PDA

View Full Version : is Obama in control?


mhgaffney
05-28-2013, 05:12 PM
US government at a crossroads

Obama's recent speech appeared at first to signal a change in course. Obama renewed his pledge to close GITMO and mentioned that perpetual war endangers our freedoms.

But a closer look suggests that Obama is between a rock and a hard place. Ron Paul has warned that in fact the Obama admin plans an increase in drone attacks and covert ops.

One writer (below) suggests that Obama is under attack from within -- and not fully in control. If Obama attempts -- like JFK -- to wind down the war machine, he will be removed from office (i.e., assassinated). But let's hope he tries anyway.

Obama's best -- in fact his only -- chance of pulling off such a move would be to go straight to the people.

MHG


The War on Terror and the Fate of US Democracy

By Joseph Kishore
Global Research, May 28, 2013

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-terror-and-the-fate-of-us-democracy/5336698

The speech delivered by President Barack Obama at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. last week has revealed not only a crisis within the Obama administration and increasingly bitter conflicts within the highest echelons of the state, but also, and most profoundly, a historic crisis of class rule.

Obama’s speech is of exceptional political significance. More than a half-century after Eisenhower warned that American democracy was threatened by the emergence, in the aftermath of World War II, of a “military-industrial complex,” Obama all but acknowledged that American democracy is approaching a point of breakdown.

A decade after the beginning of the “war on terror,” Obama warned, “America stands at a crossroads.” He continued, “We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us. We have to be mindful of James Madison’s warning that no nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.”

In other words, the danger to American democracy comes not from “terrorists”—the catch-all pretext for every action taken by the American ruling class since September 11, including by the present administration—but from within the state itself.

Obama’s speech clearly emerged out of bitter conflicts within the state apparatus. He seemed engaged in a debate, without naming the parties with whom he was arguing. At times he would pause, as if he was waiting for a response. He took an almost passive attitude to the actions of his own administration, as if these were somehow external, somehow directed by forces outside of his own control.

This was not the speech of a confident chief executive, but the representative of an administration under siege, torn by internal contradictions, in which his control over the government seems entirely questionable.

The president repeatedly referred to illegal actions taken. The American government had, he acknowledged, “compromised our basic values—by using torture to interrogate our enemies, and detaining individuals in a way that ran counter to the rule of law.”

By designating them as “counter to the rule of law,” Obama was effectively admitting that actions taken by the United States government—that have continued under his own administration—were illegal, criminal, unconstitutional.

Obama sought to defend these actions, while openly betraying his own nervousness that he was directly implicated in violations of the Constitution, for which he could be held liable.

Obama repeatedly reminded his audience that there were others involved in making these decisions. “Not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes, every strike,” he insisted. “That includes the one instance where we targeted an American citizen.”

Hidden from the American people, preparations are far advanced for an open break with democratic forms of rule in the United States. Under the framework of the “war on terror,” the American ruling class has brought democracy to the very brink of extinction.

Under first Bush and then Obama, the executive has claimed vast powers to wage war, spy on the American people, torture and hold prisoners indefinitely without charge, try them in military commissions, and kill anyone, anywhere, including US citizens, without due process.

Little more than a month ago, following the still unexplained bombings at the Boston Marathon, the entire city was placed in lockdown and virtual martial law. As the WSWS noted at the time, “The events in Boston have laid bare the modus operandi for the establishment of dictatorial forms of rule in the US.” Once again, as with the attacks of September 11 that set off the “war on terror,” the bombers were being closely monitored by sections of the state apparatus, and the events were seized on to implement new and unprecedented attacks on democratic rights.

The breakdown of democracy is tied to an immense growth in the strength of the military and intelligence apparatus. These institutions operate as virtual laws unto themselves.

Confirming that issues of civilian-military relations are being intensively discussed within the ruling class, an article appeared in the New York Times on Monday, penned by retired Army lieutenant general Karl Eikenberry, the former head of Armed Forces in Afghanistan, and historian David Kennedy. Under the headline, “Americans and Their Military, Drifting Apart,” the two authors worry that the expansion of the military is taking place under conditions of “a minimum citizen engagement and comprehension.”

To address this situation, they call for the institution of the draft in some form, before concluding, “While the armed forces retool for the future, citizens cannot be mere spectators. As Adams said about military power, ‘A wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it.’”

The advanced state of the breakdown of bourgeois democracy, under conditions of perpetual war, has generated intense conflicts among different factions of the ruling class. Within and between various branches of the military, the CIA and FBI, there are continuous factional wars, in which the conflicts within the ruling class are worked out behind the backs of the American people.

While there are sections of the ruling class that would back an open military dictatorship, the break with legality and “democracy” is also fraught with immense dangers. The legitimacy of the American political system is defined by the Constitution.

The American ruling class is destroying the political foundations upon which it has based its rule. They cannot invoke legality when they are confronting challenges to the state from the working class when they are the greatest law-breakers. The more they dispense with constitutional legality, the more illegitimate the ruling elite appears before the great mass of the population, within the United States and internationally.

Yet, despite these concerns, neither Obama nor any sections of the ruling class has anything else to offer. This explains the strange, contradictory character of Obama’s speech.

While voicing concern over the state of American democracy, one of the central aims of Obama’s remarks was to defend the most egregious violation of democratic principles thus far taken—namely, the assassination of US citizens without due process. These operations would continue, he said, with at most a pseudo-legal fig leaf, one or another form of Star Chamber proceedings to rubber stamp the decision of the executive.

As for militarism, while urging an end to a “boundless war on terror,” Obama outlined a series of military operations all over the world. He called for stepping up the arming of the Syrian “rebels,” many of which are tied to Al Qaeda, as part of the campaign to unseat President Bashar Al Assad. At the same time, sections of the American ruling class are trying to extract some of their forces from the Middle East in order to shift towards Asia and a more direct confrontation with China.

In the end, whatever Obama’s public displays of self-doubt, he has neither the will nor the ability to change anything. Efforts by the apologists of the Democratic Party, including the New York Times and the Nation magazine, to present Obama’s speech as a transformative event combine complacency, deceit and naiveté. As if to confirm this fact, Obama stressed on Memorial Day yesterday that the nation was “still at war.”

Moreover, if the most powerful sections of the bourgeoisie and the military/intelligence apparatus ever seriously considered for a moment that Obama was abandoning the program of global hegemony, his administration would come to a brutal and rapid end.

A crisis of bourgeois rule is one of the most important indicators of impending revolutionary upheaval. History substantiates a general political rule that revolutions arise not only because the oppressed classes cannot live in the old way, but that the ruling classes cannot rule in the old way.

Rohirrim
05-28-2013, 05:46 PM
I was actually following along a bit until I got to this line...
"...following the still unexplained bombings at the Boston Marathon..."

And then the bull**** meter went off.

cutthemdown
05-28-2013, 06:01 PM
LOL he's only got 2 yrs left why would they need to kill him? Wouldn't it be better to make sure a republican won who likes the war machine more? How did Obama win if someone else controls? If Obama has gone rouge then why not just make sure you get a lackey in the white house next time around. Hell that could get you 8 yrs. All killing Obama gets you is Biden.

W*GS
05-28-2013, 06:04 PM
I was actually following along a bit until I got to this line...
"...following the still unexplained bombings at the Boston Marathon..."

And then the bull**** meter went off.

My bull**** meter goes off when I see gaffe's name attached to a post or thread.

baja
05-28-2013, 06:18 PM
The USA is going down fast and if that is not bad enough there some very smart people that don't have a clue that it is happening.

pricejj
05-28-2013, 06:53 PM
Obama has been a war monger from the start of his term...and liberals fully support his agenda.

The media outlets have done a fairly good job of hiding it from the public view (unlike during Bush's term, when they televised it every single night). Just more bullcrap from the Progressive Socialists.

cutthemdown
05-29-2013, 12:31 AM
Also which is it with our media. Is it ok to use a current event to score political points and advance your agenda or isn't it. It seems like half the time they call that smart govt, the other half they call it a disgrace. Journalists have become lobbyists with a pen. They don't use money they use public perception and PR. Treat me right, advance my agenda, I wrtie great stories about you. Don't and I will attack.

B-Large
05-29-2013, 08:28 AM
We need to wind down this war on the enemy that will never be defeated... Spend our money on preventing attacks here.... Lets turn the page and begin to address our domestic issues like healthcare, schools and build a nation that focuses on one thing: enterprising spirit.. we need to get away from being the world police dept and get back to what has made us great

Rohirrim
05-29-2013, 08:33 AM
Obama has been a war monger from the start of his term...and liberals fully support his agenda.

The media outlets have done a fairly good job of hiding it from the public view (unlike during Bush's term, when they televised it every single night). Just more bullcrap from the Progressive Socialists.

"Liberal" in this case obviously means whatever you want it to mean. The real progressives in this government - the handful that are left, anyway - have been opposed to Obama's policies since he took office and rightly characterized him as another Clinton, i.e. Republican Lite. You forget, Obamacare was hatched in the belly of the Heritage Foundation. It is not a progressive solution.

It must be a drag to just rattle around in your own little box.

pricejj
05-29-2013, 09:39 AM
"Liberal" in this case obviously means whatever you want it to mean. The real progressives in this government - the handful that are left, anyway - have been opposed to Obama's policies since he took office and rightly characterized him as another Clinton, i.e. Republican Lite. You forget, Obamacare was hatched in the belly of the Heritage Foundation. It is not a progressive solution.

It must be a drag to just rattle around in your own little box.

Do you actually believe the bullcrap you write? Because no one with a sane mind does. Stew over that.

peacepipe
05-29-2013, 09:41 AM
Do you actually believe the bullcrap you write? Because no one with a sane mind does. Stew over that.

You obviously can't handle the truth.

Rohirrim
05-29-2013, 10:10 AM
Do you actually believe the bullcrap you write? Because no one with a sane mind does. Stew over that.

Like I said, must be a drag to rattle around in the Right Wing echo chamber. Keeping sucking on that blue pill. :thumbs:

orinjkrush
05-29-2013, 11:12 AM
interesting article. makes me think the O man is just a puppet of (fill in the blank elites).

just like the Dubber. It was Cheney's administration.

The O man is not much presidential material, no matter what his Harvard budds thought.

I think he will enjoy his Hawaiian retirement.

mhgaffney
05-29-2013, 03:00 PM
"Liberal" in this case obviously means whatever you want it to mean. The real progressives in this government - the handful that are left, anyway - have been opposed to Obama's policies since he took office and rightly characterized him as another Clinton, i.e. Republican Lite. You forget, Obamacare was hatched in the belly of the Heritage Foundation. It is not a progressive solution.

It must be a drag to just rattle around in your own little box.

So now we don't even agree what "liberal" means? Sheesh.

And exactly which progressives are you referring to? I'm not aware of any.

MHG

mhgaffney
05-29-2013, 03:20 PM
Chomsky makes a good point about the war machine. A kind of imperative. When one target goes away - another will be found to replace it.

At all costs -- the war machine will be put to use. And as it grows in size the scale of military activity (aggression and covert action) will expand.
MHG

From Yemen to Pakistan to Laos
Jeremy Scahill & Noam Chomsky on Secret U.S. Dirty Wars

Video

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35114.htm

Rohirrim
05-29-2013, 03:26 PM
So now we don't even agree what "liberal" means? Sheesh.

And exactly which progressives are you referring to? I'm not aware of any.

MHG

Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Alan Grayson. That's all I've got.

mhgaffney
05-29-2013, 03:31 PM
Bernie Sanders is in Obama's administration?

Rohirrim
05-29-2013, 05:19 PM
Bernie Sanders is in Obama's administration?

They're not part of the "government?"

pricejj
05-29-2013, 11:29 PM
Like I said, must be a drag to rattle around in the Right Wing echo chamber. Keeping sucking on that blue pill. :thumbs:

You claim the only problem with the Obama administration is that they aren't Leftist enough? Lol, yeah that's completely reasonable. You fit right in with James Holmes and the Occupy movement.

Rohirrim
05-30-2013, 08:04 AM
You claim the only problem with the Obama administration is that they aren't Leftist enough? Lol, yeah that's completely reasonable. You fit right in with James Holmes and the Occupy movement.

No. I claim that you have no coherent thought in your head or the slightest knowledge of politics whatsoever and simply come in here parroting what you hear on Fox, like so many troglodytes who came before you. You call Obama a liberal because the Right Wing echo chamber calls him a liberal. He's about as liberal as Richard Nixon. Actually, he's probably a bit to the Right of Nixon.

TonyR
05-30-2013, 10:24 AM
Do you actually believe the bullcrap you write? Because no one with a sane mind does. Stew over that.

Curious which part/parts of his post you think is/are "bullcrap"?

pricejj
05-30-2013, 11:27 AM
Curious which part/parts of his post you think is/are "bullcrap"?

Claiming that "the real progressives from this government have been opposed to Obama's policies" is utter hogwash.

No more time needs to be spent on it.

TonyR
05-30-2013, 11:30 AM
If you imagine a policy spectrum that that goes from 1-10 in which 1 is the most liberal policy, 10 is the most conservative policy, and 5 is that middle zone that used to hold both moderate Democrats and Republicans, the basic shape of American politics today is that the Obama administration can and will get Democrats to agree to anything ranging from 1 to 7.5 and Republicans will reject anything that’s not an 8, 9, or 10. The result, as I’ve written before, is that President Obama’s record makes him look like a moderate Republicans from the late-90s.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/24/josh-barro-didnt-leave-conservatism-conservatism-left-josh-barro/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

Rohirrim
05-30-2013, 12:40 PM
Claiming that "the real progressives from this government have been opposed to Obama's policies" is utter hogwash.

No more time needs to be spent on it.


http://www.thenation.com/blog/173697/progressives-push-back-against-obamas-social-security-medicare-austerity#

http://progressive.org/mag_reed0508

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/292089-progressives-blast-obamas-proposal-to-cut-entitlements

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cenk-uygur-savages-obama-on-gun-control-hard-to-find-progressives-who-support-him-anymore/

There are plenty more where these came from, dumbass.

pricejj
05-31-2013, 12:22 AM
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173697/progressives-push-back-against-obamas-social-security-medicare-austerity#

http://progressive.org/mag_reed0508

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/292089-progressives-blast-obamas-proposal-to-cut-entitlements

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cenk-uygur-savages-obama-on-gun-control-hard-to-find-progressives-who-support-him-anymore/

There are plenty more where these came from, dumbass.

Progressive Socialists journalists feigning outrage over their hand-picked corrupt, ineffective, lame-duck President in order to garner support for the next leftist whack job's (Hillary Clinton) Presidential run?

You don't say...

Just like rats jumping off a sinking ship. Comical really.

pricejj
05-31-2013, 12:26 AM
Voting record don't lie. Own it.

cutthemdown
05-31-2013, 01:25 AM
The only progressives that matter are in Hollywood and in the media. One gives money they other spins the story.

Rohirrim
05-31-2013, 08:45 AM
Progressive Socialists journalists feigning outrage over their hand-picked corrupt, ineffective, lame-duck President in order to garner support for the next leftist whack job's (Hillary Clinton) Presidential run?

You don't say...

Just like rats jumping off a sinking ship. Comical really.

Like most RW trogs, all you can do is cover your ears and keep shouting what Fox tells you to shout. blah blah blah

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 08:56 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/24/josh-barro-didnt-leave-conservatism-conservatism-left-josh-barro/?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

Geez, and here I thought Ezra might write about that closed door Obama Superfriends White House Strategy Session he attended after scandalpalooza broke out a couple weeks ago.

It's good to know that you keep pretty much every Administration Tool so handy in that tool belt of yours. :)

pricejj
05-31-2013, 12:03 PM
Like most RW trogs, all you can do is cover your ears and keep shouting what Fox tells you to shout. blah blah blah

Who the **** watches Fox?

Despite all the cover-ups, the truth about this administration is finally starting to come out for everyone to see.

Rat overboard!

Rohirrim
05-31-2013, 12:20 PM
Yeah. Fox has the highest ratings in Red State America but nobody watches it. Ha!
And yet, they come on here and post the Fox bull**** almost word for word.

The Right Wingers think the Left is monolithic simply because the Right is monolithic and they can't comprehend the idea of a multi-faceted, multi-view political universe. If you don't toe the line on the Right, they kick you out of the club. It's like a religion; Swear fealty to the dogma or get out. The Left allows for freedom of speech.

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 01:25 PM
Yeah. Fox has the highest ratings in Red State America but nobody watches it. Ha!
And yet, they come on here and post the Fox bull**** almost word for word.

The Right Wingers think the Left is monolithic simply because the Right is monolithic and they can't comprehend the idea of a multi-faceted, multi-view political universe. If you don't toe the line on the Right, they kick you out of the club. It's like a religion; Swear fealty to the dogma or get out. The Left allows for freedom of speech.

Did Fox ever attend closed door White House Superfriends media strategy sessions with GW, like we saw your high priests of truth do last week? LOL

God help Dub if he'd ever asked the media for an 'off the record' media conversation about any of his various scandals. You guys would've been seriously losing your ****.

Instead, you work overtime defending MS-(Holder is just like Moses) NBC. LOL

pricejj
05-31-2013, 02:04 PM
Yeah. Fox has the highest ratings in Red State America but nobody watches it. Ha!
And yet, they come on here and post the Fox bull**** almost word for word.

The Right Wingers think the Left is monolithic simply because the Right is monolithic and they can't comprehend the idea of a multi-faceted, multi-view political universe. If you don't toe the line on the Right, they kick you out of the club. It's like a religion; Swear fealty to the dogma or get out. The Left allows for freedom of speech.

Cool story.

The Obama IRS attacked free speech with politically motivated questionnaires targeting political opponents, and the DOJ attacked free speech while illegally obtaining phone records of the AP.

All part of the Obama administration's unrelenting onslaught on the Bill of Rights.

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 02:08 PM
Cool story.

The Obama IRS attacked free speech with politically motivated questionnaires targeting political opponents, and the DOJ attacked free speech while illegally obtaining phone records of the AP.

All part of the Obama administration's unrelenting onslaught on the Bill of Rights.

Don't forget about the Attorney General of the United States lying to and venue shopping for a Federal Judge that would grant him a warrant to read through a well-known journalist's emails and phone records.

The same Attorney General who we're told is now going to investigate if there was any possible wrongdoing. LOL

Requiem
05-31-2013, 02:23 PM
Obtaining the phone records of the Associated Press by means of subpoena is not illegal.

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 02:33 PM
Obtaining the phone records of the Associated Press by means of subpoena is not illegal.

Obtaining a warrant on a journalist under the espionage act and then claiming under oath that you'd never dream of prosecuting a journalist under the espionage act... yeah that's illegal.

Either he lied under oath to the House Judiciary Committee, or he lied while seeking a warrant from a federal judge. Why he's still receiving this administration's protection is beyond me.

Requiem
05-31-2013, 02:44 PM
Lol.

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 02:54 PM
Lol.

Yeah, I know. If Ashcroft had been reading journalists' emails and grabbing entire news organizations' phone records, you'd be all yucks and smiles too I bet.

Rohirrim
05-31-2013, 03:00 PM
Cool story.

The Obama IRS attacked free speech with politically motivated questionnaires targeting political opponents, and the DOJ attacked free speech while illegally obtaining phone records of the AP.

All part of the Obama administration's unrelenting onslaught on the Bill of Rights.

So what? That's not the point of argument. You stated there were no progressives in government opposed to Obama's policies. I showed you were wrong. I didn't vote for the man. Don't ask me to defend him. Obama is what Republicans were twenty years ago. Republicans have gone so far Right, they make Obama look like a socialist. The point is, it's complete propaganda and bull****. Like I said, Obama's healthcare program is right out of the belly of the Heritage Foundation and Bob Dole. Just because Fox News pulls the strings on its little puppets and gets them to jump around in a frenzy crying out "Socialism!" doesn't make it so.

elsid13
05-31-2013, 03:14 PM
Obtaining a warrant on a journalist under the espionage act and then claiming under oath that you'd never dream of prosecuting a journalist under the espionage act... yeah that's illegal.

Either he lied under oath to the House Judiciary Committee, or he lied while seeking a warrant from a federal judge. Why he's still receiving this administration's protection is beyond me.

The investigation was not aimed at the journalist by the government source that leaked the information. Warrant was target to capture that source through the journalist because they knew he had classified information.

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 03:52 PM
The investigation was not aimed at the journalist by the government source that leaked the information. Warrant was target to capture that source through the journalist because they knew he had classified information.

You can't represent someone as a co-conspirator to a crime in federal court, and then say under oath you never contemplated prosecuting them.

If you had no intention of prosecuting them, you had no business labeling them as a suspect in federal court in order to secretly obtain their (and their families') records.

mhgaffney
05-31-2013, 04:51 PM
You guys need to rise above the partisan bickering.

The bottom line is this: Both parties are controlled by Wall Street. Obama no doubt cut a deal with the financial elite back in 2008 -- ceded power to them on money matters -- just as Bush did.

Obama picked Geithner to run the US Treasury. That says it all.

The fed has been keeping the too big to fails on life support. Monthly transfusions of cash.

How long can it go on? No way to tell.

What is the weak link? Probably the dollar.

MHG

W*GS
05-31-2013, 06:25 PM
The bottom line is this: Both parties are controlled by Wall Street.

In the gaffe-speak dictionary:

Wall Street |ˈwɔl ˌstrit|: see Jew

And he's one of Them...

TonyR
05-31-2013, 06:43 PM
Beavis you'll love this Sullivan rant:

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/05/29/vive-la-resistance-ctd/


Here's part of it:
The truth is that the GOP is the most extreme, nihilist pseudo-conservative party I have seen in my lifetime in any developed country.

The GOP, for example, is in favor of torture as a national policy, placing it outside every mainstream right-of-center party in the West. How far have they traveled? Reagan strongly supported and signed the UN Convention Against Torture (and anything even close to it).

On Medicare, Ross is right that premium support, done right, is an arguably centrist position. But we know what Paul Ryan originally wanted – and Obama is the first Democratic president willing to cut Medicare seriously as part of a big fiscal deal. Every time Obama moves to the fiscal right, the GOP moves the goalposts one more time – and then demonize the president for, say, a stimulus package that was one third tax cuts. On social issues, the GOP is now further to the right than it has ever been, while the country has found a new middle. The GOP supports a constitutional amendment to ban gay couples from having any formal rights at all; and a federal ban on all abortions. Again, you have to find a neo-fascist party in other Western countries to see any Western equivalent. The fundamentalists cannot compromise on this – because their God won’t compromise. And the base has no other ideological foundation than fundamentalism of various neurotic kinds.

There’s a case to be made for pure oppositionism. But I truly think Ross under-estimates the depth of the nihilism that truly motivates his party, the thinly veiled racism and unveiled homophobia that courses through its activist veins, and the theocratic impulses that uniquely fire up the base. And I don’t think the fever is breaking. The IRS scandal will deepen and intensify all the defensive and self-defeating paranoia on the partisan right. Issa will be their champion; Ailes the fanner of the conspiratorial flames; and talk radio the defining ideological conversation.

elsid13
05-31-2013, 08:47 PM
You can't represent someone as a co-conspirator to a crime in federal court, and then say under oath you never contemplated prosecuting them.

If you had no intention of prosecuting them, you had no business labeling them as a suspect in federal court in order to secretly obtain their (and their families') records.

What are you talking about, yes you can and it happens a lot in leak cases. See the NSA leak with the Baltimore Sun as example.

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 10:38 PM
What are you talking about, yes you can and it happens a lot in leak cases. See the NSA leak with the Baltimore Sun as example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_Drake#2007_FBI_raids

No mention of the reporter being named a co-conspirator or having his emails or phone records pilfered..

pricejj
06-01-2013, 02:17 AM
So what?

So what? You made a ridiculous statement, and I proved you wrong. That's what.

That's not the point of argument. You stated there were no progressives in government opposed to Obama's policies. I showed you were wrong.

No. You stated that progressives "in government" don't support Obama...which is wrong. Just look at the voting record. Socialist Progressives are in lock-step with Obama, and have voted down the party line.

The Liberal media-types you brought up in your links are not "in government". Like I said, they (and you) feign anger at Obama, because he isn't able to pass into law, and cram the entire liberal agenda down the throats of the American people in one fell swoop. That ability disappeared when the Republicans took over the House in 2010. You want more. He can't deliver (due to numbers). So you jump ship, distance yourself, and begin to coalesce around the next Social Progressive candidate.

Rohirrim
06-01-2013, 02:13 PM
So what? You made a ridiculous statement, and I proved you wrong. That's what.



No. You stated that progressives "in government" don't support Obama...which is wrong. Just look at the voting record. Socialist Progressives are in lock-step with Obama, and have voted down the party line.

The Liberal media-types you brought up in your links are not "in government". Like I said, they (and you) feign anger at Obama, because he isn't able to pass into law, and cram the entire liberal agenda down the throats of the American people in one fell swoop. That ability disappeared when the Republicans took over the House in 2010. You want more. He can't deliver (due to numbers). So you jump ship, distance yourself, and begin to coalesce around the next Social Progressive candidate.

Like most RW troglodytes, you simply ignore any info that doesn't fit your beliefs. It's like talking to a wall, and a dumb wall at that. This is why I wonder if were not heading for civil war. Aholes like you hold political beliefs that are totally separated from reality. You're not defending a political position, so much as a theology. The RW fundamentalists of today have more in common with the Taliban than they do with Goldwater, Nixon or Reagan.

In any legitimate political forum, Obama is considered a centrist, and a right of center centrist at that, IMO. Lumping him in with progressives and/or socialists (which are two different things, btw) is the political equivalent of claiming that Jesus rode dinosaurs. It's so jaw-droppingly wrong that the person making the claim has to be either a fool, or hopelessly ignorant. The truth is that Obama's policies aren't out of line with the last four presidents by more than a fractional percentage, one way or the other.

TonyR
06-01-2013, 02:48 PM
You're not defending a political position, so much as a theology. The RW fundamentalists of today have more in common with the Taliban than they do with Goldwater, Nixon or Reagan.

Yup, see post #44 above...

Rohirrim
06-01-2013, 03:05 PM
Yup, see post #44 above...

This country has been suffering under this unending torrent of RW sewage for over twenty years. I'm beginning to wonder if it's ever going to stop. Even McCarthyism had a shelf life. The Right Wing fanatic movement in the U.S. goes on and on and on like some kind of uncontrollable infestation.

To quote the article: The result, as I’ve written before, is that President Obama’s record makes him look like a moderate Republican from the late-90s.

And that's a fact. Obama has much more in common with Bob Dole than he does with Teddy Kennedy.

pricejj
06-01-2013, 06:04 PM
Nice hysterical rant Rohirrim. Your insults matter little.

American people have faced a constant bombardment, and encroachment upon civil liberties...yet you want more government control.

I believe in freedom.

Drunken.Broncoholic
06-04-2013, 07:34 PM
I distinctly remember Obamas word jan 21 2009. "Transparency and rule of law" would be the cornerstones of his presidency.

I wonder where secret emails fall under the freedom of information act.


Today's USA is yesterday's Chicago.