NEWS: Barack "Blunder" Obama

I wouldn't say he hurt me feelings so much as convey to me that taking the time and effort to research an arguement didn't pay off. In terms of hurt feelings, I've been called a lot worse than what he's said to me, and remain unphased.

I believe I made a point that Obama's sincerity is in doubt due to his frequent inconsistancy (a point which clearly bothers FTR). Have fun at the bar. I make it a point not to drink myself.

PS. Seriously, I'm clicking the hell out of the reply button and it's not working.
Edit: I'm adding that incase Bean is reading.

To his credit, nobody specified that the example not involve subsequent vivisection of his hamfisted attempts at discourse.

But why do you believe inconsistency equates insincerity? And how do you define inconsistency? Switching from one position to another? Switching then switching back? Certainly people can change their minds, no? If people just developed an opinion, then never allowed it to be influenced we wouldn't have advanced very far as a species...

Anyway, if you wish to define those terms in relation to politics (and or Obama) I'd be more than willing to listen.

ALSO: The reply button is working fine for me. Maybe you need to restart your computer of navigator or something.

I have no problem with changing one's position. I myself used to be a liberal minded person. However Obama changes his position more frequently than, in my mind, is reasonable. Changing his positions directly after securing his party's nomination seems a bit disingenious. Whose to say he won't change it to some crazy position the second he gets elected.

Would you mind listing where he you think he has unacceptably changed his opinion?

This is selective memory, considering how rapidly and vastly your candidate has changed his positions over the years. Seriously, on the "changed one's mind" scoreboard, Obama's not in the same league as McCain.

Of course they won't vote! That's what young Liberals are best at! They have it down to a science! They will debate on how liberal their canidate is, claim he is either the same as the other, or just unworthy, sit at home on election day and complain about it, and then proceed to get a dick several sizes larger than their own guys shoved directly up their fucking ass, un-lubed, for the next four years. You would think after the last election they would know better, but no, they fucking don't. This bullshit is a time honored tradition - one step at a time is completely lost on them. They keep holdin' out for that one day everyone listens to Dark Side high, or smashes a window to Killing in the Name, or whatever your generational touchstone is that will never fucking happen, and suddenly people will "get it", and kick start the revolution. It doesn't work that way, and it never will.

How do you think Republicans keep winning all these elections? Most people in this country hate their ignorant guts, but they just don't fucking vote half the time. Meanwhile, hard line Republicans are a bunch of stubborn fucking sheep who will vote for anything with an "R" next to it because they're terrified of queers and the diminishing respect for their outdated religion... or they're just crazy rich white guys. Either way, the end result is the same, they vote, we don't, and America takes another three steps back.

Y'know, I have lost respect for most of the political process in this country, the media, the politicians, the people, but I blame the liberals, especially the non-voting variety, the most. Absolutely fucking useless, and they should all know better. They have all the reasons in the world to take these assholes out, and even when it's served to them on a silver fucking platter, they still rush to grab their ankles when something doesn't go their way. It's fucking bullshit! I can't even be pretend to be polite about it anymore, and I'm sick of it. Bullshit I tell you!

Please refrain from stating I will not vote. I will vote. Anyone who claims otherwise is a charlatan and a coward. The above poster would be an example. Please stick to the evidence at hand.

Thank you and that is all.

Please carry on with your discussion about how I am the problem and you all rooting for a man who would have been considered a conservative in 1975 is awesome.

You know it's too late to go with Ron Paul, right ?

SG doesn't need a Ross Perot. Quit being one.

You have a reasonably policy. People should not drink themselves. Doing so gives a creepy Soylent Green ambiance.

I think that you meant to say "Personally, I make it a point not to drink" instead of "I make it a point not to drink myself." The former statement means that you try to avoid drinking [alcohol]. The latter statement means that you don't think that humans (or possibly solids in general) make very good beverages. In American slang, it also means that you're not hip to snowballing. While that statement could be quite informative, it would belong on a different board.

Out of curiosity, how do you intend to vote? You are, of course, entitled to privacy on the matter if you don't wish to share.

I was talking in general terms there, as I was responding to a general question, and where did I even praise Obama in that entire rant? All I said is liberal idealism could possibly result in another win for Republicans, and lead us another step closer to the abyss then we ought to be. I'm saying he's preferable, and greatly so, and that we aren't in a position to be picky, but I didn't say he was perfect or "awesome". You stick to the evidence at hand.

In your case, since you brought it up, I don't know what the numbers are. If Obama's got the state on a lock, go ahead and vote for whichever joke candidate you want, because third parties ought to get more recognition, but otherwise, yes, you are part of problem, because that's exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, and it will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. If you plan on voting for McCain out of spite however, that's just childish.

And what's with the conservative in 1975 comment? Are you comparing Obama to Ford?

Thank God...

Do you have scientific data to back up this "most people in this country hate them" claim? Because I'm pretty sure you're way off base on that one.

The brand is suffering right now, yes, because honestly G.W. Bush is an idiot and not a very good President, Republican or otherwise, but the core beliefs and values of the Republican party are still those of most americans; and as recently as 4 years ago the Republican President had overwhelming popularity.

I'm surprised people are surprised by the the defection of a obama supporter.


Obama's team used a strategy they thought would win the primaries. It worked, mainly because of massive pro obama media bias.

Did obama fans really believe the crap he spewed? Do you really think a corporate media would bestow such praise upon someone that was a danger to the corporate leadership and the ultra rich?

The man was always full of shit and he has always been a pro corporate, republican, like most of our democrats.

Sorry obama fans but you've been duped.

DO NOT in ANY CIRCUMSTANCE elect the media favorite next time. The candidates the media ignored the most (edwards, kucinich) were probably your best bet for "liberal" policies.

I addressed it in the very next post. If you have a counterpoint, or don't think my response was adequate, addressing the response is a more appropriate means of provoking discussion than restating your original position. At this point though, I wouldn't bother. I've said just about all I have to say on this issue, so I can't imagine you'd have anything to say that I'd feel inclined to respond to. Also, you're tired of not voting your conscience? How many times have you voted, that you've grown tired of not voting your conscience?

Well, sure, Kucinich would have been our best bet for genuinely liberal policies. Also for ensuring a Republican victory in the general election.

One of the problems I see with political talk these days is the complete blurring of what "liberal" and "conservative" mean.

Am I oversimplifying by saying that liberal politics espouse a state-oriented solution to most (all?) social ills, and that conservative politics favor non-governmental solutions?

If this is accurate, then I believe we have not had a conservative major party nominee since... well shit, when was the last time govenment shrank?

I guess this is pointing to that very tricky word "centrist". I want to say I know what this word means, but in reality, i have no idea other that saying a centrist is "pro-government".

I'm reminded of a quote I heard on NPR a few days ago.

Adli Stevenson ( famous truth-teller and egghead ) was running for president, and at one of his rallies someone in the crowd shouted :

" All thinking Americans are for you !"

To which he replied :

"That's not enough, we need a majority ! "

We can all debate the finer points of how a disaffected voter should vote or whether abstain from voting altogether, but whatever their decision may be, it's pointless to bully them for expressing their views on the matter. It's a negative attitude that essentially poisons the process and certainly won't win back their confidence. Instead of just getting upset about people who've made their point of view public, try to analyze their perspective instead of just attacking them. If, by being open-minded, you can draw someone out of their corner and back into the process of public discussion, then you've already succeeded where most people fail.

Though I don't share the opinions of some, I at least try to understand where they are coming from. Sometimes it's refreshing to take a break from thinking you're always right, especially when you can learn from being wrong. At the very least, you may improve upon your convictions by seeing where they are fault. Perspectives change and should, but I would not want to be forced or try to force others into changing their minds because of a lack of understanding or for holding onto an overly stubborn position based upon blind opinion.

It doesn't take a lifetime to figure out that many politicians operate like the pendulum of old clock, swinging back and forth over the issues before finding a point upon which they can settle. I like to believe that a good politician will weigh their personal philosophies and interests against those of their platform, their constituency and their conscience. A better one encourages debate, remains open-minded and objective whilst respecting the forum of opinions.

The most we can hope for is someone who is best able to strike balance between passion and reason, harmonizing their emotions with a well-informed decision. In this regard, we are no different from politicians and ought to conduct ourselves with the same level of tolerance and professionalism we would hope to expect of our leaders. We can either be the fertile ground from which springs the growth of greatness, or we can create a blighted and polluted landscape that will only support opportunistic weeds and stunted shrubbery...

Great post... I fully agree.

I say I'm a moderate/centrist because I sometimes agree with the left (mostly on social issues) and sometimes agree with the right (mostly on smaller government and less censorship issues, which they then ignore anyway).

In reality, you're right, both seem to love big government, and therefore don't seem to really be as divided as they should.

First of all, Bush didn't have a huge win in 2004, his popularity dropped within 6 months, and he didn't even win the vote in 2000. His popularity is entirely dependent on 9-11 and the fear mongering tactics he used.

"Although Bush won the popular vote with 50.73% to Kerry's 48.27%, it was, in percentages, the closest popular margin ever for a victorious sitting President. Bush received 2.5% more than Kerry; the closest previous margin won by a sitting President was 3.2% for Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Bush's victory margin (approximately 3 million votes) was the smallest of any sitting President since Harry S. Truman in 1948."

"One issue from the 2000 election had been Bush's electoral victory despite losing the popular vote. If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have won the election but still could have lost the popular vote."


As a side note, I know a lot of people from Ohio, many of them left leaning. Now as unscientific as this, none of them voted. Not a damn one. And I'd ask if their liberal buddies voted - again "no". It is a depressing, demoralizing, ignorant shit hole... or so I'm told. Then again, nearly all liberals under 30 I know don't vote.

But anyway, if the Dems hadn't boggled the election up so bad, allowing Kerry to get pinned to the flip flop label, the Swift Boat ads, or simply picked a better canidate, things probably would have turned out differently. Also, there's Nader, throw him out, and things would have been even closer. And, again, throw out 9-11, and Bush would have had no chance.

I couldn't just pull a fact out for you at the moment, but the left side of this country is extremely disenfranchised and divided, and has been for years. That is pretty largely stated observation. Meanwhile the right will scream, shout, lie, and cheat to win. Just look at how the 2000 election went down. Gore just rolled the fuck over while Bush pulled every underhanded BS tactic possible. Look at him now, Bush is so hated right now you'd think his head would be impaled on a stick, and still, nothing happens to him. If that's how little people are being represented now, how bad is it most of the time? And what are those 50% or so of people that don't vote thinking?

Also, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, while Republicans have higher voter turnouts (crap, I lost the quote, but they state somewhere around 15% higher than Dems). Again, Liberals are out there, they just don't do shit.

Now, I did throw that out there loosely, America hates their guts (whatever I chose to target, I don't remember, but I'm sure it was Republican) in a late night rant, like this one. *Now* America is pretty damn anti-right, now they hate their guts.

As for America siding with Republican values, it all depends on how you define them. If you want to talk about religion, and throw out the vague idea of "big government", yes, America sides with that. We love God and hate this idea of government telling us what to do. But if you want to talk about giving tax cuts to the wealthy, allowing jobs to go oversees, underfunding schools and the like, Americans say no way. People like schools, like having a job, and generally don't like seeing rich people get more breaks than they do.

When it comes to "hot" issues that come to represent the parties so much today, things solidly lean left (finding stats on this is also muuuch easier). More Americans support the overall right to abortion than are against it (although 68% think it should be illegal after the first trimester). 64% of America think all Americans should be guaranteed health insurance. While 51% of America is against the legalization of the wacky weed (and that number is dropping yearly), nearly 75% are against jail time for users, and 80% support medical use of it. The disapproval of gay marriage, and especially civil unions, is dropping every year, and as of 2005, unions were favored 53% to 40%. 53% of America favors teaching evolution in schools, only 36% favors teaching Creationism. The stats are pretty scattered on global warming, but the general trend is people are in favor of doing something about it (I lost the link and am really tired).

Meanwhile, we love the death penalty here, 56% of America supports it. Sure, every major country in the world but Japan has banned it as cruel and barbaric, but we still adore the big death switch. You got me on that.

Truth is, most of the world is leaning left, because most of the world is already done with this shit. I've already typed waaay too much, but civil unions, universal health care, removal of jail time for marijuana use, teaching evolution in schools, and banning the death penalty have pretty much been done all over over the modern world. We're also they only modern country still dumping ginormous amounts of money into our military and underfunding our schools. Economically and socially, almost all of the top countries in the world are following a social-democratic model, check the CIA Factbook and the Human Development Index. We aren't even in the top 10, which is bullshit, because we have the best resources in the world, we're just too dumb, conflicted and jaded to make something of it, which is what makes it so damn frustrating. Are we just too big, to diverse to get anything done? That's probably it.

I think we'll get it... eventually.

The premise that left leaning candidate cannot be elected is nonsense. Kucinich, Dean could win.

The democratic party has not run "centrists." They've run corporatists, and the definition of "Left' has come to mean anyone that opposes a welfare state for the rich.

People want a candidate with conviction and a backbone. Give that to them and you'll win over peole. Give them flip floppers and you'll lose but if you go that route you'd better establish a grassroots/internet marketing because the media will lie.

Plus people agree with a lot of the positions of the so-called left, like universal healthcare, end to gov pork military spending, end to overseas wars of aggression, end to corporate welfare and incentives to outsource, etc.

If that was true, then why did neither even get the nomination? True, backbone is needed more with the Dems, but a little compromise and pandering is also needed to keep things at an even keel. Not only are people easily scared by serious change, Kucinich is kinda goofy; he talks about aliens. If he got the nod, the right and the late night comedians, would have a field day turning him into a cartoon radical and everyone would sit on their thumbs and do nothing about it, nevermind absolutley kissing goodbye to the moderate vote. Meanwhile, Dean had a shot, but, y'know, one funny slip and America hates you. See how dumb we are? Now, even if I silent majority came out in favor of a messianic-rockstar Super Liberal, he'd still have to pass his ideas through congress, and he, or she, would get shot down nearly every time. Our congress blows.

Really, I like the Kucinic and his ideas, but he's just not electable. I was pulling for Edwards in the beginning, he was very liberal, had a lot of tact, and could cross over to white, middle America, but he just didn't have enough pizazz, or a vagina, to win over the primary voters. I'm still pulling for him as VP.

We want the things you talk about, we really do, but there's a lot of bullshit hang ups we have. It sucks. It's sad.

I am glad that liberals are waking up to the fact that Obama is a duplicitous fraud. If that guy posed any kind of threat to the status quo the consolidated media wouldn't have paraded him so favorably in a non-stop literal Madison Ave. style ad campaign. They did so because they know he is in their pocket and will continue to do the bidding of his corporate masters and puppeteers.

He is already telling you that he favors the surveillance and Patriot act type policies. He is backing off of ending the Iraq war. He actually wants to expand the war front into Pakistan and Iran. He wants to increase the number of troops and military budget. He is calling for a stasi force domestic security force as large as and well funded as the entire military. His healthcare plan is to force you to fill the coffers of private providers - i.e. - a corporate handout. No gas tax relief. Told Maine to fuck themselves regarding low income heating assistance. I could go on and on and on...

This is how the elite stay in control. They feed off of your displeasure with one party and wrap up fresh dogshit in new packaging from the opposition party that has the same policies but different rhetoric and techniques to carry it out.

Bill Clinton was supposed to be a "change" from GHW Bush - nothing "changed" other than it got slightly worse. All relevant and impacting policy remained the same. GW Bush was supposed to be a "change" from Clinton - nothing changed (except to get way worse.) All relevant and impacting policy remained the same. Obama is supposedly "change" from Bush, rinse, wash, repeat....

Whenever Wall St. is telling you someone is "change" all that really means is that they have 4 to 8 years to cram as much shit down your throat until you regurgitate it and when it happens all they have to do is trot out the other side again.