Defending Obama - The Increasingly Difficult Task

[jwoodie]

Candidate Obama rather deviously enlisted the support of millions of marijuana legalization advocates by clearly and deceptively conveying the impression that he was friendly to their cause. When interviewed on the subject of marijuana use he readily admitted that he ". . . inhaled -- frequently!" But shortly after being elected, when he was asked about his position on marijuana legalization he responded contemptuously, refusing to even discuss the issue, which 'til now he hasn't done.

He also did a good job of convincing the voting public that he intended to "seek justice" in matters regarding the Iraq invasion and related apparent criminal actions. But as President he appointed a wooden Indian as Attorney General whose primary focus is on civil rights issues. Not only has Obama retained a number of the conspirators in the Bush crime family he has gone well out of his way to deflect any attempt to investigate the activities of what appears to be the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency. For this reason I personally consider Obama to be culpable in all of the Bush Administration's crimes.

In spite of the fact that Obama has repeatedly promised to defend Social Security against any benefit reductions as an alternative to raising taxes on upper income levels, he not only has canceled two Social Security Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs), he recently proposed permanantly eliminating them.

I will maintain that Obama is better than Bush, which is like saying gonorrhea is better than syphilis, but at the bottom line Obama is just one more lying, self-serving politician who happens to be as slick as the average Broadway pimp. And as far as any hope for the future where our terminally corrupted political system is concerned, in my opinion nothing short of revolutionary political action is capable of effecting meaningful and positive change. I'm talking about sweeping no less than 80% of the existing Congress out of office, but considering the divisive nature of the American electorate there is little to no chance of that ever happening.

"We have met the enemy -- and it is us." (Pogo)

I am no fan of either of the Bush Presidents, but this constant Big Lie repetition about being "the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency" is both tiresome and worrisome in that it has been swallowed by so many gullible people. Isn't it enough to say that they both won wars but lost the peace afterwards?

If anything, Bush 43 was guilty of having too moral of an attitude in world affairs. The crap about his "Texas oil buddies" and "lying" about WMDs has no more validity than the proposition that he was part of an "Inside job" to blow up the TT Towers on 9/11.

My biggest criticism of him is failing to call attention to the crazy subprime lending which led to the mortgage meltdown (he hoped it wouldn't happen on his watch) and his willingness to let GM be given to the UAW instead of proceeding through a normal bankruptcy. However, his successor has compounded our financial problems to the point of making him look fiscally responsible by comparison.

 

[MikeK]

Candidate Obama rather deviously enlisted the support of millions of marijuana legalization advocates by clearly and deceptively conveying the impression that he was friendly to their cause. When interviewed on the subject of marijuana use he readily admitted that he ". . . inhaled -- frequently!" But shortly after being elected, when he was asked about his position on marijuana legalization he responded contemptuously, refusing to even discuss the issue, which 'til now he hasn't done.

He also did a good job of convincing the voting public that he intended to "seek justice" in matters regarding the Iraq invasion and related apparent criminal actions. But as President he appointed a wooden Indian as Attorney General whose primary focus is on civil rights issues. Not only has Obama retained a number of the conspirators in the Bush crime family he has gone well out of his way to deflect any attempt to investigate the activities of what appears to be the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency. For this reason I personally consider Obama to be culpable in all of the Bush Administration's crimes.

In spite of the fact that Obama has repeatedly promised to defend Social Security against any benefit reductions as an alternative to raising taxes on upper income levels, he not only has canceled two Social Security Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs), he recently proposed permanantly eliminating them.

I will maintain that Obama is better than Bush, which is like saying gonorrhea is better than syphilis, but at the bottom line Obama is just one more lying, self-serving politician who happens to be as slick as the average Broadway pimp. And as far as any hope for the future where our terminally corrupted political system is concerned, in my opinion nothing short of revolutionary political action is capable of effecting meaningful and positive change. I'm talking about sweeping no less than 80% of the existing Congress out of office, but considering the divisive nature of the American electorate there is little to no chance of that ever happening.

"We have met the enemy -- and it is us." (Pogo)

I am no fan of either of the Bush Presidents, but this constant Big Lie repetition about being "the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency" is both tiresome and worrisome in that it has been swallowed by so many gullible people. Isn't it enough to say that they both won wars but lost the peace afterwards?

If anything, Bush 43 was guilty of having too moral of an attitude in world affairs. The crap about his "Texas oil buddies" and "lying" about WMDs has no more validity than the proposition that he was part of an "Inside job" to blow up the TT Towers on 9/11.

My biggest criticism of him is failing to call attention to the crazy subprime lending which led to the mortgage meltdown (he hoped it wouldn't happen on his watch) and his willingness to let GM be given to the UAW instead of proceeding through a normal bankruptcy. However, his successor has compounded our financial problems to the point of making him look fiscally responsible by comparison.

So you believe George W. Bush won a war in Iraq but lost the peace, and that his biggest fault was being too moral.

There is a condition called defensive delusion in which someone who cannot psychologically deal with the reality of some event, such as the death of a loved one, simply rejects it and replaces it with an acceptable fantasy.

That is all I have to say in response to you.

 

[Circe]

It is obvious that George W. Bush lied about the non-existent WMD so he could have his war with Iraq. The purpose was to try a new method of getting rid of problem anti-American dictators. This was "never let a crisis go to waste" thinking, piggybacking the invasion of Iraq on the back of the Muslim bombing of New York. Many people, including me, realized at the time that the WMD thing was just a lie to get the war going!! It was commonly accepted at the time and history is sure to list it as one of the several occasions of administrations lying to get an aggressive war going, including the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor before the Spanish-American war and the faked up Tonkin Gulf ship attack. American presidents lie to start wars, guys: get used to it. It's a common practice EVERYwhere, everywhen. Won't surprise me if we do the same to North Korea if we decide it's time this mess was ended. Lie that they've attacked our ships and poof, there's your war.

None of Bush-Rumsfeld's plotting worked out because we got bogged down in Iraq, wholly attributable to Bush and Rumsfeld's idiocy. We had to stay till they dug Saddam out of the spider hole, obviously, and then we should have killed him and gotten right the hell out. They tried to remake Iraq like we remade Japan and Germany, forgetting that we had defeated both those countries to the point of inability to resist at all, which was, wow, so very not the case in Iraq.

I think that's all obvious at this late date.

 

[jwoodie]

Candidate Obama rather deviously enlisted the support of millions of marijuana legalization advocates by clearly and deceptively conveying the impression that he was friendly to their cause. When interviewed on the subject of marijuana use he readily admitted that he ". . . inhaled -- frequently!" But shortly after being elected, when he was asked about his position on marijuana legalization he responded contemptuously, refusing to even discuss the issue, which 'til now he hasn't done.

He also did a good job of convincing the voting public that he intended to "seek justice" in matters regarding the Iraq invasion and related apparent criminal actions. But as President he appointed a wooden Indian as Attorney General whose primary focus is on civil rights issues. Not only has Obama retained a number of the conspirators in the Bush crime family he has gone well out of his way to deflect any attempt to investigate the activities of what appears to be the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency. For this reason I personally consider Obama to be culpable in all of the Bush Administration's crimes.

In spite of the fact that Obama has repeatedly promised to defend Social Security against any benefit reductions as an alternative to raising taxes on upper income levels, he not only has canceled two Social Security Cost-Of-Living-Adjustments (COLAs), he recently proposed permanantly eliminating them.

I will maintain that Obama is better than Bush, which is like saying gonorrhea is better than syphilis, but at the bottom line Obama is just one more lying, self-serving politician who happens to be as slick as the average Broadway pimp. And as far as any hope for the future where our terminally corrupted political system is concerned, in my opinion nothing short of revolutionary political action is capable of effecting meaningful and positive change. I'm talking about sweeping no less than 80% of the existing Congress out of office, but considering the divisive nature of the American electorate there is little to no chance of that ever happening.

"We have met the enemy -- and it is us." (Pogo)

I am no fan of either of the Bush Presidents, but this constant Big Lie repetition about being "the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency" is both tiresome and worrisome in that it has been swallowed by so many gullible people. Isn't it enough to say that they both won wars but lost the peace afterwards?

If anything, Bush 43 was guilty of having too moral of an attitude in world affairs. The crap about his "Texas oil buddies" and "lying" about WMDs has no more validity than the proposition that he was part of an "Inside job" to blow up the TT Towers on 9/11.

My biggest criticism of him is failing to call attention to the crazy subprime lending which led to the mortgage meltdown (he hoped it wouldn't happen on his watch) and his willingness to let GM be given to the UAW instead of proceeding through a normal bankruptcy. However, his successor has compounded our financial problems to the point of making him look fiscally responsible by comparison.

So you believe George W. Bush won a war in Iraq but lost the peace, and that his biggest fault was being too moral.

There is a condition called defensive delusion in which someone who cannot psychologically deal with the reality of some event, such as the death of a loved one, simply rejects it and replaces it with an acceptable fantasy.

That is all I have to say in response to you.

Speaking of delusion, has it ever occurred to you, during brief moments of lucidity, that your response is completely devoid of any facts or logic to support your position?

"Bush lied, people died." Keep up the chant if it makes you feel better.

 

[FA_Q2]

Funny you bring up the NDAA, because I was very confused on how Obama handled the infamous "indefinite detention" provision.

At first he said "I'm not signing the NDAA because of it" and made everyone think he was going to veto the bill (Nov 2011). Then he said "I have to sign because I need to get our military funded" (which I was fine with, as I thought it made sense at the time).

But when that specific provision was challenged six months later by a district judge and ruled Unconstitutional, why did Obama swoop in to appeal that ruling?

One would think (by his previous actions/statements) he would be fine with this portion being challenged; after all, he was 'against' this outlier rider, and the military had its funding at this point. Really fucking weird (and I ask people with different viewpoints to chime in here..).

That really opened up my eyes...


.

Not so weird really. As Mike stated, the same thing happened with marijuana legislation (and the resulting government challenges to state legislation). It represents power and the one thing that all presidents and congressmen can reliably do is INCREASE their power.

It’s funny when people ask me why I don’t trust my government. Trusting the government is the craziest thing anyone can do. Government is not some benevolent thing that we should want; it is something that MUST exist shut we should always keep it on a short leash.

To not sign the bill would have significantly harmed the Ag economy at a point the economy was already weak. He really had little choice at that point. Better to ask why Harry Reid allowed that into the bill and didn't introduce an amendment to strip it out. Our ask Senators Berg, Blunt, McConnell and Nelson who were prime recipients of Monsanto cash. Or the House Leadership who all received Monsanto checks and were likely responsible for the amendment. The problem is people like you don't understand the system and blame Obama for something over which he has little control.

Bullshit. He signed it and he had complete control over it. To say otherwise is to give him a pass on his own actions. He has COMPLETE control over that veto.

You say this like the non-passage of that bill means that it is over and done with. That is false. If he vetoes it (and frankly the veto is known before the bill ever makes it to him in the first place) then congress will send another one up.

No one is going to buy that bullshit sandwich of last minute demands and we MUST pass it because we are out of time. In addition, the aggro bill is one of the few things that will get through no matter what demands are made over it as well. There are too many special interests pushing those bills.

There is a condition called defensive delusion in which someone who cannot psychologically deal with the reality of some event, such as the death of a loved one, simply rejects it and replaces it with an acceptable fantasy.

That is all I have to say in response to you.

You should get a mirror then. Really, I mean it. You are demanding that the world reflect your ideas rather than building your ideas around the world:

The intelligence was fucked, the people reading it were even more fucked (they wanted to see something that was not there) and they were all relying on the fact that others agreed but there was not a large degree of dishonesty here. Just a screwed up system that was operating under shit Intel with shit people doing the interpreting. Everyone want to make someone pay. There is no one to pay.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

I'm not used to this level of dishonesty from you, Kevin. Is it desperation?


ETA: OOPS! I was confusing you with Kevin Kennedy. Perhaps this IS your regular level of dishonesty.

Hello, thanks for adding so much to this discussion Synth. You seem like the person who likes to bicker for the sake of bickering vs actually trying to foster a healthy discussion with people of different viewpoints.

Total lack of attempt at engaging in a respectful or meaningful manner... congrats.

Anyways, if you're going to insult me then at the very least try to back up some of your claim. How is the topic dishonest? Did I link to a fake article, and did Obama never sign the bill?


.

It's dishonest because you are framing this as though Obama knew about this Monsanto provision and signed it anyway. It turns out that very few people knew about it, and the Senator who slipped it in did it anonymously, which for some reason they are allowed to do.

If you were honest (or, perhaps just informed) you would have started this thread against the anonymous Senator and the Senate rules that allowed this to happen. But then you wouldn't be able to take another swipe at the President Of The United States, would you?

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm not used to this level of dishonesty from you, Kevin. Is it desperation?


ETA: OOPS! I was confusing you with Kevin Kennedy. Perhaps this IS your regular level of dishonesty.

Hello, thanks for adding so much to this discussion Synth. You seem like the person who likes to bicker for the sake of bickering vs actually trying to foster a healthy discussion with people of different viewpoints.

Total lack of attempt at engaging in a respectful or meaningful manner... congrats.

Anyways, if you're going to insult me then at the very least try to back up some of your claim. How is the topic dishonest? Did I link to a fake article, and did Obama never sign the bill?


.

It's dishonest because you are framing this as though Obama knew about this Monsanto provision and signed it anyway. It turns out that very few people knew about it, and the Senator who slipped it in did it anonymously, which for some reason they are allowed to do.

If you were honest (or, perhaps just informed) you would have started this thread against the anonymous Senator and the Senate rules that allowed this to happen. But then you wouldn't be able to take another swipe at the President Of The United States, would you?

So, you are excusing him because he didn’t read the bill he signed.

Really?

I do have to agree with the anonymous thing though. Everything in the congress should be recorded, from all votes to all objections/riders/bills introduced.

 

[Chris]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

Who cares?

It's sugar, fat, and salt that are killing people.....not GMOs.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hello,

I feel like defending Obama is becoming an increasingly difficult task for our country's Democrats. If you still support, just wondering what your rationale is. I'm being 100% genuine here and just want to come to a better understanding.


"Included in the bill is a rider, Section 735, which says federal courts cannot intervene and halt biotech companies from planting and selling GMO goods to the public, even if testing proves them to be potentially hazardous to the greater public. Because the legislation largely shields agriculture giants Monsanto from litigation...

...after more than 250,000 people signed a petition asking the White House to intervene and ensure the bill was not passed, Pres. Obama nonetheless approved it last week"


Time to rethink Obama? The above is blatantly against the best interests of US Citizens.




Top senator apologizes for 'Monsanto Protection Act' after public outrage ? RT USA



.

I tend to be independent but I am curious how you can fault Obama for that provision? Is he supposed to shut down the entire Ag department over one provision he doesn't like. There is much not to like about Obama but trying to lay this at his feet instead of the home state Senator to Monsanto that stuffed this rider into the bill says more about you than Obama.

Hey, it's a point, but has Obama been an anti-Monsanto President? Didn't he recently appoint Michael Taylor (former Monsanto exec) to a top spot within the FDA?

And you know what, I don't accept that Obama has to sign this document despite the rider. We have checks and balances for a very good reason, and I think it's his job to be on the lookout for us. If there's a provision that seriously threatens the health and safety of our nation, and/or a provision that was clearly pushed through by Senators/Representatives that are bought by corporations (and have an ulterior agenda), than it's up to the President to reject the document. I mean, is that too much to ask?

Isn't that why we have the President sign this in the first place? Why even bother?

.

.

According to you, Obama should reject the Keystone XL project. Because it is potential hazardous to the nation's health and safety.

According to you, Obama should reject anything that further contributes to climate change, because of the potential hazards to the nation's health and safety.

Should I continue?

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't think anyone ever accused Obama of that.

He is however the President and a central figure that people can direct their frustrations to. He represents the establishment, and a system that is becoming increasingly infiltrated with special interest monies and corporate influence. I'm no old buck, but I've read a few books in my lifetime and it appears things are getting worse (vs better).

I mean, in the 1990's we saw important banking regulations being ripped apart, paving the way for a Wall Street free for all that ended up collapsing our economy in 2006-2008. The Secretary of Treasury at the time (a former Goldman Sachs Chief) convinced the upper shelves of our Gov't to bail out the banks with US taxpayer money, and that's exactly what they did.

This bailout is still going on today with the Fed buying billions and billions in toxic assets from these banks every single flipping month.

And in comes Obama on his shining horse in 2008, talking about "fat cats" and holding these guys responsible. If he didn't say these things, he might not have gotten elected, but he did and I'm holding him accountable for that.

Not only did he not come through on his promise, he is actually turning out to be one of the laxest Presidents in history when it comes to prosecuting white collar crime - despite after all that's happened in the past 10 years. Yea, folks are upset, and obviously Wall Street has zero incentive to change any of their behavior. What does that mean? More fraud, more profits, and eventually another collapse (quick tidbit: banks still hold $700 trillion + of derivative risk on their books as of last year).

Kids are graduating with $50k in college debt and very few good jobs to chose from. The system is clearly not working very well and needs to be overhauled.

It's come to a boiling point.

.

.

I agree but don't you think the Republican Party shares plenty of the blame?

Case in Point: Carried Interest Exemption

Hedge fund managers take a significant share of their compensation for running the fund as a percentage of the profits. It is a variable compensation plan just like a sales rep would have. So a young hard working sales rep makes 90k trying to support a family and pays 32% marginal tax.

For the Hedge fund manager, he takes 20% of profits which like the sales rep makes up about 2/3's of his income. But unlike the sales rep the Hedge Fund manager has friends in Congress so he counts his income as capital gains and only pays 15% tax on his profits.

This slimy deal has been protected by the Republican Party for years and is one of the things Obama wants to eliminate in exchange for entitlement reform but the Republicans say no.

The Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats.

I don't side with either one and try to evaluate each politician as a person vs a Party.

.

Uh-huh.

Yet, you titled this thread Defending Obama - The Increasingly Difficult Task instead of an attack against Republicans who put corporate interests ahead of the nation's well-being.

You're a phony moderate.

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree but don't you think the Republican Party shares plenty of the blame?

Case in Point: Carried Interest Exemption

Hedge fund managers take a significant share of their compensation for running the fund as a percentage of the profits. It is a variable compensation plan just like a sales rep would have. So a young hard working sales rep makes 90k trying to support a family and pays 32% marginal tax.

For the Hedge fund manager, he takes 20% of profits which like the sales rep makes up about 2/3's of his income. But unlike the sales rep the Hedge Fund manager has friends in Congress so he counts his income as capital gains and only pays 15% tax on his profits.

This slimy deal has been protected by the Republican Party for years and is one of the things Obama wants to eliminate in exchange for entitlement reform but the Republicans say no.

The Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats.

I don't side with either one and try to evaluate each politician as a person vs a Party.

.

Uh-huh.

Yet, you titled this thread Defending Obama - The Increasingly Difficult Task instead of an attack against Republicans who put corporate interests ahead of the nation's well-being.

You're a phony moderate.

Again, really?

Is attacking Obama that sacred that it is not to be done no matter what?

Seriously, just because you are on the left does not mean that you cannot criticize Obama. It does not mean that you cannot create a thread when you are tired of Obama. There are plenty of hacks creating pro Obama and anti-republican threads all over the place. He does not need to be one of those and there is nothing inherently ‘republican’ in criticizing what a person fells is a failure on Obamas part.

 

[Synthaholic]

I am no fan of either of the Bush Presidents, but this constant Big Lie repetition about being "the worst criminal regime in the history of the U.S. Presidency" is both tiresome and worrisome in that it has been swallowed by so many gullible people. Isn't it enough to say that they both won wars but lost the peace afterwards?

If anything, Bush 43 was guilty of having too moral of an attitude in world affairs. The crap about his "Texas oil buddies" and "lying" about WMDs has no more validity than the proposition that he was part of an "Inside job" to blow up the TT Towers on 9/11.

My biggest criticism of him is failing to call attention to the crazy subprime lending which led to the mortgage meltdown (he hoped it wouldn't happen on his watch) and his willingness to let GM be given to the UAW instead of proceeding through a normal bankruptcy. However, his successor has compounded our financial problems to the point of making him look fiscally responsible by comparison.

So you believe George W. Bush won a war in Iraq but lost the peace, and that his biggest fault was being too moral.

There is a condition called defensive delusion in which someone who cannot psychologically deal with the reality of some event, such as the death of a loved one, simply rejects it and replaces it with an acceptable fantasy.

That is all I have to say in response to you.

Speaking of delusion, has it ever occurred to you, during brief moments of lucidity, that your response is completely devoid of any facts or logic to support your position?

"Bush lied, people died." Keep up the chant if it makes you feel better.

Deride it all you want, if that makes you feel better. But it's a true statement.

 

[Synthaholic]

Hello, thanks for adding so much to this discussion Synth. You seem like the person who likes to bicker for the sake of bickering vs actually trying to foster a healthy discussion with people of different viewpoints.

Total lack of attempt at engaging in a respectful or meaningful manner... congrats.

Anyways, if you're going to insult me then at the very least try to back up some of your claim. How is the topic dishonest? Did I link to a fake article, and did Obama never sign the bill?


.

It's dishonest because you are framing this as though Obama knew about this Monsanto provision and signed it anyway. It turns out that very few people knew about it, and the Senator who slipped it in did it anonymously, which for some reason they are allowed to do.

If you were honest (or, perhaps just informed) you would have started this thread against the anonymous Senator and the Senate rules that allowed this to happen. But then you wouldn't be able to take another swipe at the President Of The United States, would you?

So, you are excusing him because he didn’t read the bill he signed.

Really?

I do have to agree with the anonymous thing though. Everything in the congress should be recorded, from all votes to all objections/riders/bills introduced.

Most Senators and Congressmen do not read the bills that they vote on. They have a staff that does that for them, who present their analysis to their boss for consideration.

Yet, you expect that the President Of The United States should ignore hi staff and personally pour over every bill before signing it.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Republicans are just as much to blame as the Democrats.

I don't side with either one and try to evaluate each politician as a person vs a Party.

.

Uh-huh.

Yet, you titled this thread Defending Obama - The Increasingly Difficult Task instead of an attack against Republicans who put corporate interests ahead of the nation's well-being.

You're a phony moderate.

Again, really?

Is attacking Obama that sacred that it is not to be done no matter what?

Seriously, just because you are on the left does not mean that you cannot criticize Obama. It does not mean that you cannot create a thread when you are tired of Obama. There are plenty of hacks creating pro Obama and anti-republican threads all over the place. He does not need to be one of those and there is nothing inherently ‘republican’ in criticizing what a person fells is a failure on Obamas part.

I would say that if Obama knew about this provision and was fine with it, then he deserves every criticism. But starting an attack Obama thread because he was duped by a hidden provision places the blame in the wrong place and furthers the impression of Rightwing ODS.

 

[KevinWestern]

Uh-huh.

Yet, you titled this thread Defending Obama - The Increasingly Difficult Task instead of an attack against Republicans who put corporate interests ahead of the nation's well-being.

You're a phony moderate.

Again, really?

Is attacking Obama that sacred that it is not to be done no matter what?

Seriously, just because you are on the left does not mean that you cannot criticize Obama. It does not mean that you cannot create a thread when you are tired of Obama. There are plenty of hacks creating pro Obama and anti-republican threads all over the place. He does not need to be one of those and there is nothing inherently ‘republican’ in criticizing what a person fells is a failure on Obamas part.

I would say that if Obama knew about this provision and was fine with it, then he deserves every criticism. But starting an attack Obama thread because he was duped by a hidden provision places the blame in the wrong place and furthers the impression of Rightwing ODS.

Don't have a lot of time to go through all of your responses, but I've got to say that it sounds like your main defense is that Obama didn't know about the rider (right?). Synth, below is a petition that two hundred and fifty thousand individuals took the time to read and sign. I believe this petition came out shortly after the document was passed through Congress (pre POTUS signature).

So correct me if I'm wrong, but your suggestion is that the rider was hidden and covert enough to fool our President, but was not covert enough to fool 250,000 private individuals who did not have access to the highest levels of Gov't?

And supposedly I'm the one being dishonest here?

Synth, personally, I'd like an explanation or an apology (for the insult).




Tell President Obama to Veto the Monsanto Protection Act! | LeakSource

.

 

[MikeK]

It is obvious that George W. Bush lied about the non-existent WMD so he could have his war with Iraq. The purpose was to try a new method of getting rid of problem anti-American dictators.

First, Saddam Hussein was an effective ally of the U.S. in our mutual hostility with Iran during the hostage crisis. Our aggression against Iraq came about by deliberately double-crossing him when he notifed us of his intention to (justifiably) attack Kuwait and asked if we had any objection. We said we didn't, then turned on him and destroyed his army, thus removing him as a threat to Saudi Arabia -- a close and intimate friend of the bush dynasty.

This was "never let a crisis go to waste" thinking, piggybacking the invasion of Iraq on the back of the Muslim bombing of New York. Many people, including me, realized at the time that the WMD thing was just a lie to get the war going!! It was commonly accepted at the time and history is sure to list it as one of the several occasions of administrations lying to get an aggressive war going, including the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor before the Spanish-American war and the faked up Tonkin Gulf ship attack. American presidents lie to start wars, guys: get used to it. It's a common practice EVERYwhere, everywhen. Won't surprise me if we do the same to North Korea if we decide it's time this mess was ended. Lie that they've attacked our ships and poof, there's your war.

And you approve of a policy which has incrementally destroyed our reputation and transformed the United States into the most hated nation in the world? While I will agree that our government got over on us with the phony attacks on the Maine and the Tonkin Gulf (while ignoring Israel's very real attack on the USS Liberty) there was too much evidence in advance of the WMD deception to not know it was a lie. How long do you think the U.S. can survive conducting this kind of menacing foreign policy? If WW-III doesn't destroy our Nation it will turn it into something beyond Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.

None of Bush-Rumsfeld's plotting worked out because we got bogged down in Iraq, wholly attributable to Bush and Rumsfeld's idiocy. We had to stay till they dug Saddam out of the spider hole, obviously, and then we should have killed him and gotten right the hell out. They tried to remake Iraq like we remade Japan and Germany, forgetting that we had defeated both those countries to the point of inability to resist at all, which was, wow, so very not the case in Iraq.

The first and critically important fact you are ignoring is our destruction of Japan and Germany were justified actions. They had attacked us and threatened to destroy us. Iraq did nothing to us. What we did to Iraq is clearly a war crime and the world clearly perceives and understands the implications of that.

Fear is the precursor of hate.

 

[nitroz]

I think Obama isn't putting his foot down enough and getting the job done.

He's too busy trying to lollygag and compromise with other people/parties.
If it was me, either help me or get out of my way.

 

[MikeK]

I think Obama isn't putting his foot down enough and getting the job done.

He's too busy trying to lollygag and compromise with other people/parties.
If it was me, either help me or get out of my way.

One of the reasons why Obama was not my first choice (Kucinich was) is he is a young man with a young family. He will still be a young man with a young family when he leaves Office. What happens to him then will depend entirely on the friends and enemies he makes during his eight years in power.

In everything Obama has done thus far he has carefully avoided stepping on the toes of any entity which will influence his choices as Mr. Obama. He clearly is a friend to the banks and to the One Percent.

He is a deceitful, self-serving faker who cannot be trusted.

 

[MikeK]

You should get a mirror then. Really, I mean it. You are demanding that the world reflect your ideas rather than building your ideas around the world:

The intelligence was fucked, the people reading it were even more fucked (they wanted to see something that was not there) and they were all relying on the fact that others agreed but there was not a large degree of dishonesty here. Just a screwed up system that was operating under shit Intel with shit people doing the interpreting. Everyone want to make someone pay. There is no one to pay.

The intelligence wasn't "fucked." The intelligence, which derived mainly from actual ongoing inspections and internal sources in Iraq, quite obviously was 100% accurate.

Bush could not have gotten approval to invade Iraq were it not for the testimony of his house ******, Colin Powell, whom I regard as the most culpable member of the conspiracy. That treacherous sonofabitch had been Chairman of The Joint Chiefs during Operation Desert Storm, so who would know better than he what Iraq's military capabilities were? If Hussein had any such weapons -- why didn't he use them then? And why didn't he use them during the nine subsequent years in which we methodically bombed his country into the stone age? Yet Powell succumbed to Bush's arm-twisting by coming before the UN, and the world, with a cartoon drawing and a vial of white something, and he knowingly commits 4,400 of the troops who once had trusted him as their leader to their deaths, along with tens of thousand more to being maimed and driven to suicide. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including women and children, who were killed or maimed for absolutely no justifiable reason.

The only Americans who believed the Iraq invasion was justifiable were those who were either too ignorant or too stupid to know better, or those who delusionally chose to believe it.

The intelligence wasn't fucked. The American People were fucked by Bush & Co. Because what was done to Iraq was done in their names. Our names. Yours and mine. And as the result of it there are many thousands of Muslims in the world who would eagerly sacrifice their own lives to strike at you and me or our loved ones.

And what for?

 

[jwoodie]

The number of posts within a single thread is inversely proportional to the poster's grasp of the subject matter.