Hell Hath No Fury Like a Modern Liberal

Mutiny! he cried

my2hands wrote:

the man has not even taken office yet for gods sake... so how can you lablem him a "centrist"?

the man doesnt want an echo chamber for a cabinet like Bush had... i think that is a brilliant move and a PROGRESSIVE move to actually have debate and discussion with dissenting views in his cabinet

you call it centrist, i call it fresh air


the far right calls him a "socialist" and the far left call him a "centrist"... so make up your mind already...

actually I got the centrist comment from obama supporters when confronted with the pro (iraq) war hawks he's appointed.

my mind is made up, perhaps it's you having the difficulty? someone pm'd me a link to a post where you called obama a corporate whore and all talk

Mutiny! he cried

my2hands wrote:

the man just said yesterday he was going to end the iraq war in 16 monhts just as promised

so whats the beef?


you guys are like a broken record playing a bad song

and you are like top 40 - just following cleverly worded marketing trends

Mutiny! he cried

unifiedscene wrote:

Then what is your point? That some Obama supporters were deluded? That's definitely headline news. In other news, so were some of those that supported McCain, Nader, Paul, Clinton, Dubya, Kerry, Dole, Bush Sr., Reagan, Dukakis, Carter... shall I keep going?

sure

but since you asked my point -

some obama supporters said no one ever said or thought these things so I bumped where some people obviously DID think those things

unifiedscene

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

sure

but since you asked my point -

some obama supporters said no one ever said or thought these things so I bumped where some people obviously DID think those things

Fair enough.

Mutiny! he cried

digster wrote:

You can't even keep who you're criticizing in order, or what you're criticizing them about. You say it has nothing to do with Obama but with his supporters, but then you call him 'just another politician.' This is what I have trouble with, I can't even see clearly what you're trying to say currently. Let me put forward this set of possible facts and see if you'd agree with me that they're truthful.


1. The majority of those that voted for Obama were in the so-called American 'moderate.'
2. His policy positions and voting record reveal him to be a moderate Democrat, leaning towards the center on some issues and towards the left on other issues.
3. On foreign policy, specificially in regards to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he opposed the war in Iraq, considering it needless, and supported the war in Afghanistan.
4. He has proposed a gradual troop withdrawl from Iraq, not an immediate withdrawl, and at no point has promised to do so.

If you agree with all these, and I feel they are all pretty verifiable, then I guess I'm not really sure what the criticism is. Maybe I'm just needlessly confused.

sigh.....

-people brought up all the hawks appointed

-some obama supporters answered this with 'well no one ever thought he would bring change other than in political party and instead of governing from the far right governing more as a centrist'

-knowing this to be untrue and a way to avoid admitting some of them were duped by 'just another politician' I bumped where several people apparently DID think and express these things

unifiedscene

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

sigh.....

-people brought up all the hawks appointed

-some obama supporters answered this with 'well no one ever thought he would bring change other than in political party and governing from the far right to centrist'

-knowing this to be untrue and a way to avoid admitting some of them were duped by 'just another politician' I bumped where several people apparently DID think and express these things

That's where you go wrong. "Duped." Duped implies that Obama lied and deceived people into believing something false. He didn't. The fact that some people did think such things doesn't mean Obama duped them, it means they were mistaken.

Mutiny! he cried

unifiedscene wrote:

That's where you go wrong. "Duped." Duped implies that Obama lied and deceived people into believing something false. He didn't. The fact that some people did think such things doesn't mean Obama duped them, it means they were mistaken.

I suppose I could see that point. Except I think he was intentionally vague. I think Obama pandered like any other politician. that's why he would say to some it was a 'dumb war' but say to conservatives he was against it because we weren't finished in Afghanistan yet. Why didn't he tell the conservative audience he felt it was a dumb war? And if he felt it was a dumb war isn't it irrelevant if we were finished in Afghanistan or not??

But there are many demographics for Obama supporters

digster

Mutiny! he cried wrote:

I suppose I could see that point. Except I think he was intentionally vague. I think Obama pandered like any other politician. that's why he would say to some it was a 'dumb war' but say to conservatives he was against it because we weren't finished in Afghanistan yet. Why didn't he tell the conservative audience he felt it was a dumb war? And if he felt it was a dumb war isn't it irrelevant if we were finished in Afghanistan or not??

But there are many demographics for Obama supporters

You're telling me if someone thought Obama was completely anti-war, if someone did not listen to his speeches, analyze his policy positions, and do their own "Google search" like Roland seemed to do which proved my own point, that Obama was against the Iraq war, but not all wars (how many times does he have to say "I don't oppose all wars" in that famous 'anti-war' speech from 2002 for you and others to admit that maybe, in fact, he doesn't oppose all wars?), and they still pulled the lever thinking Obama was completely averse to any military action and wanted an immediate Iraq pullout, Obama's now responsibile for fulfilling thse promises he never made? It just seems like grasping at straws to me, and the argument is changing; where once Obama was a far-left politician, now he panders. Tell me, you really think Obama sold himself at any point in this election as a far-left politician who was entirely anti-war? Because anyone who had that mindset would never be elected President in this country.

Besides, this argument is moot, because the overwhelming majority of people in the United States, including the majority of those who voted for Obama, are not completely anti-war. That's not to say that people didn't think he was anti-war. Many did, including myself. But I feel me and all those others were clear-headed enough to analyze the situation, Obama's record and rhetoric, and realize he is anti-the Iraq war, and not against every war that has ever been fought in this country.

Mutiny! he cried

digster wrote:

You're telling me if someone thought Obama was completely anti-war, if someone did not listen to his speeches, analyze his policy positions, and do their own "Google search" like Roland seemed to do which proved my own point, that Obama was against the Iraq war, but not all wars (how many times does he have to say "I don't oppose all wars" in that famous 'anti-war' speech from 2002 for you and others to admit that maybe, in fact, he doesn't oppose all wars?), and they still pulled the lever thinking Obama was completely averse to any military action and wanted an immediate Iraq pullout, Obama's now responsibile for fulfilling thse promises he never made? It just seems like grasping at straws to me, and the argument is changing; where once Obama was a far-left politician, now he panders. Tell me, you really think Obama sold himself at any point in this election as a far-left politician who was entirely anti-war? Because anyone who had that mindset would never be elected President in this country.

Besides, this argument is moot, because the overwhelming majority of people in the United States, including the majority of those who voted for Obama, are not completely anti-war. That's not to say that people didn't think he was anti-war. Many did, including myself. But I feel me and all those others were clear-headed enough to analyze the situation, Obama's record and rhetoric, and realize he is anti-the Iraq war, and not against every war that has ever been fought in this country.

I have no idea where you are getting some of this stuff from like Obama is beholden to live up to other's false perceptions

-I saw a lot of threads and posts about who he's picked and criticism (and by the way even if everyone who said 'obama is anti-war really meant only Iraq the criticism still stands as he's appointed loooots of pro iraq war hawks)

-instead of saying 'huh, I guess those people were wrong' or defending thew appointments (and some DID do this, however my point does not apply o them, only: ) some said no one ever thought or said those things, this is just sour grapes.

- and i've heard people be so off in Obama, like b list actor Kal Penn telling Larry King that Obama will bring us universal health care. So yeah, naturally a lot of people just went with false perceptions, many heard what Obama said to certain audiences to pander and be vague and somewhat misleading for their vote. Some voted for him because he was the democrat and not the republican

-so, my point was to those saying no one ever thought or said those things is untrue. Many did hold those false perceptions. Some because they failed to educate themselves; some because they heard Obama's slick words and thought when they heard him say he wouldn't work with lobbyists or take their money they bought into it. i'm sure some pro iraq war supporters listening to that radio show came away thinking Obama supported the war, too. those are all separate from my point of these things WERE said.