Why does Obama make liberals rage so hard?

[Cephius]

A professor of political science that butchers the English language and uses multiple question marks and exclamation points? Methinks not. Nice troll post brah.

[BRP]

If this is a troll post, then it is better under the bridge than over it.

[Kuya]

A professor of political science that butchers the English language and uses multiple question marks and exclamation points? Methinks not. Nice troll post brah.

You are saying that he isn't a professor? I think you can go search that for yourself.

[Mayareira]

If you email him the link to this post he'd probably join the debate. He is that insignificant.

[Darus Grey]

A professor of political science that butchers the English language and uses multiple question marks and exclamation points? Methinks not. Nice troll post brah.

Even English professors aren't experts at English.

Your standards are way too high if you think professors aren't normal people with wildly different writing styles.

[drwaffles]

Even English professors aren't experts at English.

Your standards are way too high if you think professors aren't normal people with wildly different writing styles.

Please tell me you're not serious.

[Rhinox]

See?

Prove me wrong please.


Name me a few of his liberal polices. I remember we had a similar debate in another thread.

[Cephius]

Even English professors aren't experts at English.

Your standards are way too high if you think professors aren't normal people with wildly different writing styles.

There's a difference between a professor misspelling commonly misspelled words or using a touch of shady grammar, and when a "professor" writes like a 12 year old on AOL. Which is why I call bullshit.

[Olo401]

Oh, he's just one of them communist trying to destroy America. I understand now.

Communist.. fascist.. neoconservative.. whatever you want to call it. The guy's a blatant authoritarian - more north than left or right combined. His problem with Obama is that he's not using an iron fist to move policy.

[Kuya]

Communist.. fascist.. neoconservative.. whatever you want to call it. The guy's a blatant authoritarian - more north than left or right combined. His problem with Obama is that he's not using an iron fist to move policy.

I think what you're trying to say, but instead chose the roundabout way of just saying that he's a TROTSKYEST AND A AUTHORITARIAN rather than making a substantive argument, is that instead of saying that Obama is making liberals rage, i should instead say that Obama is making "extremist liberals" rage. Of course, the example i used is one among many, so unless someone can toss around proof that Obama only makes authoritarian liberals angry, and that mainstream liberals are A-OK with Obama, then this just seems like a fruitless endeavour and we shall instead simply say that Obama makes some liberals rage.

By the way, your sig is fitting.

[Darus Grey]

Please tell me you're not serious.

Completely serious.

[Beckwin]

I'm not even sure Olo knows what a Trotskyite is, seeing as the Trotsky camp broke off from the Stalinists over authoritarianism (mostly) anyway.

and how would Obama be ironfisting stuff that most people want anyway? lol.

the problem is that Obama isn't listening enough to mainstream "liberal/progressive" dems that made up his strongest supporters among voters. he's listening too much to the mainstream blue dog dems and mainstream republicans in the legislature.

regardless, we are better off than a year ago. not even gonna try to argue against that; I don't even think kuya could/would (we could go on about how marginal the improvement is, but whatever). yet, much like James Cameron's Avatar, it feels like a lot of potential has been wasted thus far.

[Olo401]

I think what you're trying to say, but instead chose the roundabout way of just saying that he's a TROTSKYEST AND A AUTHORITARIAN rather than making a substantive argument, is that instead of saying that Obama is making liberals rage, I should instead say that Obama is making "extremist liberals" rage.

Of course, the example i used is one among many, so unless someone can toss around proof that Obama only makes authoritarian liberals angry, and that mainstream liberals are A-OK with Obama, then this just seems like a fruitless endeavour and we shall instead simply say that Obama makes some liberals rage.

No, I'm saying you shouldn't label people like this professor liberal, because they're not. That's the kind of shit the Republicans have done since the Nixon and Reagan gangs turned the party from legitimacy to scorched earth politics. If anything, he's more in the mold of Castro or at the very extreme Stalin (thanks for setting me str8 on Trotskyites Beckwin I tend to mix them up with the LaRouche crowd)

And I'm not saying that Obama isn't disappointing mainstream Dems with his footdragging on very basic policies and issues, or pissing off crossover moderates because he's so moderate himself that he looks like Eisenhower. The fact that the economy is dragging along the bottom of a recession doesn't help either.

By the way, your sig is fitting.

I thought it was pretty damn priceless. I may have issues with Obama, but watching the neocon idiots wallow in their cesspool of hypocrisy day after day is quite satisfying..

[Plow]

Prove me wrong please.


Name me a few of his liberal polices. I remember we had a similar debate in another thread.

Yeah, I mean it's not like he tried to push through a government run health care system or anything.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...alth_care.html


You should really try getting informed. Feels good man.

[Plow]

I'm sure when he said "At long last after decades of false starts, we must make this our most urgent priority. Giving *every* American heath care security. Health care that can never be taken away. Health care that is *always* there. That is what we must do."


What he really meant was "as long as you can afford it from private insurance companies."


We should also ignore the fact that he failed because he refused to compromise. Meaningless sidebar info.

[Olo401]

We should also ignore the fact that he failed because he refused to compromise. Meaningless sidebar info.

Actually his failure was not that he refused to compromise, but that he compromised too much. He compromised full control of the legislation to the Congress, letting them write the bill without any preconditions to receive his signature. His failure was that he didn't give a shit what bill was passed, as long as a bill was passed, and in the time that it took for this mess to get through the Senate we could have instead passed a comprehensive jobs bill.

Let's put it this way.. Obama has gambled his second term on this one effort, and while the changes are welcome in many cases the overall bill is a failure because it has fines instead of a single payer option. It's going to take a major turnaround to get him out of range of a primary challenge in 2012.

[Plow]

Actually his failure was not that he refused to compromise, but that he compromised too much. He compromised full control of the legislation to the Congress, letting them write the bill without any preconditions to receive his signature. His failure was that he didn't give a shit what bill was passed, as long as a bill was passed, and in the time that it took for this mess to get through the Senate we could have instead passed a comprehensive jobs bill.

The Clinton health care bill fell apart for 2 reasons: extremely effective republican opposition, through the attacks on the "excessive interference with business is going to destroy hmo efficiency and quality, and requirements will put all businesses out of business" angle; and secondly, because unwillingness to compromise drove away enough democrat support to turn the balance to the "all out no" of the right.

Let's put it this way.. Obama has gambled his second term on this one effort, and while the changes are welcome in many cases the overall bill is a failure because it has fines instead of a single payer option.

Rather or not it's a failure depends on what you expected. It's still more than I expected, I honestly expected general economic and education infrastructure to dominate the first term.

A guest on the daily show put it pretty well I thought: the simple fact that you can't be turned down for insurance means the insurance lobby has to be concerned with the general health of Americans, which is not the case right now, which is a seriously bad thing.

It's going to take a major turnaround to get him out of range of a primary challenge in 2012.

lol no.

Republicans might be tough in 2012 depending how much worse the economy gets, but just lol @ the idea that if a primary election cycle started right now he'd have any kind of remote challenge.

[Olo401]

The Clinton health care bill fell apart for 2 reasons: extremely effective republican opposition, through the attacks on the "excessive interference with business is going to destroy hmo efficiency and quality, and requirements will put all businesses out of business" angle; and secondly, because unwillingness to compromise drove away enough democrat support to turn the balance to the "all out no" of the right.

It would have failed this year as well if Republicans had the same numbers in the Senate that they did in 1994, even before the election that swept them into power. They had more than enough for a filibuster and plenty of reason to use it.

Rather or not it's a failure depends on what you expected. It's still more than I expected, I honestly expected general economic and education infrastructure to dominate the first term.

A guest on the daily show put it pretty well I thought: the simple fact that you can't be turned down for insurance means the insurance lobby has to be concerned with the general health of Americans, which is not the case right now, which is a seriously bad thing.

I only see it as a failure in the larger political picture. For the amount of ground gained by the passage of this bill, we could have been done something much more substantial to fix our economic problems and put meaningful financial regulations into place. And it could have been done in less time, with less handwringing from the Republicans who would have been caught DEAD if they opposed such an effort.

In the long term this legislation has some potential because it lays the ground for other fixes and changes. Individual state-run insurance collectives are not excluded by this bill; they're just the only plans that won't be allowed to have interstate members. Down the road that might change who knows.

lol no.

Republicans might be tough in 2012 depending how much worse the economy gets, but just lol @ the idea that if a primary election cycle started right now he'd have any kind of remote challenge.

I would HOPE that this country learned enough from the Bush experience that we won't make that mistake again. And I don't see the Republican moderates taking over the party anytime soon either.

[Lordender]

Blah blah blah politic's just needs to be renamed QQ'ers of America.

[Rothbardian]

The Clinton health care bill fell apart for 2 reasons: extremely effective republican opposition, through the attacks on the "excessive interference with business is going to destroy hmo efficiency and quality, and requirements will put all businesses out of business" angle; and secondly, because unwillingness to compromise drove away enough democrat support to turn the balance to the "all out no" of the right.





Rather or not it's a failure depends on what you expected. It's still more than I expected, I honestly expected general economic and education infrastructure to dominate the first term.

A guest on the daily show put it pretty well I thought: the simple fact that you can't be turned down for insurance means the insurance lobby has to be concerned with the general health of Americans, which is not the case right now, which is a seriously bad thing.


lol no.

Republicans might be tough in 2012 depending how much worse the economy gets, but just lol @ the idea that if a primary election cycle started right now he'd have any kind of remote challenge.

The Clinton HC bill failed because at least some Americans are still independant and do not want to be forced by the Government into their monopoly. As such, we still (at least a part) will fight for our Natural Rights.

This right here is the most asinine shit I've ever heard. No they won't care, because they will have the IRS and the Government as their enforcement wing. You HAVE to have insurance. There is no ifs and or buts about it. So, they don't care what kind of health you are in, they will simply raise prices (Where have we seen this before with a legalistic monopoly?). I foresee however, price and wage controls which would totally implode the whole system and if you thought availability was bad now wait until that ever comes to fruition. We live in a world of scarce resources, as nice as it sounds to have everyone in the sun covered for minimal costs, it simply is impossible. (Not only that, not everyone wants insurance, I for one don't. I don't want to piss away money, that I'd rather invest and get a return for my money instead of throw it away to insurance companies which I more than likely would have to pay most of the co-pays and premiums anyways)

If the GOP is smart and nominates Ron Paul we will slide to victory like Reagan did (He talked the talk, but walked the fascist road.). If the election cycle for President was now, Ron Paul would win. Not only would he have the anti-war left and libertarians, he would also have all the free-marketeers (Most of the right and all libertarians save for the Chomskies). The Economy and War dominate and he is very strong on those positions. I talked with Thomas Woods a while ago about if Ron is going to run in '12 and he nodded that its a very good chance, and Ron himself said he most likely will if his wife is in good health. I believe in 2012 we will have our first libertarian President since Thomas Jefferson.