Obama's OWS

[bitterlyclingin]

Cartooning the Occupy Wall Street protest: Enjoy the depictions


Today's Toons 10/12/11 - The Right Reasons

 

[Dragon]

"The left got what it wanted in 2008: a liberal president with a sweeping agenda and big Democratic majorities capable of enacting it.

No. We didn't.

 

[Si modo]

"The left got what it wanted in 2008: a liberal president with a sweeping agenda and big Democratic majorities capable of enacting it.

No. We didn't.

Well, 'left' is a subjective term. Your 'left', and apparently the 'left' for the OWS, is farther left of Obama. I still haven't figured out if your left is left of Uncle Joe's or neck-and-neck with his, though. Hard call ... yet.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

"The left got what it wanted in 2008: a liberal president with a sweeping agenda and big Democratic majorities capable of enacting it.

No. We didn't.

Well, 'left' is a subjective term. Your 'left', and apparently the 'left' for the OWS, is farther left of Obama. I still haven't figured out if your left is left of Uncle Joe's or neck-and-neck with his, though. Hard call ... yet.

Ol uncle joe.

 

[Dragon]

Obama is not a "liberal" president. He campaigned as one, but he has governed as center-left on social issues and center-right on economic ones. There is hardly a single progressive campaign promise that he made that he has not broken. The only exception I can think of is to end DADT. We are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo is still open, the objectionable parts of the Patriot Act are still in force, he has put Wall Street cronies in his cabinet in key economic positions, Bernanke is still at the Fed, and his negotiating stances with Congress have had a consistent right tilt (for a Democrat).

Congress had a large Democratic majority, but no liberal majority at all. The health-care reform it gave us was in large part a giveaway to the health-insurance industry, barely an improvement over doing nothing, the stimulus it passed was designed to create 2-3 million jobs when 10-12 million were needed at great inefficiency, and the consumer protection agency was created with no teeth.

The article presents the false narrative of liberal overreach as an explanation of the 2010 election. But there was no liberal overreach. The premise is false. There was, in fact, liberal under-reach. The Democrats lost last year's election because their progressive supporters who put them if office in 2008 felt betrayed by them and stayed home in 2010.

 

[Truthmatters]

The parasitic class never really had a message. It was just confused and chaotic enough for people to impose their own message coming from the mass. Corporate abuse, yes you can find it, transgender rights, it's there too.

The use of the parasitic class was never in the message but in the mass.

So you have taken to calling the American people parasites now?


That should win alot of votes.

Oh wait you dont believe in voting any way huh?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Obama is not a "liberal" president. He campaigned as one, but he has governed as center-left on social issues and center-right on economic ones. There is hardly a single progressive campaign promise that he made that he has not broken. The only exception I can think of is to end DADT. We are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo is still open, the objectionable parts of the Patriot Act are still in force, he has put Wall Street cronies in his cabinet in key economic positions, Bernanke is still at the Fed, and his negotiating stances with Congress have had a consistent right tilt (for a Democrat).

Congress had a large Democratic majority, but no liberal majority at all. The health-care reform it gave us was in large part a giveaway to the health-insurance industry, barely an improvement over doing nothing, the stimulus it passed was designed to create 2-3 million jobs when 10-12 million were needed at great inefficiency, and the consumer protection agency was created with no teeth.

The article presents the false narrative of liberal overreach as an explanation of the 2010 election. But there was no liberal overreach. The premise is false. There was, in fact, liberal under-reach. The Democrats lost last year's election because their progressive supporters who put them if office in 2008 felt betrayed by them and stayed home in 2010.

His hardcore base will vote for him nonetheless.

 

[Dragon]

His hardcore base will vote for him nonetheless.

He'd better not take that for granted.

 

[Si modo]

The parasitic class never really had a message. It was just confused and chaotic enough for people to impose their own message coming from the mass. Corporate abuse, yes you can find it, transgender rights, it's there too.

The use of the parasitic class was never in the message but in the mass.

So you have taken to calling the American people parasites now?


That should win alot of votes.

Oh wait you dont believe in voting any way huh?

Translation of English to moron (Babelfish definitely required):

'Parasitic' = adjective, a modifier of nouns

'Class' = a noun, modified by the adjective, 'parasitic', meaning a group of persons, not ALL persons.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

His hardcore base will vote for him nonetheless.

He'd better not take that for granted.

He can and he will. The D's have no one else.

 

[driveby]

they have every right to protest their views

Too bad they don't know what their views are......

 

[J.E.D]

I've noticed that the occupation has fancied the french revolution. I've heard several talk about marching people to guillotines and off with the head stuff. Is it your and the occupations move to advocate this type of violence? Is this one of the messages?

Did you notice this?

 

[Si modo]

I've noticed that the occupation has fancied the french revolution. I've heard several talk about marching people to guillotines and off with the head stuff. Is it your and the occupations move to advocate this type of violence? Is this one of the messages?

Did you notice this?

....

Where's the guillotine and decapitation rhetoric or the reference to the French Revolution?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I've noticed that the occupation has fancied the french revolution. I've heard several talk about marching people to guillotines and off with the head stuff. Is it your and the occupations move to advocate this type of violence? Is this one of the messages?

Did you notice this?

Yes, I did notice that. TP has its own freaks. How many were arrested from TP events vs Occupation events?

 

[Dragon]

He can and he will. The D's have no one else.

If he does, he'll lose, or win a Pyrrhic victory.

Young progressives put him in office and elected big Democratic majorities in 2008. The same young progressives sat home in 2010, giving the election to the Republicans. They are now putting their energy into protest movements instead.

If Obama wants to win next year, he needs to recognize why he won in 2008: because he campaigned as a progressive. If he is perceived as at least sincerely trying to live up to that campaign image, he'll regain the support that elected him the first time. If not, the only way he's going to win is if the Republicans nominate some nut job. Then it's possible young progressives will feel sufficiently motivated to cast a vote against rather than a vote for. But if it's Obama as he is now versus Mitt Romney -- as seems increasingly likely? Why bother? He still might pull it off, but not in a way that will let him accomplish anything.

Even if the GOP does nominate a nut job and center-right Obama gets reelected by default, the chances under those conditions for the Dems to regain the House are very slim.

No, next year's election is at best a holding action for the left, not anything decisive, barring a very unlikely sea change on the part of the Democrats. At this point, the necessary reforms aren't even on the ballot, so voting isn't going to accomplish anything beyond damage control. The main focus needs to be on the protest movement, until those reforms are on the ballot. And that's not likely to happen next year.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uv1MVF7fqoM]Chris Hedges Slaps Down Kevin O'Leary on Occupy Wall Street - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[LordBrownTrout]

He can and he will. The D's have no one else.

If he does, he'll lose, or win a Pyrrhic victory.

Young progressives put him in office and elected big Democratic majorities in 2008. The same young progressives sat home in 2010, giving the election to the Republicans. They are now putting their energy into protest movements instead.

If Obama wants to win next year, he needs to recognize why he won in 2008: because he campaigned as a progressive. If he is perceived as at least sincerely trying to live up to that campaign image, he'll regain the support that elected him the first time. If not, the only way he's going to win is if the Republicans nominate some nut job. Then it's possible young progressives will feel sufficiently motivated to cast a vote against rather than a vote for. But if it's Obama as he is now versus Mitt Romney -- as seems increasingly likely? Why bother? He still might pull it off, but not in a way that will let him accomplish anything.

Even if the GOP does nominate a nut job and center-right Obama gets reelected by default, the chances under those conditions for the Dems to regain the House are very slim.

No, next year's election is at best a holding action for the left, not anything decisive, barring a very unlikely sea change on the part of the Democrats. At this point, the necessary reforms aren't even on the ballot, so voting isn't going to accomplish anything beyond damage control. The main focus needs to be on the protest movement, until those reforms are on the ballot. And that's not likely to happen next year.

What he ran on in 2008 is irrelevant at this point. He has three years of failed policies behind him now.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's like the left forgot that the revolutionaries themselves were eventually marched to the guilliontine! This movement really is following that failed history. The mega rich to the business class to the Christians. Maybe the powers in Europe will restore the Constitution and the presidency they way they had to restore the monarchy in France.

 

[Dragon]

What he ran on in 2008 is irrelevant at this point. He has three years of failed policies behind him now.

What he has are three years of broken promises, not "failed policies." And that means what he ran on in 2008 is TOTALLY relevant.

 

[Dragon]

It's like the left forgot that the revolutionaries themselves were eventually marched to the guilliontine!

We're not up to the guillotine stage yet, and may never get there. Even so, Napoleon was himself a revolutionary. A dictator, yes, but a progressive one whose reforms paved the way for France to eventually have a real republic. Napoleon arguably did more to promote democracy in Europe than any other single person.

When the monarchy was restored temporarily, it was a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy as before. That was progress. And many of Napoleon's reforms guaranteeing the rights of the people remained in force. The change was real.