The Obama Illusion

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

b/c there's a difference. you're saying ppl will think the fillibuster means the confirmation vote. you said them saying he voted agaisnt the fillibuster was misleading b/c it didn't mention he voted against the confirmation...those are 2 separate votes and i'm sure ppl are smart enough to realize this, just as they can realize primaries are different from the general election

now, can you answer my questions about how the article was misleading about those stances i have already asked about? while it may be an opinion piece, it doesn't change the fact that he took those stances, made those votes, made those comments...

no that is NOT what i'm saying and frankly i don't know what to say anymore because clearly i can't get my point across even though i've repeated it over and over and over. how did you get that filibuster means the confirmation vote out anything i said? of course i know they're two different things and that was my point. my point, once again is that the "article" didn't mention that but they mentioned this:

"Or that he criticized efforts to enact filibuster proceedings against reactionary Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. "

the "article" said he criticized efforts to filibuster and my point was that OBAMA VOTED FOR THE FILIBUSTER AND AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. because the "article" didn't mention those two things, they try to make him look "less progressive" by just saying he criticized efforts to enact filibuster.

i'm so done with this. i have an amazing amount of work to do and can't go in circles anymore. happy birthday.

VictoryGin

SweetHarmonics wrote:

Every single point brought against him comes off like a huge distorted reach in the grand scheme of things. Petty sniping and throwing out accusations based on manipulated details are elementary tactics that destroy credibility in the process. Context is avoided like the plague in these overspun hit pieces and it directly reflect the degree of desperation of the other side.

IMO these petty attacks do nothing but bolster Sen. Obama's claims about the status quo in DC and in turn make him a better candidate with each passing day.

it's so sad. why is this happening--because they're afraid he could actually win?

El_Kabong

ya know, their are ppl who are taking this waaaaaaay to personally. if you get this bent out of shape and take things this personal just b/c i i disagree w/ the stances of a politician you like you seriously need to take a step back and get a fucking grip and drop the reactionary mentality of attacking anyone who doesn't support him

ok, so this is a spin piece, right?

first a quote from obama
"You should always assume that when I cast a vote or make a statement it is because it is what I believe in"

was it spin that obama:
voted to reautorize the patriot act? no, that's reality
voted for the tort reform bill? no, that, too, is reality
voted to confirm condeleeza rice? nope, that is reality, as well
did he give real support to politicians like lieberman instead of and against actual progressives <or are you saying leiberman IS a progressive> or that he only gave the bare minimal support after the 'politics as usual' dems lost their primaries? no, he did that, too
seems to be more geared towards globalization? nope
against a single payer health care sytem and that we need to think of ppl like kaiser when making a health plan? no, that's from his own mouth
that he criticized efforts to fillibuster the alito vote? nope, he criticized
opposed the amendment that would cap credit card interest rates at 30%? no, he opposed it

what is his plan for iraq?
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward_in_iraq/index.html

" one, stabilize Iraq, avoid all out civil war, and give the factions within Iraq the space they need to forge a political settlement; two, contain and ultimately extinquish the insurgency in Iraq; and three, bring our troops safely home."



ok, now let's look at the 'spin' :rolleyes:

VictoryGin wrote:

what's interesting is that the author leaves out that obama voted against the confirmation of alito, and for the filibuster of alito.

for your entertainment:

so? did it imply he voted for alito? no, it said he criticized the fillibuster, voted against the fillibuster...just b/c he voted against alito doesn't erase this, try as you might.

VictoryGin wrote:

i'm not too aware of the hamilton project, they might be evil but this doesn't sound so bad to me:

first, it was obvious what you meant by the 'evil' comment :rolleyes:

maybe you should go to the world bank or the wto's site, i'm sure their policies look real pretty, too

but what does the creater of the hamilton project think about it?

'His program consists mostly of familiar ideas that might soften the pain for displaced workers. But I doubt the Hamilton proposals will do much, if anything, to reduce the global forces that are depressing incomes for half or more of the American workforce. Even Rubin is uncertain. When I ask if his agenda will have any effect at all on the global convergence of wages -- the top falling gradually toward the rising bottom -- he says: "Well, I think that's a question to which nobody knows the answer. I think the proposals and approach we are proposing are the way to get the best possible outcome for the United States in a complicated world. ... But whether that's going to stop the global convergence of wages, I don't know the answer to that. I would guess the answer is no." '

no?? wht do others think of these proposals?

'"We need to review the Rubin agenda that's led to millions of lost jobs and declining standard of living for the middle class," said United Steelworkers President Leo Girard. "It's an agenda that has been very good for Citigroup and the financial community because they've been able to finance the relocation of jobs and refinance the trade deficits." '

' "The strategy you propose offers little, in my view, to either bolster economic growth or address the stagnating wages and living standards of American working families," Trumka wrote in a Feb. 7 letter to Rubin. "I am simply astonished that you would suggest such a politically toxic agenda for the Democratic Party." '

"It's commendable they observe this problem of the struggle of people trying to make a living and the stagnation of wages and growing inequality," said Ron Blackwell, chief economist for the AFL-CIO, who also attended this month's meeting with Rubin. "But the policies they are proposing aren't proportional to the problems."

For example, Blackwell says the notion of wage insurance is a Band-Aid that doesn't get to the root of declining wages and working conditions as a result of trade agreements that make it attractive for companies to send jobs overseas.

Rubin's central objective, however, is to control the terms of debate: to address the economic disparities globalization has generated but without disturbing anything fundamental in the global system itself.


btw, the guy who made this runs citigroup, right? weren't they involved in the enron scandal as well as other shady dealings? isn't he a free trade guru?? didn't he ask the treasury dept to aid enron?

VictoryGin wrote:

Misleading Claim #3: Support for Other Democrats

Harper's Magazine says....

yes, we all know what HARPERS said, however this is not the same thing as the article I actually posted said, what the article i posted said was ALL FACTUAL

this, while also an opinion piece sums him nicely:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060626/sirota/3

Obama is telling the truth--he's not opposed to structural changes at all. However, he appears to be interested in fighting only for those changes that fit within the existing boundaries of what's considered mainstream in Washington, instead of using his platform to redefine those boundaries. This posture comes even as polls consistently show that Washington's definition of mainstream is divorced from the rest of the country's (for example, politicians' refusal to debate the war even as polls show that Americans want the troops home).

El_Kabong

SweetHarmonics wrote:

Show me a candidate that has been more open about his life and political stances than Obama. I don't see why I'm supposed to believe these Op/Eds over his books, podcasts, etc....

Every single point brought against him comes off like a huge distorted reach in the grand scheme of things. Petty sniping and throwing out accusations based on manipulated details are elementary tactics that destroy credibility in the process. Context is avoided like the plague in these overspun hit pieces and it directly reflect the degree of desperation of the other side.

IMO these petty attacks do nothing but bolster Sen. Obama's claims about the status quo in DC and in turn make him a better candidate with each passing day.

well, kucinich, for one...hell, even newt gingrich is more open!!!

you think reauthorizing the patriot act and voting for condi rice is petty? what was manipulated in my last reply?

can you plz list out obama's stances on things? i mean you're saying it's all out there and so open about it <and yet he won't tell his stances to project vote smart> or do i need to read his book to know his stances? and don't say 'hes for nationalized health care!' i want REAL stances. see, like when kucinich talks about iraq he as an actual plan, a list of how to get there, not just saying some sound bite for the media. we already know obama's plan for iraq:
-stabilize iraq
-defeat the insurgency
-leave, but not totally, keep some military there

but is #2 common knowledge, or is it just the soundbites that he's agaisnt the war <while he talks about how the iraq war is dangerous b/c it makes us want to be isolationist and reject our global responsabilites>

and it's funny what you say his claims about the status quo are when thats exatcly who he gives his support to!

VictoryGin

El_Kabong wrote:

ya know, their are ppl who are taking this waaaaaaay to personally. if you get this bent out of shape and take things this personal just b/c i i disagree w/ the stances of a politician you like you seriously need to take a step back and get a fucking grip and drop the reactionary mentality of attacking anyone who doesn't support him)

um, this isn't about you. this is about the what i consider to be the misleading zmag article. my level of frustration is due to what must be a complete lack on my part to articulate that.

El_Kabong wrote:

what is his plan for iraq?
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward_in_iraq/index.html

that was from two years ago. this has been posted before in other threads:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070130-obama_offers_plan_to_stop_escalation_of_iraq_war_begin_phased_redeployment_of_troops/index.html

El_Kabong

VictoryGin wrote:

i'm so done with this. i have an amazing amount of work to do and can't go in circles anymore. happy birthday.

thanks for the sincere birthday wishes. it was nice u could put aside personal politics and be...i dunno.

Abuskedti

My son is with Obama right now at the University of Texas

Kat

Obama on Iraq video from 2002...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/obama_on_iraq_i.html


Do we have threads started for each candidate that can be kept going until the election so people can research the candidate from info we all add to it before they decide? Not a discussion thread I guess...just compiling information, articles, links? Anyone up for that?

Love,
Kat

soulsinging

El_Kabong wrote:

well, kucinich, for one...hell, even newt gingrich is more open!!!

you think reauthorizing the patriot act and voting for condi rice is petty? what was manipulated in my last reply?

can you plz list out obama's stances on things? i mean you're saying it's all out there and so open about it <and yet he won't tell his stances to project vote smart> or do i need to read his book to know his stances? and don't say 'hes for nationalized health care!' i want REAL stances. see, like when kucinich talks about iraq he as an actual plan, a list of how to get there, not just saying some sound bite for the media. we already know obama's plan for iraq:
-stabilize iraq
-defeat the insurgency
-leave, but not totally, keep some military there

but is #2 common knowledge, or is it just the soundbites that he's agaisnt the war <while he talks about how the iraq war is dangerous b/c it makes us want to be isolationist and reject our global responsabilites>

and it's funny what you say his claims about the status quo are when thats exatcly who he gives his support to!

eh, what are you whining about? the green party will run another candidate so you don't have to worry about whatever moderate candidate the dems run.

norm

Kat wrote:

Obama on Iraq video from 2002...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/obama_on_iraq_i.html


Do we have threads started for each candidate that can be kept going until the election so people can research the candidate from info we all add to it before they decide? Not a discussion thread I guess...just compiling information, articles, links? Anyone up for that?

Love,
Kat

Good morning, Kat.

I'd be for that. Good idea.

soulsinging

cutback wrote:

Good morning, Kat.

I'd be for that. Good idea.

i think she was asking if anyone would be willing to do it

norm

soulsinging wrote:

i think she was asking if anyone would be willing to do it

I still think it's a good idea.

VictoryGin

Kat wrote:

Obama on Iraq video from 2002...

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/02/obama_on_iraq_i.html


Do we have threads started for each candidate that can be kept going until the election so people can research the candidate from info we all add to it before they decide? Not a discussion thread I guess...just compiling information, articles, links? Anyone up for that?

Love,
Kat

nice video, thank you.

informational threads sound like a great idea, but it might turn into discussions when say and "opinion piece" is posted. it would be great to have things in one spot though. if we can try to keep it to primary sources it might work well, though.

soulsinging

VictoryGin wrote:

nice video, thank you.

informational threads sound like a great idea, but it might turn into discussions when say and "opinion piece" is posted. it would be great to have things in one spot though. if we can try to keep it to primary sources it might work well, though.

i dont think there's a chance in hell of a thread like that not devolving into heated debate around here

Kat

Well,....we could try and see how it goes. If anyone would like to do it, go for it. Maybe just title the threads Obama for Obama, Guiliani for Guiliani, etc. We have a huge decision to make and factual info is good...like a video of the candidate using his own words, etc. Not swift boating by either or any side...ya know?

Love and Peace,
Kat
P.S. Feel free to use that Obama video in the thread, ok?

soulsinging

Kat wrote:

Well,....we could try and see how it goes. If anyone would like to do it, go for it. Maybe just title the threads Obama for Obama, Guiliani for Guiliani, etc. We have a huge decision to make and factual info is good...like a video of the candidate using his own words, etc. Not swift boating by either side...ya know?

Love and Peace,
Kat
P.S. Feel free to use that Obama video in the thread.

is it possible to sticky and lock them immediately, allowing only the original poster to edit in order to add links? that way it could be a source of just links for info and debate would have to be taken elsewhere...

norm

soulsinging wrote:

is it possible to sticky and lock them immediately, allowing only the original poster to edit in order to add links? that way it could be a source of just links for info and debate would have to be taken elsewhere...

Good idea.

El_Kabong

Kat wrote:

Well,....we could try and see how it goes. If anyone would like to do it, go for it. Maybe just title the threads Obama for Obama, Guiliani for Guiliani, etc. We have a huge decision to make and factual info is good...like a video of the candidate using his own words, etc. Not swift boating by either or any side...ya know?

Love and Peace,
Kat
P.S. Feel free to use that Obama video in the thread, ok?

my only concern would be if it's from only the candidate how do you know it's not spin? if ppl don't want 'opinion' pieces <even when they can't argue w/ what this piece says> they shouldn't want spin, either.

take the 'fact' on obama's website that he supported every single democratic senate candidate! this is misleading, b/c a lot of those ppl simply got the money from the PAC he did fundraising for...this PAC was created to give money to the democratic senate candidate....while it is technically support it is not how they make it out to be

also, would supporters be willing to post the negative of the candidate? would whoever got to post in the obama for obama thread really post that he voted to reauthorize the patriot act and other info that ppl might find useful?

while i think it's good to have the stances and not debate i think only allowing it to be that candidates supporters would be bad, too

just my 2 cents

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

my only concern would be if it's from only the candidate how do you know it's not spin? if ppl don't want 'opinion' pieces <even when they can't argue w/ what this piece says> they shouldn't want spin, either.

take the 'fact' on obama's website that he supported every single democratic senate candidate! this is misleading, b/c a lot of those ppl simply got the money from the PAC he did fundraising for...this PAC was created to give money to the democratic senate candidate....while it is technically support it is not how they make it out to be

also, would supporters be willing to post the negative of the candidate? would whoever got to post in the obama for obama thread really post that he voted to reauthorize the patriot act and other info that ppl might find useful?

while i think it's good to have the stances and not debate i think only allowing it to be that candidates supporters would be bad, too

just my 2 cents

It's simple...."pro & con". Each candidate gets two threads. Find one supporter and one detractor for each candidate. Anything goes within any thread. Fact, opinion, blatant lies, etc....the opposite thread serves as a balance.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

America is not ready for a black president...the huge amount of media coverage alone makes this quite apparent. Spectacle...