#1 Left revokes President Obama´s liberal card09-14-2013, 09:26 AM
Left revokes President Obama´s liberal card
The man who won the presidency in part due to his opposition to the Iraq War was suddenly leading a charge to use military force against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Republican refusal to go along was to be expected. The liberal backlash, though, was particularly intense. >>>
The White House says he’s still a proud progressive. And, of course, he’ll always be a socialist to the Republican base. To prominent liberals, though, Obama’s center-left, sure. But he’s no liberal. >>>
“The president was the embodiment of the dreams and aspirations of a better country and better future,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), recalling the feeling in the crowd at Obama’s inauguration. “To some extent the person that he’s not is a person that he ultimately could never be.”
But Syria, coming off of a summer of rolling National Security Agency snooping revelations, is all Obama. >>>
Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said Obama’s the one responsible for the confusion over what liberal politics means, arguing he’s effectively poisoned the movement by seeming to support it, while actively betraying it. >>>
The problem isn’t just in the Oval Office. Liberals say they can’t really see many soulmates in Obama’s Cabinet either, especially since John Kerry took over leading the administration’s push on Syria.
Its difficult for a dedicated marxist to rule a center right country when he has a pesky Constitution to deal with. But if history is any lesson, I have full confidence that Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy and McConnell can and will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Liberalism is just communism sold by the drink.
09-14-2013, 09:45 AM
Silly Liberals. All your Empty Suit Liberal President cares about is himself and his next vacation.
It just proves the depth of Liberal stupidity that you clowns bought the horseshit "your" guy was selling.
Morons.May the FORCE be with you!
09-15-2013, 12:40 AM
- Join Date
- May 2008
Obama's shining point was that he was never for the war in Iraq. He even voted against it years ago, something most wouldn't have dared done back then. There was NOTHING in his background to make us suspect he would do what he just did in the past few weeks, NOTHING. I don't think I'm a moron for "buying" that.
Watching Obama wage war (that his own Secretary of Defense admitted would do no real good) would be like you all watching a Republican take up the cause of universal healthcare.In memory of Ahmed Merabet, Rafael Ramos, and Wenjian Liu.
09-15-2013, 10:34 AM
09-15-2013, 11:43 AM
- Join Date
- May 2008
Clinton did offer non-conservative solutions to the economical crisis and the healthcare crisis, but Obama got her by bringing up that she wanted a fine for those who wouldn't purchase healthcare. He also brought up that Clinton was for the Iraq war years ago (an idea no longer popular). Personally, I think it's hypocritical for voters to vote against somebody who favored the Iraq war years ago when they also favored the Iraq war.
Anyway, Obama went back on his word against fines for those who didn't purchase healthcare and went back on his word to wage peace. It's a betrayal. I still do like some parts of his healthcare plan, like the fact that nobody can be rejected for having a pre-existing condition anymore. Exams and vaccinations are supposedly free (although I'm having to turn in a form for reimbursement on my vaccination, so we'll see if that works out).
As for black people, what has he done for them? Perhaps I'm missing something there. I think the main thing he's done is show that a black man can become President (sort of suggesting it's time to stop making excuses for oneself). I do think that's a major step. However, he didn't help improve employment for black people. I don't think he's helped the school system in black neighborhoods. Like or not, we're still segregated. It's just not legally binding. Obama has done more to encourage job training and that might have helped the black people.In memory of Ahmed Merabet, Rafael Ramos, and Wenjian Liu.
09-15-2013, 06:26 PM
Kucinich is absolutely right that Obama is the reason that liberals are confusing. Before him, liberalism was about ideals. It was about treating women with respect, like Bill Clinton and Teddy Kennedy did. It was about racial harmony, and healing, the way that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Robert Byrd, Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan did it. It was about saving the environment by reducing your consumption, like Al Gore, Michael Moore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Larry David. It's about paying your fair share in taxes, like Charlie Rangel andJohn Kerry, and being responsible with public property like Nancy Pelosi. Kucinich is dead on about Obama confusing liberals, because with those kinds of role models, anyone with half a brain could see what liberalism is all about.
Sic hacer pace, para bellum.
Sent from my android.
09-15-2013, 08:43 PM
09-16-2013, 08:50 AM
Back during the Great Depression, when communists were telling the rest of the world how wonderful the USSR was, Walter Duranty of the NY Times and a host of other fellow travelling low-lives hid the excesses of Stalin from the rest of the world. When the truth came out, the left decided that Stalin wasn't one of them, that he had imposed something called "state capitalism" and that real communism hadn't been tried. When Mao's mass murders became too obvious to hide, the left gradually dumped him (notice how one never sees the Little Red Book on college campuses anymore). When Pol Pot's mass murders came out, he went from a communist liberator to a victim of US imperialism, driven mad by our bombing. When the Berlin Wall came down, the left started calling themselves progressives and pretended that socialism was something that they'd never advocated. This is just another lie.
The infuriating thing about this is that when Obama was riding high, they were the ones screaming about how wonderful he was. He was a "lightworker" who stood above us "like a kind of a god." Those of us who saw through this were attacked as racists and monsters. Now that his failures, which are the direct result of policies that they demanded, are manifest, all of a sudden they're kicking him to the curb? Hell no. Those idiots forced him on the rest of us, they lied about his record, obscured his failures, protected him from any scrutiny and heaped abuse on those of us who saw him for what he was, and now they think that they get a pass? The hell with that. They own him.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|