Insane Anti-Obama Stuff

  On 3/8/2010 at 2:12 AM, Awepittance said:

all this stuff from the moronic right wing like this just makes people knee jerkishly, illogically loyally defend obama even more........ sorry im cynical as fuck

im not defending obama. im defending logic. obama has done a whole lot to piss me off in the last year and i often find myself at a loss as to how to convince otherwise very logical people of this.

that being said, how can we ever hope to pass anything remotely resembling progressive anything when people actually think Obama is part of al-qaeda?

  On 3/8/2010 at 12:38 AM, we_kill_soapscum said:

inspired by typing 'obama is' into google. found this on a forum:

 

 

Originally Posted by Virginia D. Templeton View Post

16. He will have "no regard for the desire of women"[Dan 11:37]

 

Could this be a reference to his now-confirmed homosexuality?

I wasn't sure if this means HIS desire for women or women's desire for HIM. Either way, everybody knows that black bad-boys are a magnet for every harlot around, (and what's badder than an al-Queda member?) and that buck negros like himself can't go for more than a week without trying to impregnate at least one white woman. Therefore, the fact that he's not (yet) been caught fornificating with and/or raping a white woman prooves that he's a homosexual, and therefore, the antiChrist.

That forum is a hoax by the way..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landover_Baptist_Church

  On 3/8/2010 at 6:23 PM, we_kill_soapscum said:

 

that being said, how can we ever hope to pass anything remotely resembling progressive anything when people actually think Obama is part of al-qaeda?

i think you make an important point

but you have to ask yourself the question if republicans and people have already called him basically the worst things in the book ie: al queda, hitler, stalin, nazi... he doesn't have much to loose as far as credibility or trustworthiness to republicans. So why not actually push through single payer? The republicans are going to block whatever he does. Instead Obama out of the gate does a compromise to please republicans and the insurance companies

that is a good point. but there are two things that come to mind

1. right or not, he wants a second term and thinks that will benefit the US. i dont think palin will be the candidate next election, but what if she is? an electable obama is a good thing.

2. america is, unfortunately, a democracy filled with a lot of a under educated people. and if the majority of these undereducated people don't want single payer...they get what they want. may not be the best thing but its fair.

  On 3/8/2010 at 7:28 PM, we_kill_soapscum said:

that is a good point. but there are two things that come to mind

 

1. right or not, he wants a second term and thinks that will benefit the US.

i guess for me i'd rather him just try to push through as much shit as he can to reverse Bush's damage or actually things that are liberal in his first term. I don't care if he has a 2nd term if it's anything like his first year as president. In fact i think it will do more damage to the country than if a republican was int he white house, at least then most of the left would see the continuing Bush policies as evil instead of pragmatic because Obama believes them.

  On 3/8/2010 at 7:28 PM, we_kill_soapscum said:

and if the majority of these undereducated people don't want single payer...they get what they want. may not be the best thing but its fair.

im not sure if you've seen the polls, but most people who have been polled in the united states wants Single payer. It's a media created myth that single payer is a radical policy and that the public option will be easier to sell to the public.

  On 3/8/2010 at 7:42 PM, Awepittance said:

  On 3/8/2010 at 7:28 PM, we_kill_soapscum said:

that is a good point. but there are two things that come to mind

 

1. right or not, he wants a second term and thinks that will benefit the US.

 

i guess for me i'd rather him just try to push through as much shit as he can to reverse Bush's damage or actually things that are liberal in his first term. I don't care if he has a 2nd term if it's anything like his first year as president. In fact i think it will do more damage to the country than if a republican was int he white house, at least then most of the left would see the continuing Bush policies as evil instead of pragmatic because Obama believes them.

yeaaa this is true. i mean the rubber band 'snapback' after obama terrifies me. if the snapback frmo bush put a black man in office, think of the inverse of that........

larry the cable guy?

lol

[youtubehd]ZcxhcMyn8rU[/youtubehd]

holy fuck Obama IS Osama Bin Laden.

  Quote

Obama sabotages himself with fake "pragmatism"

BY GLENN GREENWALD

 

AP

President Obama smiles as he holds a University of Alabama football jersey during a ceremony Monday.

(updated below)

 

A new poll from the Democratic polling firm founded by James Carville and Stan Greenberg -- and co-sponsored by the "centrist" Third Way -- provides what its sponsors call "a wake-up call for President Obama, his party, and progressives on national security," because "[h]istorical doubts about the Democratic Party on national security show signs of reviving." This "Dems-losing-on-Terrorism" characterization is predictably being adopted by most media accounts -- Poll: Obama wrong on terror suspects and Poll shows Obama, Dems losing ground -- and will almost certainly accelerate (and provide the excuse for) the administration's abandonment of the very few decisions where they deviated from Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies. The reality of the poll is far more mixed than is being depicted -- the public believes Obama is doing better than Bush on national security generally and specifically on the handling of Terrorism, and Obama's national security approval ratings remain far higher than any other category -- but it is true (at least according to this poll) that Americans have increasingly sided with the Cheneyite-GOP argument on specific civil liberties/Terrorism questions, including civilian trials v. military commissions.

 

All of this underscores a vital point: the Obama White House is hamstrung by its own embrace of the Bush/Cheney Terrorism template in advocating for its own policies. The pollsters' Memo stresses, for instance, that the primary justification Obama officials offered in defending their Mirandizing of the attempted Christmas Day bomber -- Bush did it too with Richard Reid -- is ineffective and makes them appear "weak":

 

  Quote

Voters resist the argument that the Obama administration simply handled the Christmas bomber in the same way the Bush administration handled the "shoe bomber" case; this sounds political, and produces a weak response.

 

How can this response be anything other than weak and muddled? Democrats generally and Obama specifically have spent years telling the country that Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies were lawless, immoral, inept and counter-productive. Yet the minute there's a controversy over Obama's Terrorism policy, his first justification is: we're only doing what Bush and Cheney did. He can't stand on his own two feet and forcefully justify civilian trials or Mirandizing Terrorist suspects; he has to take refuge in the fact that Bush also did it -- as though that proves it's the right thing to do, because Bush/Cheney is the Standard-Bearer of Toughness on Terrorism. If you're going to embrace the core Bush/Cheney model on Terrorism and point to what they did as though that's the guide for how things should be done -- and if you're going to run to them for refuge and protection -- and if you're going to reverse yourself and capitulate at slightest sign of political pressure (FISA, detainee photos, civilian trials) -- is it really any surprise that people will begin to conclude that Bush and Cheney had things basically right and that Democrats are"weak" (not because of specific policies, but because of their fear of arguing for and sticking with their own positions)?

 

This is the same point made, albeit in a different form, by Stanley Fish in today's New York Times, who argues that there is a growing nostalgia for George Bush among many media figures and the country generally (which, at least with regard to media elites, I've noted before as well; there's zero evidence it's true of the public generally, and Fish's attempt to prove otherwise is unbelievably lame). Still, today's poll proves the public is far more receptive than before to arguments coming from the Cheneyite faction, and Fish, persuasively, points to this as a major reason why:

 

  Quote

Bush’s policies came to seem less obviously reprehensible as the Obama administration drifted into embracing watered-down versions of many of them. Guantanamo hasn’t been closed. No Child Left Behind is being revised and perhaps improved, but not repealed. The banks are still engaging in their bad practices. Partisanship is worse than ever. Obama seems about to back away from the decision to try 9/11 defendants in civilian courts, a prospect that led the ACLU to run an ad in Sunday’s Times with the subheading “Change or more of the same?” Above that question is a series of photographs that shows Obama morphing into guess who -- yes, that’s right, George W. Bush.

 

I wish everyone would read that first, bolded sentence every day. This is a point I've been trying to make in different ways for many months. It is obviously impossible to maintain that the Terrorism and other national security policies of George Bush and Dick Cheney were radical, heinous, evil and wrong if the successor administration -- one from "the other party," filled with people who spent years vehemently condemning those policies -- end up adopting most of those same policies and the core approach itself. Inevitably, that behavior will come to be seen as vindication (now that Obama is in office, he sees those policies are necessary), and worse, converts what had been viewed as extremist, highly controversial right-wing policies into unchallenged bipartisan consensus.

 

It's only natural that many people in the country say to themselves: how bad could George Bush and Dick Cheney really have been in these areas if their core policies are being adopted by Obama? Apparently, there must not be anything wrong with indefinite detention, military commissions, renditions, state secrets, etc. because Obama has embraced them as well. And once those conclusions are fostered, it's hardly a surprise that Bush officials such as Dick Cheney will once again be listened to as a credible authority on such matters; if he, after all, had the basic approach right, why deviate from it at all?

 

Independently, and even more important, think about how rhetorically difficult it is for the Obama administration to defend civilian trials when they themselves are subjecting scores of detainees (in fact, most) to military commissions or indefinite detention. It's a completely confused, unprincipled, self-negating approach that can only produce muddled, unprincipled and therefore weak defenses. Nobody in the administration can possibly argue (as Democrats used to vocally argue) that military commissions, indefinite detention and denial of civilian trials are un-American and counter-productive, because the Democratic administration is now doing exactly that. So if you can't argue that, how can you possibly defend civilian trials, or rebut the GOP claim that accused Terrorists should be placed before military commissions or indefinitely detained? You can't -- you have no argument -- and that's why Obama is losing this debate.

 

There's a difference -- a fundamental one -- between (a) being pragmatic in trying to implement one's principles and (b) having no principles at all and and glorifying that unanchored emptiness as "pragmatism." Once you enter the realm of (b), you are not only guilty of having no principles (a sin in its own right), but you're incapable of finding a way to effectively justify what you're doing, because you have no coherent principles to which you can credibly appeal. In virtually every realm (health care, financial reform, national security), and especially in Terrorism/civil liberties, that has been the great political failure of the Obama administration.

geesh. . people hated GWB for a reason. this is just reactionary.

what's reactionary? What reasons did people hate George W Bush?

im not sure if you're referencing the points the article writer is making (that Obama displays a false pragmatism/dont want to make either side upset, when he wants to fall back on and emulate Bush policies) or

the sad poll data results (that americans are increasingly thinking Obama is WEAK on terror even though he closely emulates bush policy) ?

I was just kind of chiming in. The insecure reaction to Obama's popularity is what I meant by reactionary... or, pretty much everything Limbaugh says on a daily basis. Maybe it's just politics, but the idea of purposely blocking and stalling the guy who beat your guy just because he beat you is just immature and most other adjectives I can think of. The only reason the GOP is so vicious is because of what they saw as stonewalling Bush, when the GOP was well aware of how insular and secretive Bush was. So, they want to stonewall everything Obama does out of spite.. not because they don't necessarily agree. I think, if we didn't have political parties a lot of things would work themselves out. They'd be fighting for their state or town or themselves instead of what equates to a political sports team duking out the other side for no other reason than to have the most power. It's probably not possible to get rid of them, but it's a thought.

the funny part of it is , forcing people to buy private health insurance is actually more of a republican style policy than a democratic one. As far as i can tell that's the main component of Healthcare 'reform' , there is no public option or anything even remotely resembling single payer. And if you took what republicans said literally you would think (ignorantly) that the health care proposal is full on socialism and that everybody will have to pay for poor people's health insurance. it couldn't be farther from the truth. So the fact that republicans keep stone walling Obama at every turn just represents them as the shrewd political calculators they have been since Clinton in '92. Some people here are probably too young to remember but Clinton walked into a smear campaign basically day 1 of the inauguration. Republicans wouldn't let up the attacks, the blocks and the stone walling. In fact it became popular among republican talk radio hosts to talk about how Clinton murdered Vince Foster. This is nothing new

if Obama is merely caving to their demands he is insanely stupid and weak, because even if he caves to all of them they are still going to hate him.

i dont think this is what's happening though, i think Obama is using republicans as an excuse not to create real change, he wants peope to think they are a powerful force to be reckoned with so they will look the other way when he does things like extend the PAtriot act, etc

  On 3/8/2010 at 12:38 AM, we_kill_soapscum said:

inspired by typing 'obama is' into google. found this on a forum:

 

 

Originally Posted by Virginia D. Templeton View Post

16. He will have "no regard for the desire of women"[Dan 11:37]

 

Could this be a reference to his now-confirmed homosexuality?

I wasn't sure if this means HIS desire for women or women's desire for HIM. Either way, everybody knows that black bad-boys are a magnet for every harlot around, (and what's badder than an al-Queda member?) and that buck negros like himself can't go for more than a week without trying to impregnate at least one white woman. Therefore, the fact that he's not (yet) been caught fornificating with and/or raping a white woman prooves that he's a homosexual, and therefore, the antiChrist.

can haz source?

  On 3/9/2010 at 9:11 PM, essines said:

  On 3/8/2010 at 12:38 AM, we_kill_soapscum said:

inspired by typing 'obama is' into google. found this on a forum:

 

 

Originally Posted by Virginia D. Templeton View Post

16. He will have "no regard for the desire of women"[Dan 11:37]

 

Could this be a reference to his now-confirmed homosexuality?

I wasn't sure if this means HIS desire for women or women's desire for HIM. Either way, everybody knows that black bad-boys are a magnet for every harlot around, (and what's badder than an al-Queda member?) and that buck negros like himself can't go for more than a week without trying to impregnate at least one white woman. Therefore, the fact that he's not (yet) been caught fornificating with and/or raping a white woman prooves that he's a homosexual, and therefore, the antiChrist.

can haz source?

  Quote

inspired by typing 'obama is' into google

i did that and gave up. wats' a goggle?

  On 3/8/2010 at 9:00 PM, BCM said:

lol

 

[youtubehd]ZcxhcMyn8rU[/youtubehd]

 

holy fuck Obama IS Osama Bin Laden.

OH MY GOD

THE LAST PLACE YOU WOULD LOOK

*violently vomits extremely loudly for several minutes*

lol

  On 3/9/2010 at 8:53 PM, mafted said:

I was just kind of chiming in. The insecure reaction to Obama's popularity is what I meant by reactionary... or, pretty much everything Limbaugh says on a daily basis. Maybe it's just politics, but the idea of purposely blocking and stalling the guy who beat your guy just because he beat you is just immature and most other adjectives I can think of. The only reason the GOP is so vicious is because of what they saw as stonewalling Bush, when the GOP was well aware of how insular and secretive Bush was. So, they want to stonewall everything Obama does out of spite.. not because they don't necessarily agree. I think, if we didn't have political parties a lot of things would work themselves out. They'd be fighting for their state or town or themselves instead of what equates to a political sports team duking out the other side for no other reason than to have the most power. It's probably not possible to get rid of them, but it's a thought.

blocking everything after you lose an election is how US politics has been run since the 1940's.

Obama should have grown some balls and shoved this shit right through on a 100% democratic vote.

that way, if it shows progress or some form of initial success=immediate re-election.