Political Discussions
Has Your Opinion of President Obama Changed?
Posted by rfburnhertz • 5/09/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: america, Barack Obama, conservative, Democrat, facist, obama, President, socialist
Just curious if peoples opinions of Obama has changed at all during his 100+ day's in office now.
If your opinion has changed, how has it changed?
Do you see him more positively or negatively?
Give a reason for your change of heart/mind.
My personal opinion has changed and in a negative direction. I didn't care for his proposed policies to begin with but he is actually worse than I thought he would be.
User Comments
-
Anything in particular that made you change your opinion of him?
I'd like to see these bailouts stopped, but doing nothing might be worse. Other than that, I didn't have unrealistic expectations for Obama so I'm not disappointed. He's administration has been open, honest, and competent, which is what he promised.-
I think doing nothing would be better because the free market will have to take its course. They received the first round of money and they want more. I think we are just inflating a bubble that has lost some air and setting it up for an explosion.
www.preservecapitalism.com
-
-
They seem more transluscent than transparent, but he hasn't done anything egregious (that I can tell) yet, which is an improvement over the last president -
My opinion of Obama hasn't changed. He is behaving just as I thought he would, maybe a tad quicker with implementing his policies if anything. He is a socialist and believes in big government, he doesn't particularly like the Constitution. In fact he thinks it is outdated and "fundamentally flawed." I do not believe in nor want a socialistic society for America. Unfortunately for at least the next 4 years we have that ahead of us.
I like him personally, he seems by all accounts to be a very friendly, personable man. His remarks at the recent WH Correspondents’ Association Dinner were funny, self deprecating, and show that he has a sense of humor.
As far as his admin being open, honest and competent.......well, if his vetting process is any indication of his admin's competence, then we should all be worried. I mean are there ANY Democrats in Washington that know how to pay taxes?? His admin isn't very transparent....I am still waiting on his explanation of no lobbyists in his WH, the line-by-line removal of earmarks, not signing bills until the American people have had 5 days to review them. That was all lip service to win the election.
To say that he hasn't done anything egregious is pushing it. I mean to have the government fire CEO's, control banks and auto companies and to strong arm private investors in order to show favoritism to the UAW is pretty egregious. In fact, those actions do go against that "fundamentally flawed" piece of paper that we used to found our country.
wjrpodcasts.com/podcasts/frankbeckmann/Lauria-050109.mp3
No, I would say all-in-all my opinion has not changed - he seems to be a very likable man, but I cannot stand his policies. -
No, not really. He's more competent than Bush, and all I wanted was a competent President.
Some people disagree with his politics and try to pigeonhole him with labels like "socialist" and all that noise. I try to tune it out. It's amazing how people go around parroting the same nonsense without analyzing what it means.
Obama is a capitalist, like it or not.-
Exactly HOW is Obama a capitalist?? Please site one credible example of his capitalistic tendencies?
And I am not "parroting" that he is a socialist. He is, plain and simple a socialist. Like it or not, that is what your great leader is. All one has to do is pay attention to his policies and his actions. He believes in nationalized.....everything. He wants to nationalize the banks, the car companies, investment firms, health care. How is that NOT socialism? Open your eyes and at least see him for what he is.
Here are some links that I feel demonstrate his position.
www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2009/01/obama_now_is_not_the_time...
www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html
thehill.com/dick-morris/how-obamas-socialism-works-2009-05-05.html
and this link........a very good narrative, btw
www.extremeink.com/awtk/2007/11/barack-obama-explains-socialism.html
Although I might accept the premise that the term Socialist is bantered about quite a bit, and it may not adequately explain Obama's political beliefs. Maybe the term Statist explains him better. I don't know. I know that I believe that, going by what he has done, said and his plans for the future compel me to think he is a socialist. Anyway, here is a link addressing this point, as well.
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10158 -
Even though I had only wanted to look at various thoughts and opinions when I began this thread with no intention of going any further than I did into my own thoughts about Obama, I'd be interested in your answer to anticsrocks.
How is Obama a capitalist?
For all the claims of Bush being a fascist, Obama comes much, much, much closer to fitting the definition. -
So those 'Chicago School' economic advisors Austan Goolsbee and David Friedman are just capitalist "beards"?! Is scolding company employees for not acting in the interest of company ownership socialist?! Perhaps the following quotes are also by "socialists"... 0_o
"To establish a joint stock company... for any undertaking merely because such a company might be capable of managing it successfully; or to exempt a particular set of dealers from some of the general laws which take place with regard to all their neighbours, merely because they might be capableof thriving if they had such an exemption, would certainly not be reasonable. To render such an establishment perfectly reasonable, with the circumstance of being reducible to strict rule and method, two other circumstances ought to concur. First it ought to appear with the clearest evidence, that the undertaking is of the greater and more general utility than the greater part of common trades. and secondly that it requires a greater capital than can easily be collected into a private copartnery."--Adam Smith (from "The Wealth of Nations")
"It is one of the serious evils of our present system of banking that it enables one class of society--and that by no means a numerous one--by its control over the currency, to act injuriously upon the interests of all the others and to exercise more than its just proportion of influence in political affairs. The agricultural, the mechanical, and the laboring classes have little or no share in the direction of the great moneyed corporations... they have but little patronage to give to the press, and exercise but a small share of influence over it; they have no crowd of dependents about them, who hope to grow rich without labour, by their countenance and favour, and who are, therefore, always ready to execute their wishes" --Andrew Jackson (Farewell Address) -
Exactly HOW is Obama a capitalist?? Please site one credible example of his capitalistic tendencies?
Democratic policies promote capitalism with regulation.
When companies are free to become monopolies or oligopolies, which happens with Republican laissez-fair policies, you wind up with fewer companies in the industry and it's more difficult for entrepreneurs to enter an industry. The only people who win are the top executives, and that's only for a short period of time. We're seeing that now with all these companies that have become "too big to fail." -
For all the claims of Bush being a fascist, Obama comes much, much, much closer to fitting the definition.
How so? Do you even know the meaning of the word "fascist?" -
to be fair, Republicans (at least those that have been in power recently) are not truly Laissez Faire. They are for unregulated mercantilism. The protectionism given to industry being internal rather than external. The Democrats simply wish to regulate their mecantilist economy. They are economically closer to Hamilton and Lincoln than to Marx and Lenin... or to Mussolini.
-
Agit8r, David Freeman could easily be considered to be on the conservative side of capitalism, but in no way could Austan Goolsbee even remotely be considered a capitalist. He was senior economist to the PPI, for crying out loud. The Progressive Policy Institute is NOT a capitalist entity.
So, is Obama is a capitalist. To quote the guard to the "man behind the curtain" - "Not no way! Not no how!" -
Could you tell me, given the actions taken by our current president, how is that representative of capitalistic ideals? -
Goolsbee is a follower of the theories put forward in "The Methodology of Positive Economics" written by David's father; Milton Friedman
blog.mises.org/archives/001768.asp -
Do you still think he is competent. His Kool aid can't be as sweet as it was. He was and still is a joke.
-
My opinion of Obama has changed. I used to think the was a very far left politician that held the best interests of the American people and the best interests of our military.
Now I think he is a far left ideologue who regards only his own political career. All his decisions reflect that.
-
-
No Sat,
I've no clue of the meaning of fascist.
I'm prone to simply throwing about words for no particular end.
The man is trying to command (not regulate) industry, business and commerce. While not the above is not the only feature of fascism, it is key to fascism.
All indication so far are that he [Obama] is attempting to make use of the economy to shape and mold the nation politically.-
You don't know what fascism means. Look it up.
And he's not trying to command businesses -- he's bailing them out, which is closer to socialism. -
or Bushism. Bush41... Bush43... it doesn't really matter they're both bailouters
-
So you are equating Obama with the Bush's? Very interesting.
-
sati, how can you sit there and say that Obama is not trying to command businesses and still be intellectually honest? His admin FIRED a PRIVATE CEO, they have forced more than one business into bankruptcy, they restructured Chrysler and gave all but control to the UAW. Hmmm, Obama repaying his campaign contributors?? Private investors had a legal, binding contract to get their money in a bankruptcy proceeding. The private investment firms had a 40 billion dollar investment in Chrysler, the UAW had only 10 billion. Obama's admin gives 40% interest to the UAW and only 10% to the private investors.
No, that's not trying to command companies... -
Obama does wan't SOME regulation over the industry that congress/state and local governments are subsidizing. unfortunately, I suspect that much of that involvement will be in the area of what John McCain calls the "Service Economy"
...and no that doesn't simply mean white collar jobs
-
I would say he wants more than SOME regulation. Firing CEO's, telling businesses what to do, who to merge with, not letting the banks repay the TARP money....that all is very telling behavior. No, Mr. Obama ran as a moderate and governs as a liberal.....a very far to the left lib. That is sad, because I think that governing too far to the left, or too far to the right is not healthy for the country.
-
The government (us) is part owner in those companies. Owners can fire CEOs. You want to keep the same execs in charge that ran those companies into the ground? I sure as hell don't.
-
I wouldn't say that Rick Wagoner ran GM into the ground. I mean he was even taking $1 as a yearly salary. Besides, the government bailed out General Electric to the tune of $140 billion and they aren't being asked to restructure, nor is Jeffrey Immelt being asked to step down and as far as I know, he isn't working for one dollar. Favoritism?
Check out this link - washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/11/ge-corporate-sponsor/
Seems GE is not only NOT being asked to restructure, they are going to profit from Obamacare. They are taking $6 billion of the taxpayer money they received and developing something called Healthymagination. Basically they will be keeping every American's health records. I'm not sure I want them to have access to my health records. But then again, since I am only one of the "masses" what I want doesn't really matter.
Adding insult to injury is the fact that NBC, (which is of course owned by GE) will be making videos or in essence infomercials to push this idea. Imagine, if you will that under the Bush/Cheney admin that Haliburton owned ABC/CBS or some such media outlet and began making videos about the wonderful job they could do rebuilding Iraq prior to our invasion there. The libs would have a field day. Bush would be excoriated and Haliburton would be all but destroyed in the media. But do we hear ANYTHING about this scandal at GE in the mainstream media? Nope. The double standard in the media in this country is atrocious.
-
-
The nationalizing of business is NOT a part of fascism?
Bailout is the word, nationalizing is the action.
GM has been nationalized. When the president can force a CEO out, that company has been nationalized. When the government 'bailouts' banks and financial institutions and refuse repayment, that institution has been nationalized.
We are watching the attempted nationalization of healthcare at this very moment.-
I agree with you rfburnhertz, if we sit by and do nothing, our health care is going to be nationalized. Hell, even if we protest our butts off, it still will probably be, what with Washington being one party rule.
-
-
I just love this - the companies took the bailouts to get capital because the investors wanted capital before they invested, but then they refused to invest because the bailout money wasn't "real capital" (The companies had to pay it back) and so they refused to invest until the company had real capital, but since they wouldn't invest the company couldn't get real capital through private means, so they gave back the bailout loan, and had the government buy them out instead, creating real capital, and now the investors are mad because the government owns controlling stock.
So they forced the companies to "nationalize" and then complained... because the company...nationalized....
How freaking stupid can this get? Honestly? They wanted and NEEDED the infusion of cash one way or another - not only to keep investing in a company they wanted to invest in, but also to recover or recoup their losses anyway they could, but instead of infusing that cash themselves privately, they forced the companies to go to the only lender who had the cash to give...and then complain about who the companies went to.
They all got themselves into this mess - I say fuck 'em. Either infuse the capital privately so the companies can buy back the stock from the government, keeping it private, or stop sniveling about the consequences of your actions, and shut the fuck up and take what you get. (General you - not you, you.). -
lol, c'mon Anok, tell us how you really feel. I agree with part of your statement, I believe the government should stay out of bailing out private companies. And they violated bankruptcy laws in giving more interest to the UAW who had unsecured claims than the private investors who had secured claims. And all because Obama is beholden to the unions. The people who have their pensions wrapped up in those hedge funds of the private companies that Obama forced to take pennies on the dollar probably don't give a damn whether he is a socialist, marxist, statist or circus clown. There goes their retirement.
-
i do have to wonder if those hedge funds would be better or worse off without the 14bil that got dumped into the company coffers. I'm not big on the whole deal. It stinks.
-
The government didn't put a gun to the company's heads and made them take the money, you know.
The shareholders did that, and the companies did that all on their own. The companies had no problem taking the money in any form, with any strings attached, and the shareholders - who supposedly control these companies - did nothing to stop he companies from taking the money.
Why? Because if they didn't, they'd all be out of their investment money, jobs, and the companies would no longer exist. So they let their wallets make their decisions for them, and now they're mad and upset and protesting and blaming the government.
But like my dad always told me growing up - "I told you not to climb that tree, now that you've broken your leg, don't come running to me."
It's just that simple.
We have a whole lot of people out there jumping on the complaint bandwagon here, complaining about "socialism" because of the bailouts, but when push comes to shove, corporate socialism is what they created and endorsed, all on their own.
They did this to themselves - every single ounce of this. From the economic failures to the nationalization of their precious free market. They only seem to want a free market when it's fiscally advantageous for them to do so, and run right back to corporate socialism when that suits their immediate needs.
They can't have their cake, and eat it too.
As for secured versus unsecured shares - I'm not familiar enough with what happened to comment on that. I would think that a shareholder is a shareholder, though. -
Stupid Mac
-
I didn't want them to have their cake OR eat it too... but since they got it... "LET THEM EAT CAKE"!*
*imperfect metaphor/play on words -
Sat, followed your link.
Here is what I found.
"regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism".
As I described.
The regimentation has begun, I see no indication that it will do anything other than pick up speed.
Note also that I said he was closer to being an actual fascist than was GWB. I did not say he was a full blow fascist (though I'd not be surprised to find that he is).
Had I said that he WAS a fascist, your point would be taken. However, that was not what I said, your point is without merit. I'd have assumed you to have already discovered that. -
Economics is only one aspect of Fascism. The simple nationalization of companies can fall into several different political categories.
Fascism also requires the country to completely eliminate anything that addresses the needs of individuals (no social programs, no laws, essentially that protect individuals such as - oh, I dunno, labor laws) and everything is done for the State which is then a combination of economic and political power.
Left leaning political ideologies that focus on the rights of individuals (or in some, the needs of individuals) fly directly in the face of fascism, because everything would be provided for every individual either by the state or other regulatory industries - whereas in Fascism, it's dog-eat dog and all social benefits are null and void.
It's essentially state owned "privatization" or the unholy alliance of libertarianism/lassez fair capitalism with dictatorship. -
"Economics is only one aspect of Fascism. The simple nationalization of companies can fall into several different political categories."
I agree.
Given the economics Barack Obama is trending towards coupled with the social, he 'appears' to be heading in a fascist direction.
In the end, fascist, socialist, whatever... he is taking this nation in a direction that is counter to our founding. Not that we hadn't mostly already abandoned that course anyway. -
No, in order for him to be moving towards Fascism, he would start removing social programs, national healthcare wouldn't even be a twinkle in his eye, and (individual) rights would start disappearing fast.
Most mixed economies have some nationalization, and they are still not Socialist, Communist, or Fascist States.
The founding fathers did call for some regulation of the market - making the US a (technically) mixed economy from the word go. Although deregulation has occurred, I highly doubt that the founding fathers envisioned that we would be where we are today - and I think they would disapprove of the lax standards placed on the type of businesses we have running our economy today. (Today being for the last few decades)
-
-
Umm I still think he is an incompetent idiot-
Are you referring to Obama?
-
-
Has my oppinion changed.. Not Directly,
I thought he was false, dishonest and pretty much useless before.
And so far he is doing noting but affirm those oppinions.-
Be fair man!! He has increased awareness of the plight of the Portuguese Water dog!! You remember that pound puppy that he vowed to get? Well, he adopted a dog from a kennel, and it JUST HAPPENED to be a full blooded, AKC registerd dog. What're the odds?
But seriously, the First Lady goes to volunteer at a food bank, which by the way is an awesome thing to do. I commend her on that. But to show up in a pair of $540 shoes??
www.ihatethemedia.com/michelle-obama-540-shoes
Can we say sensitivity, or lack thereof? And again, is the mainstream media jumping on this? Nope. But back when Nancy Reagan was First Lady the press hounded her on how much she spent on clothing. Amazingly enough the press criticized her decision to have a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy when she had breast cancer. I have said it before and I will say it again, the left has ruined the media in this country. -
$540 dollar shoes, Flying a Jumbo over Ground zero, The queens Ipod, the Prime ministers unplayable DVD collection, Closing Gitmo and not having a place to put them.. Blowing what's been achieved in Iraq.
Bailout money that was supposed to have no earmarks being nothing but earmarks.. Studying chineese hookers drinking habits..
Oh, and pissing away 10 trillion dollars in general.
There is no end to the bad judgement of this clown.
-
-
My dislike of him and his policies just went from 100% total disgust to only 99% disgust. He said today that they will not release the photos. However, some how I think that score will be back up to 100% in no time....-
It's a shame there are so many radical hate mongers like AmmoBob in our country. They're basically our equivalent of al-Qaeda.
-
Sat, your obnoxious, arrogant, self righteous attitude is only overpowered by your pure ignorance of the facts.
-
Sat,
demonstrate that AmmoBob or thelibertylight are hate mongers or the equivalent of al-Qaeda.
Is simple disagreement with you enough to be a hate monger? -
Sati is like the broken calculator of BC, he can subtract any intelligence from a discussion, Be Divisive, and multiply his own ignorance, But he is completely incapable of adding anything.
-
-
"It's a shame there are so many radical hate mongers like AmmoBob in our country. They're basically our equivalent of al-Qaeda."
What a drama queen. And this behavior does not exist on the left, right? Let's see, by your reasoning AmmoBob is ready to strap on a c-4 vest and head out into public. My God man, if you're not drugs, you should be.-
Ah, here's another one.
-
-
Anok,
the businesses may not have been 'forced'. Threatened, extorted...?
"The FDIC -- with Treasury backing -- threatened to conduct public audits of his bank unless his board created and issued a class of stock for the Feds to buy. The audit, which he is confident his bank would survive, would cost it millions in employee time, bad press, and consequent lost business."
Judge Napolitano
This by the way a very similar practice to that which lead to the sub-prime situation. Just ask Barney Frank, since it was his baby.-
No, the businesses were not forced by anyone but their shareholders to do what they did.
Banks are audited all the time - if an audit is threat enough to have them go national, then you can rest assured that the banks were doing something 100% illegal, and are now covering their asses, whose fault is that? -
Many (not all of the businesses) were forced in that they were threatened. Many were in fact strong armed by the government. This began (so far as loans are concerned) in the Clinton years, Bush ampped it up and Obama has ampped it up even more so.
-
Do have you have some sort of proof that they were strong armed into it? because as I recall, Bush offered the first bailout, and the rest of he companies lined up with their hands out.
-
-
"The Obama administration has begun serious talks about how it can change compensation practices across the financial-services industry, including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money, according to people familiar with the matter."
online.wsj.com/article/SB124215896684211987.html
'Including at companies that did not receive federal bailout money.' -
It's like trying to teach a special needs child. I once heard from somebody on the left say dissent is the embodiment of patriotism. Hmmm.
-
thelibertylight, I am surprised you even brought that up. Dissent is only for the Hollywood Elite. C'mon man! Basic Leftism 101.
Sorry, I just couldn't help it. But I am one of those "rednecks" that Janeane Garbageflow (since that is all that flows from her mouth) commented on. I forgot that you are only supposed to show dissent when conservatives were in power. My bad... -
Dissent is good if your intentions are good. If all you want to do is derail the other party, that's not good. If you have a legitimate beef with a policy, voice your opinion.
-
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere." – Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Abigail Adams, 22 February 1787
-
Dissent is patriotism - but only if the dissent has a purpose, and is based on facts.
Dissenting because you lost the election is like cutting off your nose to spite you face, after a while you might realize it's a bad idea.
I didn't start dissenting against the Bush administration until 2004, and more seriously sometime in 2005. I made sure I had something to complain about before complaining.
Furthermore, dissenting against a government is all well and good, but supporting the oppression of dissenters when your guy is in office, then feigning outrage that the laws and policies you supported could possibly be used against you is asinine.
Oh! The audacity! oh! The surprise! Oh, the outrage!
Please note, right wingers are still not outraged about the oppressive tactics and cataloging of "leftists" - they are only outraged about their party being held under the microscope. They still support the same actions being used against those they disagree with.
Hypocrits. -
I should clarify that the Jefferson quote was referring to violent dissent--specifically the Shaysite Rebellion.
It should not in any way be assumed to be talking about the sort of dissent protected by the constition, of which there ought not to be any legal controversy at all! -
I'm always shocked when I agree with Anok.
"Dissent is patriotism - but only if the dissent has a purpose, and is based on facts.
Dissenting because you lost the election is like cutting off your nose to spite you face, after a while you might realize it's a bad idea."
Intentions, IMO, mean crap.
Misguided persons have what they consider 'good intentions'. -
Haha! You just made me smile which was greatly needed today
-
-
I didn't vote for him and I don't agree with everyone of his ideas but I was a little hopeful that he would bring change and that really hasn't happened. He filled his administration with former Clinton people who in my mind if you wanted change that is not change they are insiders and I was a little more hopeful that he would bring in a lot of new faces and truly change the politics of Washington but he hasn't. And as it is he is a politician.-
No, there has been a lot of change: change in our Iraq and Afghanistan strategies, change in the government's relationship with science (they embrace it), change in environmental policies, change in competency and honesty, change in how we approach foreign countries... Change is coming soon to the health care industry. What the hell do you want? He's been in office less than six months?
-
"....change in competency and honesty..."???? You're kidding me, right? Remind me, how many of his cabinet appointee's have a problem paying their taxes? How many stepped down because of pay for play investigations? And on the "honesty" front...he was against lobbyist while campaigning, but hired them in his WH. He wanted every bill to be viewed by the public for 5 days before he signed it. This is from his website...
"Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
That hasn't happened.
www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/234/allow-five-days-of-pu...
This also from his website...
"Shine Light on Earmarks and Pork Barrel Spending: Obama's Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act will shed light on all earmarks by disclosing the name of the legislator who asked for each earmark, along with a written justification, 72 hours before they can be approved by the full Senate."
Almost 9.000 earmarks in that bill, weren't there?
So come on, let's be honest. Obama is trying to do some good things. Even though I am a conservative and think that he is too damn socialist for my tastes, I do feel that he THINKS he is helping...at least in part. I also feel that he is conducting a governmental power grab like we have never seen before in our lifetime.
So, while he has screwed up some things, done some good things, and done some really awful things, let's not just sit and praise him. I didn't do that with Bush, and I don't intend to do that now. No U.S. President is going to get things right all the time, no matter his political affiliations. -
it is perception based upon how low the bar has been set
-
That's right. Compared to the previous administration, he's an angel. He also promised to work with Republicans and has been rewarded with obstructionism from them, so why bother trying.
-
Oh come on sati........on the friggin stimulus bill and on the budget, Pelosi and Reid blocked the Republicans from even attending committee meetings. How in the hell is that "obstructionism" from the Republicans?
-
That's wrong, they asked for input from the Republicans, but the only thing Republicans offered was their own plan which consisted of nothing but more tax cuts.
-
Oh really? False.
www.news-record.com/content/2009/04/11/article/gop_feels_shut_out_of_budget...
And this article from the LA Times shows how the Dems have gone about shutting out the GOP and labeling them "obstructionist" and the "party of no."
www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-partisanship24-2009apr24,0,1563813.st...
So you see sati, it just isn't wise for you to make these false claims and support the far left's agenda with their talking points. -
Notice how it says the GOP "feels" shut out? The only input they offered was more tax cuts.
For the second link on health care, well... they asked for it.
-
-
"Dissent is good if your intentions are good. If all you want to do is derail the other party, that's not good. If you have a legitimate beef with a policy, voice your opinion."
A valid statement that should be observed by ALL parties. -
Alright anticsrocks, if you are going to use truth and facts you can just leave, Sir. I said good day SIr!!
-
LOL My bad. I will try to spout more rhetoric. Maybe I could hire sati to post my responses for me.....
-
You right-wingers don't know the difference between facts and opinion. A fact is something that is verifiable. An opinion is not. You can't site an opinion piece as your source for a fact.
-
Funny, on the link that I cited
www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-partisanship24-2009apr24,0,1563813.st...
It was written by Peter Nicholas and so I looked up the LA Times list of columnists and guess what? Peter Nicholas wasn't listed. Gee he must have been REPORTING.
Again, this coming from someone who uses the dailykos to back up his rhetoric. -
Yes, that is fact. As I said above in reference to that issue, "For the second link on health care, well... they asked for it."
And I've never used the DailyKos as proof of anything. They're an opinion site. -
So you are telling me that you DID NOT use them in your post, "Republicans to brand Democrats as socialists"???
I guess when you tell so many different stories it gets hard to remember what you said each time. But in looking back, you DID IN FACT cite the dailykos as your source.
www.blogcatalog.com/politics/discuss/entry/republican-to-brand-democrats-as... -
So what. Are you saying they're not trying to re-brand the democrats as socialists? They've been trying to do that for over a year. They tried to make Obama out to be a socialist. Just do a search for republicans democrat socialist party
Here:
www.google.com/#hl=en&q=republicans+democrat+socialist+party&btnG=Google+Se... -
"And I've never used the DailyKos as proof of anything."
What I am saying is that you are disingenuous. You said you don't use left wing sites for proof, yet when I prove that you did, you change the subject. Can you not even admit when you are caught in a lie? You answered me with "So what."
How can anyone debate with you when you are not intellectually honest?
Bottom line, when I am wrong and it is shown to me, I admit it. Case in point when I first started blogging on this site, I basically called Agit8r a liberal. After he called me on it and I read his blog, I admitted I was wrong. Evidently you are above doing that satijournal. -
Give it up, Antics. There's not going to be a front page news story on some new Republican tactic. Nor is it an important issue. It's just another in a long list of right-wing-nut-job activities.
-
I am in total agreement with you sati. The fact that you lied and then got caught in that lie will never be a "front page news story." And if being honest and admitting when I am wrong, which you are unable to do, is a "right-wing-nut-job activity", then I am proud to be considered so by you.
Try being a big enough person to admit when you are wrong, it might do you some good. -
What exactly did I lie about? That republicans are going to brand democrats as socialists? They talked about it on Meet The Press this morning.
You got nothing. You're just another simple minded right-wing ideologue who loves their party more than they love their country. People like you got Bush elected and are responsible for the disastrous economic and foreign policies that got us into the mess were in. You call someone a liar like it's nothing because the truth means nothing to you. Dishonesty is a way of life for people like you. -
@antics
Where is the lie? If you have something specific that satijournal said that you want to refute then do so. If you don't then please stop making these petty personal attacks. -
Now that you are done throwing your little hissy fit let me try ONE more time. You stated on this blog that you don't use left wing web sites to prop up your asinine assertions. When I pointed it out to you, you simply denied it with a flippant, "So what." I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong as I did when I accused Agit8r of being a liberal. He called me on it and I admitted I was wrong. You seem to be unable to do that. Once again, here is the link where you used the dailykos as a reference, sati.
www.google.com/#hl=en&q=republicans+democrat+socialist+party&btnG=Google+Se...
And if you scroll up two posts above that you see yourself denying it.
That is what you lied about.
@timethief, try reading a bit before passing judgment.
As far as the GOP branding the Dems as socialists by making it official, then let me reiterate (to state or do over again or repeatedly sometimes with wearying effect - I supplied you with the definition sati since it was a big word and you evidently have trouble with them) that if they do that, then they are wasting valuable time and resources. The GOP would be much better served to just getting back to basics and go back to a conservative philosophy.
I never said they weren't doing it. I merely said, before it had come out in the mainstream that let's wait and see if it is so. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
As far as me calling you a liar. I do so because for some strange reason you have a problem admitting that you did what you accused me of. That is using extremist web sites to reference a given post. You know nothing about me to say that dishonesty is a way of life for me. I have not made similar assumptions about you, I only pointed out where you lied. Yet you feel the need to try and attack my personal life. Funny, isn't that straight out of Rules for Radicals by Sol Alinsky?
-
-
As we continue to bicker amongst ourselves Washington continues to do what they want.
-
No they don't.
-
-
-Forgive the double post, I hit the wrong reply button-
Now that you are done throwing your little hissy fit let me try ONE more time. You stated on this blog that you don't use left wing web sites to prop up your asinine assertions. When I pointed it out to you, you simply denied it with a flippant, "So what." I am a big enough man to admit when I am wrong as I did when I accused Agit8r of being a liberal. He called me on it and I admitted I was wrong. You seem to be unable to do that. Once again, here is the link where you used the dailykos as a reference, sati.
www.google.com/#hl=en&q=republicans+democrat+socialist+party&btnG=Google+Se...
And if you scroll up two posts above that you see yourself denying it.
That is what you lied about.
@timethief, try reading a bit before passing judgment.
As far as the GOP branding the Dems as socialists by making it official, then let me reiterate (to state or do over again or repeatedly sometimes with wearying effect - I supplied you with the definition sati since it was a big word and you evidently have trouble with them) that if they do that, then they are wasting valuable time and resources. The GOP would be much better served to just getting back to basics and go back to a conservative philosophy.
I never said they weren't doing it. I merely said, before it had come out in the mainstream that let's wait and see if it is so. Why is that so hard for you to understand.
As far as me calling you a liar. I do so because for some strange reason you have a problem admitting that you did what you accused me of. That is using extremist web sites to reference a given post. You know nothing about me to say that dishonesty is a way of life for me. I have not made similar assumptions about you, I only pointed out where you lied. Yet you feel the need to try and attack my personal life. Funny, isn't that straight out of Rules for Radicals by Sol Alinsky? -
I think Obama has done a fair job over his first few months in office. I personally take the Collins/Snowe approach to his stimulus bill - no, it was far from perfect, and yes, there was too much pork attached...but ultimately, SOMETHING had to be done. If the GOP still believes cutting taxes 'til the end of time will solve everything, they evidently haven't learned a thing. I am a tad irked by Obama's refusal to address the gay marriage issue, but otherwise, I haven't had too many dramatic quibbles with his domestic policy. I suppose at the end of the day, while Obama hasn't exactly swept me off my feet, he's certainly given me a whole lot less frustration than his predecessor.-
It is also pretty clear that at least one (then) Republican senator was from a state with terribly crumbling infrastructure, and almost had to vote for it. Arlen Specter of course
-
@andyroo: "SOMETHING had to be done."
Historically, stimulus have either a) Fixed the problem entirely (US 1950's Interstate, Nazi Germany 1930's, West Germany 1940's, or China just now with their freeway project) or b) made the situation MUCH MUCH WORSE (Japan 1990's, America 1970's, and Argentina 1950's are all examples of minor recessions turned in to major catastrophes with misplaced stimulus.)
This is because you have the competing forces of the immense price tag which must be recovered through taxation and the immediate gain through stabilizing demand. If this dilemma is left as is, the stimulus fails because businesses find that hoarding profits instead of reinvesting them is the most profitable decision. This is because the taxes to be paid back will be determined by profit levels. If they make more money, they will pay more in taxes, so the profitability of reinvesting money made now to yield profit later drops in comparison to hoarding.
Projects like the Interstate and the Marshall Plan in West Germany yield infrastructure that can be used to make business more profitable in the future. This backs the current demand.
@Agit8r: Most of the stimulus bills infrastructure money went to "shovel ready" projects. In other words, those in rural areas that barely need them, but don't involve demolishing much.
-
-
Funny, I was recently thinking about had Rick Santorum not been miserably booted from his Senate seat in '06, there would've been zilch chance of him bringing forth the slightest ounce of support re: Obama's stimulus. And, of course, of the fireworks that (yet again) would spark between he and his more moderate counterpart.
-
they are running out of moderate counterparts
-
-
he is in the right place on the right time.I don't want to go to deep but before he become president have 2 problems the war and recession.with war he fix it and now need to fix it with recession what is not easy . -
Yes. I used to hold no respect for the man in any capacity, except maybe sheer fear of power (maybe), but now, seeing him more clearly, while I still disagree with everything he stands for, I can respect a lot of his merit and personal strength, discipline, work ethic and salesmanship, and see a little bit where something like a love of this country may come in and why it looks so different.
-
jeremy, did you fall and hit your head? Because I can't see one thing the man has done that demonstrates a love for his country.
-
His view of the country is as a large amalgamation of people who can't take care of themselves. Thus, his love of the country consists of taking care of them the Chicago Way. Bad policy, but his heart is in the right place - mind not so much.
-
By your logic, he has a love for the down trodden people, but not the country itself. Hence his continual apologies for America's "arrogance," etc...
But I think I can see what you are trying to say, I just don't agree with it. -
I don't agree with that attitude either, but I can see at least where it is loving, and that's an improvement.
-
jeremy, as regards Obama, I will leave you with a quote by British philosopher, C.S. Lewis.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -
Do you see me disagreeing? I don't, but this is about the man, not his political career.
-
The more I realize what a phony he is, the creepier he seems to me. He thinks he can stand up and make canned speeches to us that are full of platitudes while attempting to manipulate the country with his dirty Chicago brand politics. He is insulated by his cronies who think just like he does and his popularity is falling as the American public sees through him. Like a figure from Greek tragedy, he is blinded by pride and hubris. Once the moderates and independents who supported him fell betrayed, they are not going to respect him. The democcrats will lose control of congress next year. As one pundit put it (and I think he was a liberal), twenty five years from now, if socialism succeeds in winning out, they'll look back at Obama as a very clumsy attempt from which they learned a lot of what not to do.
-
-
Yes my opinion has changed.
I thought he was bad at first.
Worse later..
And still going downhill from there.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
