Isn't Obama now an "Armchair, Weekend Warrior"?

[Liability]

Obama has continued many neocon policies and is executing many of the same actions he so strongly criticized. He's so selfish he allowed himself to be marketed as an African American when he doesn't even come close. Long before he got in office many of us pointed out it would essentially be Bush's third term in office. The only difference I can see between the two is the names of their wives.

For the Honesty...



peace...

Fair point there, Mal. I find that I disagree with almost all things said by Curve Light. But, in fairness to CL, he was absolutely being consistent in the observation you applauded.

 

[CurveLight]

Obama has continued many neocon policies and is executing many of the same actions he so strongly criticized. He's so selfish he allowed himself to be marketed as an African American when he doesn't even come close. Long before he got in office many of us pointed out it would essentially be Bush's third term in office. The only difference I can see between the two is the names of their wives.

For the Honesty...



peace...

Fair point there, Mal. I find that I disagree with almost all things said by Curve Light. But, in fairness to CL, he was absolutely being consistent in the observation you applauded.

Could you do me a favor and never publicly admit it when you agree with something I've posted? Thank you.

 

[CurveLight]

Sure, sure. You're calling Democrats racists, and I proved that Republicans are, if anything, more racist than Democrats, in a fully institutional way.

Now, I personally don't go calling people "racists" based on stupid nonsensical out-of-context quotes, like some people. Nor do I think that Republican in general are racist.

But if you people are going to be giant hypocrites by calling Democrats "racist", I'm certainly going to respond in kind.

Your "fully institutional" argument is demonstrably false by the fact it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights Act. If it was up to Dems it wouldn't have had a chance.

And one of the Leaders in the DemocRAT Party @ the Time in the Senate, Robert "There are White *******" Byrd (D-KKK), continues to be Racist some 50 Years AFTER Filibustering Against Civil Rights for Blacks...

Senator Byrd (D-KKK) is Lovingly Referred to as "the Conscience of the Senate" by his Party...

DemocRATS are Racist... Their Obsessive Fingerpointing and Claims of "Racism" by anybody and everybody on the Right is little More than Projection...

One of their Primary Racist Activities to this Day is to Assume Failure on the Very Minorities they Supposedly Represent and Support.

They don't Believe Blacks and Minorities can do ANYTHING without their Help or More Accurately, the Help of the Federal Government via the American Taxpayer.

It's the Worst kind of Racism.



peace...

There are racists in both Parties so I don't understand this contest of "You're Party is more racist than mine!"

 

[Liability]

For the Honesty...



peace...

Fair point there, Mal. I find that I disagree with almost all things said by Curve Light. But, in fairness to CL, he was absolutely being consistent in the observation you applauded.

Could you do me a favor and never publicly admit it when you agree with something I've posted? Thank you.

Don't wet your panties. I don't agree with you, generally. In fact, all I said this time (your reading comprehension issues are cluster-fuckling you again) was that you were at least consistent.

 

[CurveLight]

Fair point there, Mal. I find that I disagree with almost all things said by Curve Light. But, in fairness to CL, he was absolutely being consistent in the observation you applauded.

Could you do me a favor and never publicly admit it when you agree with something I've posted? Thank you.

Don't wet your panties. I don't agree with you, generally. In fact, all I said this time (your reading comprehension issues are cluster-fuckling you again) was that you were at least consistent.

Then allow me to clarify. Please don't ever publicly admit any positive thing you ever see in any of my posts. Thank you.

 

[Liability]

And those factoids still fail to substantiate your petty dishonest propagandistic pointless.

But feel free to keep swinging and missing.

Sure, sure. You're calling Democrats racists, and I proved that Republicans are, if anything, more racist than Democrats, in a fully institutional way.

Now, I personally don't go calling people "racists" based on stupid nonsensical out-of-context quotes, like some people. Nor do I think that Republican in general are racist.

But if you people are going to be giant hypocrites by calling Democrats "racist", I'm certainly going to respond in kind.

No. YOU were arguing (as so many of your mindless liberal-talking-pointless dishonest fellow Democrat Parody propagandists are prone to arguing) that the GOP is racist. I countered by noting that YOU and your libtarded bretheren are in no position to be casting stones.

You took umbrage at the truth.

 

[Vast LWC]

Your "fully institutional" argument is demonstrably false by the fact it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights Act. If it was up to Dems it wouldn't have had a chance.

And here's a bit of Ann Coulterite revisionist history that we often hear.

The Democrats held a 258 to 177 majority in the House in 1964, and the bill passed 290 to 130. The bill almost never got to the floor, do to the efforts of a single southern Democrat, but Lyndon Johnson (also a Democrat) used the power of the bully pulpit to force the bill through.

In the Senate, the Democrats held a majority of 66 to 34. The final vote in the Senate was 73 to 37.

While it is true that the bill was filibustered by a couple of Democratic Congressmen from the South, it is also true that all those seats, representing racist districts (with the exception of Robert Byrd's seat) are now held by Republicans.

In fact, the passage Civil Rights Act, and the fact that Lyndon Johnson personally forced the House to vote on it, caused the South to go Republican.

Which means that almost all those racist folks who were against the Civil Rights act in the first place are now Republican.

 

[Vast LWC]

No. YOU were arguing (as so many of your mindless liberal-talking-pointless dishonest fellow Democrat Parody propagandists are prone to arguing) that the GOP is racist. I countered by noting that YOU and your libtarded bretheren are in no position to be casting stones.

You took umbrage at the truth.

And here we have the favorite tactic of the right-wingers. Blame your opponents for doing what you yourself are guilty of.

In this case we have this post that started this entire argument:

He has the Ability and the Congress to STOP them... They and he are NOT...

Wake up... You were Played by a Playa and his Crew...

And behind Closed Doors, Barry and Reid both talk about what they don't like about the "Negros"...



peace...

"And behind Closed Doors, Barry and Reid both talk about what they don't like about the "Negros"..."

Oh no, you di'nt just go there!

So, no, it was your buddy "the malcontent" that started this, and you personally who egged him on.

 

[mal]

No. YOU were arguing (as so many of your mindless liberal-talking-pointless dishonest fellow Democrat Parody propagandists are prone to arguing) that the GOP is racist. I countered by noting that YOU and your libtarded bretheren are in no position to be casting stones.

You took umbrage at the truth.

And here we have the favorite tactic of the right-wingers. Blame your opponents for doing what you yourself are guilty of.

In this case we have this post that started this entire argument:

He has the Ability and the Congress to STOP them... They and he are NOT...

Wake up... You were Played by a Playa and his Crew...

And behind Closed Doors, Barry and Reid both talk about what they don't like about the "Negros"...



peace...

"And behind Closed Doors, Barry and Reid both talk about what they don't like about the "Negros"..."

Oh no, you di'nt just go there!

So, no, it was your buddy "the malcontent" that started this, and you personally who egged him on.

Politically Naive, you are...



peace...

 

[CurveLight]

Your "fully institutional" argument is demonstrably false by the fact it was Republicans who voted in the Civil Rights Act. If it was up to Dems it wouldn't have had a chance.

And here's a bit of Ann Coulterite revisionist history that we often hear.

The Democrats held a 258 to 177 majority in the House in 1964, and the bill passed 290 to 130. The bill almost never got to the floor, do to the efforts of a single southern Democrat, but Lyndon Johnson (also a Democrat) used the power of the bully pulpit to force the bill through.

In the Senate, the Democrats held a majority of 66 to 34. The final vote in the Senate was 73 to 37.

While it is true that the bill was filibustered by a couple of Democratic Congressmen from the South, it is also true that all those seats, representing racist districts (with the exception of Robert Byrd's seat) are now held by Republicans.

In fact, the passage Civil Rights Act, and the fact that Lyndon Johnson personally forced the House to vote on it, caused the South to go Republican.

Which means that almost all those racist folks who were against the Civil Rights act in the first place are now Republican.

Coulter is a **** but it seems par for you to be guilty of the same shit you accuse others of. Let's look at some basics:


"Republicans were able to modify voting registration procedures, the status of the Civil Rights Commission, and enforcement procedures. The resulting compromise received the Judiciary Committee's endorsement, 23 to 11, on October 29, 1963, after the original subcommittee proposal was defeated, 19 to 15. The Judiciary Committee formally reported H. R. 7152 on November 20."


"Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96."


"In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes."
CongressLink: [Congress: The Basics - Lawmaking] Civil Rights: Major Features of the Civil Rights Act of 1964


So like I said, your institutional argument is bullshit.

 

[QUENTIN]

Short answer: Yes, very much so.

On the continuation and escalation of these dumb wars, he is no better than his predecessor and the continued, unnecessary bloodshed is on his hands.

He took what were terrible but reversible decisions and institutionalized them because he is a coward and consummate politician, rather than a good president. As he has with lawless, justice-free courts, the national surveillance state, and welfare for the wealthy.

 

[mal]

Short answer: Yes, very much so.

On the continuation and escalation of these dumb wars, he is no better than his predecessor and the continued, unnecessary bloodshed is on his hands.

He took what were terrible but reversible decisions and institutionalized them because he is a coward and consummate politician, rather than a good president. As he has with lawless, justice-free courts, the national surveillance state, and welfare for the wealthy.

What Concerns me Most is that ALL of that "War Criminal" and "No Blood for Oil" Crap from the Left has Stopped... Even though their President has done EXACTLY what (43) was doing for a Year now.

The Dishonesty is Unbelievable.



peace...

 

[CurveLight]

Short answer: Yes, very much so.

On the continuation and escalation of these dumb wars, he is no better than his predecessor and the continued, unnecessary bloodshed is on his hands.

He took what were terrible but reversible decisions and institutionalized them because he is a coward and consummate politician, rather than a good president. As he has with lawless, justice-free courts, the national surveillance state, and welfare for the wealthy.

What Concerns me Most is that ALL of that "War Criminal" and "No Blood for Oil" Crap from the Left has Stopped... Even though their President has done EXACTLY what (43) was doing for a Year now.

The Dishonesty is Unbelievable.



peace...

The hypocrisy from obama supporters is staggering. I remember pointing out their silence when Obama announced escalating Afghanistan less than a month in office. If bush had made the announcement they would have been screaming and I fully support bringing obama up on charges of being a War Criminal just like Dubya. However, it's not very accurate to claim being against the occupations is a Leftist position. I've cited several career Conservatives who were against the invasions/occupations based on it violating basic Republican principles, such as no nation building. The neocons and the Christian Right have been squealing louder but by no standards do they represent all Republicans.

 

[QUENTIN]

What Concerns me Most is that ALL of that "War Criminal" and "No Blood for Oil" Crap from the Left has Stopped... Even though their President has done EXACTLY what (43) was doing for a Year now.

The Dishonesty is Unbelievable.

No it hasn't, not one bit. The left in this country is every bit as angry and vocal about Obama being a war criminal as they were about Bush being a war criminal. The ANSWER Coalition, United for Peace and Justice, Students for a Democratic Society, AntiWar, Code Pink, etc. are all just as committed to ending the war now as they were a year ago.

Even Fox ran a story about the protests from the left over Obama's escalation of the invasive foreign occupation of Afghanistan.

FOXNews.com - Anti-War Left Protests Obama's Afghanistan War Strategy

The people who have stopped protesting and voicing opposition to the war are not the left, but just Democrats. They're not remotely the same thing. That's like saying conservatives had no problem with massive government spending and the federal deficit ballooning under Bush, just because Republicans didn't. Democrat ≠ the left and Republican ≠ the right, in fact for the most part, neither are represented by those parties who have their own interests their representing and to be of the left or right, you can't really support either party at least at the national level because they don't represent the views of the left or right.

People are defined politically by their actions and beliefs. Conservatives and liberals are people who believe in and act according to their principles. Anyone who switches gears when the party in power turns over does not have those principles and is not a member of the left or right, but merely a member of a particular political party and a partisan adherent to whatever that party does regardless of principle.

 

[namvet]

What Concerns me Most is that ALL of that "War Criminal" and "No Blood for Oil" Crap from the Left has Stopped... Even though their President has done EXACTLY what (43) was doing for a Year now.

The Dishonesty is Unbelievable.

No it hasn't, not one bit. The left in this country is every bit as angry and vocal about Obama being a war criminal as they were about Bush being a war criminal. The ANSWER Coalition, United for Peace and Justice, Students for a Democratic Society, AntiWar, Code Pink, etc. are all just as committed to ending the war now as they were a year ago.

Even Fox ran a story about the protests from the left over Obama's escalation of the invasive foreign occupation of Afghanistan.

FOXNews.com - Anti-War Left Protests Obama's Afghanistan War Strategy

The people who have stopped protesting and voicing opposition to the war are not the left, but just Democrats. They're not remotely the same thing. That's like saying conservatives had no problem with massive government spending and the federal deficit ballooning under Bush, just because Republicans didn't. Democrat ≠ the left and Republican ≠ the right, in fact for the most part, neither are represented by those parties who have their own interests their representing and to be of the left or right, you can't really support either party at least at the national level because they don't represent the views of the left or right.

People are defined politically by their actions and beliefs. Conservatives and liberals are people who believe in and act according to their principles. Anyone who switches gears when the party in power turns over does not have those principles and is not a member of the left or right, but merely a member of a particular political party and a partisan adherent to whatever that party does regardless of principle.

he's pulling out of afghan to shut up the protesters. the troops??? an expendable asset

 

[QUENTIN]

he's pulling out of afghan to shut up the protesters. the troops??? an expendable asset

Bush and Obama and every postwar president with maybe the exceptions of Eisenhower and Carter have viewed the lives of their troops as expendable.

If Obama were trying to "shut up the protesters" rather than feed the military-industrial complex, he would have pulled out of that pointless and counter-productive war, not massively escalated it.

 

[mal]

What Concerns me Most is that ALL of that "War Criminal" and "No Blood for Oil" Crap from the Left has Stopped... Even though their President has done EXACTLY what (43) was doing for a Year now.

The Dishonesty is Unbelievable.

No it hasn't, not one bit. The left in this country is every bit as angry and vocal about Obama being a war criminal as they were about Bush being a war criminal. The ANSWER Coalition, United for Peace and Justice, Students for a Democratic Society, AntiWar, Code Pink, etc. are all just as committed to ending the war now as they were a year ago.

Even Fox ran a story about the protests from the left over Obama's escalation of the invasive foreign occupation of Afghanistan.

FOXNews.com - Anti-War Left Protests Obama's Afghanistan War Strategy

The people who have stopped protesting and voicing opposition to the war are not the left, but just Democrats. They're not remotely the same thing. That's like saying conservatives had no problem with massive government spending and the federal deficit ballooning under Bush, just because Republicans didn't. Democrat ≠ the left and Republican ≠ the right, in fact for the most part, neither are represented by those parties who have their own interests their representing and to be of the left or right, you can't really support either party at least at the national level because they don't represent the views of the left or right.

People are defined politically by their actions and beliefs. Conservatives and liberals are people who believe in and act according to their principles. Anyone who switches gears when the party in power turns over does not have those principles and is not a member of the left or right, but merely a member of a particular political party and a partisan adherent to whatever that party does regardless of principle.

The Kooks aren't going away, that's a Given... It's the Coverage from the DemocRATS Liberal Media that's gone away...

Notice your Link?



peace...

 

[QUENTIN]

The Kooks aren't going away, that's a Given... It's the Coverage from the DemocRATS Liberal Media that's gone away...

Notice your Link?



peace...

As an engaged member of numerous anti-war groups and attendant of most major national protests of the last ten years, I can tell you that the Corporate Media you describe has never given much coverage to the anti-war movement. Not in the last 30 years anyway. You get 100,000 people to march on Washington, and if the cause is against warfare, it's on page C17 below the fold if it's in the papers at all and the nightly news makes no mention. They spent a little while talking about the huge 2003 protest because it was the biggest in world history, then it was old news and unfit to print from then on. Occasionally you'd get a personality like Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan, but then the story was always focused on the person and their controversy, never a substantive discussion of what they were saying.

Compared to the coverage given the Vietnam War opponents, the backs of the Corporate Media have basically been turned on the anti-war crowd in this country.

Actual liberal media, The Nation, Mother Jones, Democracy Now, RawStory, etc. haven't decreased coverage of protest nor opposition to the war.

Again, all you're saying is that Democrats are Democrats. Yep. They're not the left.

 

[namvet]

he's pulling out of afghan to shut up the protesters. the troops??? an expendable asset

Bush and Obama and every postwar president with maybe the exceptions of Eisenhower and Carter have viewed the lives of their troops as expendable.

If Obama were trying to "shut up the protesters" rather than feed the military-industrial complex, he would have pulled out of that pointless and counter-productive war, not massively escalated it.

but he said afghan was a good war. and now he's pulling out totally next year. he's murdering these kid for politics. no support for them. he is gonna do a Bush style surge. but not the same results.

 

[Liability]

No. YOU were arguing (as so many of your mindless liberal-talking-pointless dishonest fellow Democrat Parody propagandists are prone to arguing) that the GOP is racist. I countered by noting that YOU and your libtarded bretheren are in no position to be casting stones.

You took umbrage at the truth.

And here we have the favorite tactic of the right-wingers. Blame your opponents for doing what you yourself are guilty of.

In this case we have this post that started this entire argument:

He has the Ability and the Congress to STOP them... They and he are NOT...

Wake up... You were Played by a Playa and his Crew...

And behind Closed Doors, Barry and Reid both talk about what they don't like about the "Negros"...



peace...

"And behind Closed Doors, Barry and Reid both talk about what they don't like about the "Negros"..."

Oh no, you di'nt just go there!

So, no, it was your buddy "the malcontent" that started this, and you personally who egged him on.

Only in the lunatic mind of an uber-liberoidal (which is to say, a person steeped in dishonesty and irrationality, like Vastly Ignorant) would the satirical comment made by tha mal -- about Reid and President Obama and their embracing of racism -- be conceived as "starting" anything.

Vastly Ingorant has not the first damn clue.