trying
  • Banned
Quick question for folks who follow politics a lot more closely than I do: Has Obama introduced any gun control legislation or discussed introducing any?

Hasn't introduced any yet, isn't considering it now, and won't in the future.

On the topic of constructing one's alternate realities, here's a couple of very thoughtful posts on the subject by an ex-evangelical, with the taking-off point being the (apparently popular) conspiracy theory that Proctor and Gamble is run by Satanists.

Though really, the whole phenomenon could be summed up by my favorite blog comment ever: "It's the main lesson of the Internet age, that something that's untrue is much harder to challenge than something that's true. The most obvious reason being that because it's untrue, people are, necessarily, believing it because they want to."

good posts, there. they really reaffirm my argument to my librul pals that the whole tea party amalgam is NOT *really* about racism, or libertarianism, or government: it is about LOOKING DOWN ON SOMEONE ELSE and that particularly american breed of self-righteousness.
duc

Mandark

  • Icon
In which I continue to spam links.
« Reply #9278 on: May 13, 2010, 01:59:06 AM »
You oughta get a kick out of this too, if you haven't seen it already.  And here is a bit by Slacktivist on empathy and ignorance.

If you can get past how depressing the political scene is in this country, it's really interesting as a case study in human folly.

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
I doubt any president would care to bring serious gun control (beyond automatic weapons) if there wasn't something like a presidential assassination to ignite the debate.

Most people are probably more in favor of increased spending on police forces than decreasing say, the number of handguns.

We just don't live in a society where people can instinctively understand the danger of a small, concealable, and disposable gun.

Dickie Dee

  • It's not the band I hate, it's their fans.
  • Senior Member
Though really, the whole phenomenon could be summed up by my favorite blog comment ever: "It's the main lesson of the Internet age, that something that's untrue is much harder to challenge than something that's true. The most obvious reason being that because it's untrue, people are, necessarily, believing it because they want to."

reality annihilated  :'(



The extent to which modern conservatism has become a post-modern movement divorced from any sense of rational empirical thought never ceases to amaze me.
___

Beardo

  • Member
You guys realize that almost nobody in Mexico actually cares about May 5th. It's almost exclusively an american phenomenon.


Quote
In other news, this is pretty awesome. Roger Ebert tweeted this on Cinco de Mayo:

Quote
Kids who wear American Flag t-shirts on 5 May should have to share a lunchroom table with those who wear a hammer and sickle on 4 July.

Yeah, totally the same thing.  ::)

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
Wow, Beardo, it's like you ignored everything Ebert wrote. :lol
PSP

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
  :lol

Beardo  :lol

The Fake Shemp

  • Ebola Carrier
PSP

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Re: In which I continue to spam links.
« Reply #9285 on: May 13, 2010, 10:12:14 AM »
You oughta get a kick out of this too, if you haven't seen it already.  And here is a bit by Slacktivist on empathy and ignorance.

If you can get past how depressing the political scene is in this country, it's really interesting as a case study in human folly.
I enjoyed that.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 10:50:49 AM by Zero Hero »
©ZH

Eric P

  • I DESERVE the gold. I will GET the gold!
  • Icon
I seriously need to stop going to Andrew Sullivan's site

Quote
But I'm guessing. We're all guessing. None of us has a clue - including those who say they are close to her. There are so many things we don't know about this person about to get enormous power over us for life. Which is why I have so far found this nomination so disturbing.

::)

IS SHE A SEKRET MUSLIM KENYAN LESBIAN?
Tonya

TakingBackSunday

  • Banana Grabber
  • Senior Member
Not to mention his gross over-exaggeration of the Supreme Court's "enormous power over us."  Shut up, the majority of this country can't even name three justices, not to mention landmark and influential decisions.
püp

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Andrew Sullivan has simply moved from one group think on the right to another version of it on the left. I've never liked that dude.

What's been interesting as someone who supported someone else in the democratic primaries other than Obama (although I always liked Obama and still do) has been watching a certain brand of liberal move from unrealistic idealism to slightly annoying hyper sensitive prat.

Another observation I have is that whether its the left or the right, the main problem the base always has with their president is that the reason things aren't working out as they expected is because he isn't as liberal as he needs to be or in the case of George W not as conservative as he needs to be. It's always analysis based around the concept that a president needs to listen to them more and if he only did that then everything would be perfect.

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
So dem leadership is holding off on gutting Lincoln's tough derivative amendment until after her primary, so she can continue pretending to be a populist. 
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/sources-dems-seek-to-protect-lincoln-by-delaying-action-on-wall-street-reform.php?ref=fpa

I hope to go she loses. Even if Halter ultimately loses in November (it's not like Lincoln is going to win then anyway).
010

Dickie Dee

  • It's not the band I hate, it's their fans.
  • Senior Member
Another observation I have is that whether its the left or the right, the main problem the base always has with their president is that the reason things aren't working out as they expected is because he isn't as liberal as he needs to be or in the case of George W not as conservative as he needs to be. It's always analysis based around the concept that a president needs to listen to them more and if he only did that then everything would be perfect.

Perhaps, but it's hard to look at the administrations attempts to acheive some non-existent middle ground as nothing but disastrous.

This isn't from someone asking for any ideological purity from them, I just want them to get shit done. Having them and others continually see bipartisanship as not a means to an end but an end itself is a constant source of frustration. They're constantly kneecapping themselves.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 02:09:05 PM by Mamacint »
___

Stoney Mason

  • So Long and thanks for all the fish
  • Senior Member
Perhaps, but it's hard to look at the administrations attempts to acheive some non-existent middle ground as nothing but disastrous.

This isn't from someone asking for any ideological purity from them, I just want them to get shit done. Having them and others continually see bipartisanship as not a means to an end but an end itself is a constant source of frustration. They're constantly kneecapping themselves.

I don't necessarily disagree. And I don't necessarily want to re-argue old battles from the primary days but that's also part of the package I believe when you run with a lot of the rhetoric that Obama ran and won with.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe some of this was foreseeable and if Democrats wanted something else then perhaps they should have nominated something else. (I want to make this clear this isn't me trying to rehash old Hillary versus Obama or any other democratic battles. Just making an observation.) At least on this level Republicans are more realistic and sensible to me than the average liberal is because they always know what they are getting in a president but liberals seem to be constantly surprised or disappointed on this front.

Of course it doesn't help when the other party is completely obstructionist on a historic level. I've had a very interesting relationship with Obama. I was never as idealistic ( I would actually term it unrealistic) about Obama as many other dems were before he was elected and now I'm neither as pessimistic about him as a lot of Dems are I sense. But perhaps that's just because I'm more cynical about what is actually accomplishable through politics and a president in general than most people.   
« Last Edit: May 13, 2010, 02:22:59 PM by Stoney Mason »

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
As a former Hillary supporter I guess I could pull the "I told you so" card right about now :smug

On a serious note though, bipartisanship can be a good thing. It's not a good thing when it becomes a vapid media construct/barometer of success. Republicans are obstructing government at an all time high yet have successfully framed every legislative battle as Obama not talking to them, not believing they have ideas, etc. Sometimes it's justified I guess; Reid didn't show the jobs bill to republicans iirc. Then there are cases like the financial regulation bill, which Dodd made bipartisan by pairing up democrats and republicans to work on specific aspects of the bill. Or health care where many of the most popular parts of the bill actually are republican ideas. Yet both bills were labeled as partisan, thousand page rams jammed down the throat of the American people.

You can't compromise with people who's sole intention is to see you fail. While I understand every bill will need at least one republican to pass, knee capping your bills to do so isn't the way to go. Republicans have basically driven the political narrative of all these battles, and it starts with complaints about bipartisanship. Then democrats cave on an issue to gain support, only to be rebuffed again. Before you know it, the entire process has been compromised just to get something done, or to get the media on your side. It hasn't worked at all.

It seems like the financial regulation bill is moving further to the left, but who knows how long that will last; in the link a few posts up, I get the feeling things will go to shit sooner rather than later. It's clear republicans don't respect Obama/the administration and feel they can play this game until November. I remember thinking things would be different after the stimulus fight, then after the health care fight.
010

Oblivion

  • Senior Member
The problem with Obama isn't necessarily his attempts at reaching out to republicans -it's actually good politics imo -, but rather his constantly infuriating desire to cave in to republican demands before even showing up at the table.

brawndolicious

  • Nylonhilist
  • Senior Member
I was always saying it..

spoiler (click to show/hide)
Biden 2008
[close]

Phoenix Dark

  • I got no game it's just some bitches understand my story
  • Senior Member
[youtube=560,345]kSyOEnerVQc[/youtube]
010

Brehvolution

  • Until at last, I threw down my enemy and smote his ruin upon the mountainside.
  • Senior Member
Fucking distinguished mentally-challenged fellows.

Did mornin joe ever respond to hannitys fake conservative slam?
©ZH

AdmiralViscen

  • Murdered in the digital realm
  • Senior Member
Not to mention his gross over-exaggeration of the Supreme Court's "enormous power over us."  Shut up, the majority of this country can't even name three justices, not to mention landmark and influential decisions.

Palin sure can't LOL

Eric P

  • I DESERVE the gold. I will GET the gold!
  • Icon
Not to mention his gross over-exaggeration of the Supreme Court's "enormous power over us."  Shut up, the majority of this country can't even name three justices, not to mention landmark and influential decisions.

Palin sure can't LOL

i think she can name 3 conservative linchpin cases.
Tonya

Dickie Dee

  • It's not the band I hate, it's their fans.
  • Senior Member
[youtube=560,345]kSyOEnerVQc[/youtube]

Jesus fuckin Christ
___