Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 03 Sep '11 22:59 / 5 edits
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/obama-jobs-speech_b_944753.html

    Somebody on Fox News (I don’t normally watch Fox News, and just stumbled on this segment, so don’t know or recall who the commentator was) said this resembled “that gang who couldn’t shoot straight”. No more than a gaffe perhaps, but a telling one? How many gaffes does one get?

    Add to that:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Obama-yields-on-smog-rule-in-apf-1745827859.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

    Now I don’t really know any progressive, following, for example, Obama's initial position on drilling in the Gulf (before the BP spill), the debate over taxes, the debt ceiling, etc., etc., and now the EPA ruling on smog (and public health), who would not think that Obama (whom I voted for) will not cave (calling it “compromise” ) on anything, to the extent that the outcome could be much different—at least in the long term— if any Republican won the Presidency. I’m talking about outcome, not rhetoric along the way. [Richard Nixon, after all (who I loved to hate at the time), ended the war in Vietnam (however), opened trade with China (though he sent in a good union negotiator to do it) and supported OSHA. It is, for example, possible that an Obama would not have been able to sign OSHA into law, because it might never have been able to get to the President’s desk under prevailing conditions--and he would not have the power to see it enacted.]

    I, painfully, agree with Uygur: this is not rope-a-dope; this is either deliberate betrayal of the “base” that voted for Obama, for the sake of some cynical, but likely flawed, political analysis—or it is all simple incompetence.

    I would really like some of the Obama supporters (still) that I respect on here (such as Kunsoo and USAP) change my mind.
  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    03 Sep '11 23:24
    Who cares what day the speech is on? How is that a "betrayal"? Rope-a-dope is when you let the opponent land his useless attacks because you know they're not actually going to do any damage to you.

    He bowed to the Saudis, disrespected the British, is willing to "cave" - but what does he get in return?

    Bin Laden. End of the recession. Public demonization of his hyperaggressive, fanatic opposition who then lose the center who are the ones who matter.

    A wise man once said, "Talk softly, and carry a big stick". Sounds like Obama to me. The noise, the commotion, the self-righteous screams of rage from spoiled rich people, the aggression, the hostility...

    At the end, when the dust settles, the fact is - the man gets results in the real world where it matters.
  3. 03 Sep '11 23:36
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Who cares what day the speech is on? How is that a "betrayal"? Rope-a-dope is when you let the opponent land his useless attacks because you know they're not actually going to do any damage to you.

    He bowed to the Saudis, disrespected the British, is willing to "cave" - but what does he get in return?

    Bin Laden. End of the recession. Public de ...[text shortened]... the dust settles, the fact is - the man gets results in the real world where it matters.
    The speech-night is not betrayal; but it is stupidity (he allows the Repubs to win another debating point, making him seem even more incompetent and malleable to their demands). Over-ruling the EPA is. The point about both is that he and his supporters end up continually on the defensive—about silly things such as the debate night (which some intelligent politico in his camp should have pointed up), and about more substantive issues. After awhile, it is no longer about this or that particular case, but about the whole ball of thread.

    He does not get what he wants. (Or, if he does, then a lot of us who voted for him have been betrayed; and he clearly does not get what he says he wants.) He gets what he allows them to allow him.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    03 Sep '11 23:41 / 1 edit
    What did you want from Obama that he has not delivered on?

    EDIT - I get the impression you're really upset about this:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/02/obama-withdraws-smog-regulation-overruling-epa/
  5. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    03 Sep '11 23:51
    "Registering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals," [Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center] continues. "It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country-- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipients to vote. ... Encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor. It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money."

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/02/right-wing-commentator-poor-people-voting-is-un-american/


    Obama doesn't need to fight savagely to avoid attacks like that from hurting him politically.
  6. 04 Sep '11 00:10
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    What did you want from Obama that he has not delivered on?

    EDIT - I get the impression you're really upset about this:

    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/09/02/obama-withdraws-smog-regulation-overruling-epa/
    That is an example of a cumulative process of caving, reversal, and "compropmise" that will, I fear, lead to a full-blown right-wing wave (are we not seeing that now?) in the future.
  7. 04 Sep '11 00:15 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    [b]"Registering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals," [Matthew Vadum of the Capital Research Center] continues. "It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country-- which is precisely why Barack Obama zealously supports registering welfare recipient oesn't need to fight savagely to avoid attacks like that from hurting him politically.
    [/b]Where did you get the notion that I was talking about "fighting savagely" to prevent idiotic attacks? You, of all people, should not be throwing straw-men like that at me. If you think you can convince me that my cynicism now, after three years of political history, is misplaced about the man that I enthusiastically voted for, by attacking me with strawmen--or just attacking me--then go ahead. If that is the politcal plan to get progressives to vote for him again, instead of going to, say, the Green party--then, by all means, go for it!

    My just-prior post, by the way, was addressing the EPA issue. That--one more example of abetting the perception of caving, on an issue that is close to his base--was just a final straw.

    ________________________________________

    EDIT: Yeah, well, my last post to you was just deleted by the mods. Keep defending and voting for appeasement to the right because--"Oh, my!"--the alternatives are somehow even worse. Fine. In the long run, I am sure that that will turn around the political sentiment in the country--or, wait: likely not. Enjoy the increasing smog (it's good for job growth, you know).
  8. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Sep '11 01:14
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Where did you get the notion that I was talking about "fighting savagely" to prevent idiotic attacks? You, of all people, should not be throwing straw-men like that at me. If you think you can convince me that my cynicism now, after three years of political history, is misplaced about the man that I enthusiastically voted for, by attacking me with stra ...[text shortened]... try--or, wait: likely not. Enjoy the increasing smog (it's good for job growth, you know).[/b]
    I am thoroughly disgusted with Obama and the Democrats. It seems their idea of 'victory' these days is a smaller defeat than they had anticipated. I have always thought that voting for a third party was a colossal waste of time, but I'm tempted to do just that the next time around.

    They know they can take the base for granted, because, after all, where else are they going to go?
  9. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    04 Sep '11 01:20
    Originally posted by rwingett
    I am thoroughly disgusted with Obama and the Democrats. It seems their idea of 'victory' these days is a smaller defeat than they had anticipated. I have always thought that voting for a third party was a colossal waste of time, but I'm tempted to do just that the next time around.

    They know they can take the base for granted, because, after all, where else are they going to go?
    We need a parliamentary form of government like in Germany. A minor party gets representation, and as an essential component of a coalition it can even get meaningful representation. What a concept. The "winner take all" nature of the U.S. political process is breaking down, and never really worked to begin with.
  10. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Sep '11 01:32
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    We need a parliamentary form of government like in Germany. A minor party gets representation, and as an essential component of a coalition it can even get meaningful representation. What a concept. The "winner take all" nature of the U.S. political process is breaking down, and never really worked to begin with.
    I'll agree with you 100% on that. I'd love to have proportional representation.
  11. 04 Sep '11 01:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    We need a parliamentary form of government like in Germany. A minor party gets representation, and as an essential component of a coalition it can even get meaningful representation. What a concept. The "winner take all" nature of the U.S. political process is breaking down, and never really worked to begin with.
    It is not necessarily a parliamentary form of government that produces such an outcome, but a system of proportional representation. The UK has a parliamentary system and yet its legilature is, like the US, largely dominated by two parties.

    edit- I suppose its worth considering the possibility of right-wing extremists also gaining representation under such a system, before fully embracing it.