General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMorally bankrupt?
I'm morally bankrupt because I support Pres. Obama?
Bullshit.
You want to know what's morally bankrupt? The liberals who, in 2000, told us there was no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Michael Moore, in my view, has just as much blood on his hands as anyone else who voted for Bush in that election.
You want to talk about purism and standing for conviction - any dolt who felt the need to cast their ballot in protest to the Democratic Party and Al Gore back then is, no matter what they tell themselves, just as responsible for Bush's reign of terror as the Supreme Court and the Republican assholes who voted for him.
Everyone knew the stakes then, but some selfish assholes didn't care. Instead, they supported a deceiving and lying candidate like Ralph Nader, who, like Moore, spread around the false-message that Gore would be every much the mirror presidency as his opponent.
It was a blatant lie that some foolish, idealistic and selfish liberals ate up because they didn't know any better.
So, as much as many of you praise and defend Nader and his followers - it's remarkably convenient you totally ignore his enabling of Republicans and appeasing of fucks like George Bush.
And you can defend that vote until you're blue in the face and it doesn't change the fact that, in the end, many small-minded liberals were easily manipulated by remarkably shortsighted figures of the supposed left.
Because Gore wasn't good enough for you, didn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, you either didn't vote or you voted for a guy knowing full well it would ultimately push Bush that much closer to the White House.
That's damning.
But what's more damning is that some of you are content to do it all over again.
Fuck that nonsense.
Fuck your selfishness.
You don't think there is any stakes in this election...kiss my Irish ass.
Just as those who felt the need to vote against Gore in '00 are, at least in part, responsible for the thousands dead during the Iraq War, anyone who would vote against Obama will be, in part, responsible for any action that could come if the Republicans were to again win the White House.
This is what frustrates me the most about you selfish assholes. It's not always about you. It's not always about your wants and your needs.
Anyone who sees no difference between what Pres. Obama is offering America and what the Republicans are offering are either stupid, ignorant or just plain lying to themselves.
So, if you're okay throwing your vote behind a person you know won't win, even if the direct result is to put a Republican in office, you're telling your fellow citizens to FUCK OFF.
You want to talk about morally bankrupt?
It's openly knowing your vote will bring an end to any hope of fixing the middle class. Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul - they've all made it pretty clear they don't give a damn about the working class in this country. So, no more unemployment benefits, no more money for social programs, less money for Social Security and Medicare, no more Obama healthcare plan, no more spending on education and certainly no more domestic spending.
All the money will be tied to tax cuts and deregulating even more.
That's just here at home. Your vote against Obama should bring about a more hawkish foreign policy that is far more aggressive with Iran (remember, Romney has all but said he would invade Iran at a whim...), the potential of a fight to bring back DADT and a more divided worldview, or essentially, the type of mindset that gave us Iraq.
But the biggest fuck you will go to gays and women. Your vote against Obama will certainly be a vote for potentially two or three anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-progressive judges who will influence the judicial branch of this country for decades to come.
That's morally bankrupt.
And don't tell me this is all on Pres. Obama. He doesn't tell you who to vote for. As a voter, you have that awesome responsibility to weigh every option and every consequence. You have to think out your vote and not just do it on passion or gut.
You've got to look at the circumstances - the reality, the potential reality and the devastating reality.
Is Pres. Obama perfect? No. Has Pres. Obama fucked up? Yes. Is Pres. Obama infinitely better than anything the GOP is offering? Absolutely. And just as we'll be responsible for his actions when we cast our votes for him, you'll be responsible for the actions of the man that could replace him if you either don't vote, or vote against Obama.
This isn't just an election about character or how you feel inside when you pull that lever. This is an election about the future of our country and if you're willing to sell us down the river just so that you can feel ideologically superior to the rest of us, well I find that to be the most contemptible and selfish trait of all.
You're giving a big FUCK YOU to America. To her people. To the future.
You want to talk about morally bankrupt...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
tabatha
(18,795 posts)
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)You should REALLY learn to share your feelings.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
BTW...wb.
tblue
(16,350 posts)So do I get a cookie?
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)If that helps.
tblue
(16,350 posts)to admit Obama is not perfect makes yours a more convincing argument than ones telling people to shut up.
As I think about whether or not I can volunteer in the next election (as I have in every General Election since Dukakis), I shudder to think of people, like some here, who bully and belittle others. At this point I have no desire to be in that company. And I am one who usually puts in a few hundred hours of volunteer time at the local (and sometimes distant) campaign offices.
But I respect your rant because you're trying to change people's actions instead of their feelings. And you're not telling them to shut up, you're telling them to vote. Big difference. Respect.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)for the democrat.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)You understand the stakes.
I'm glad you're sensible and I'm optimistic most liberals share your view.
DesertFlower
(11,649 posts)democratic club for most of his adult life. he did not like JFK, but he did the right thing and voted for him.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)I think I'll just c/p your rant whenever I run into this argument in the future. Can't really add anything more to what you have said.
Spazito
(55,401 posts)that is one righteous rant and, given the threads calling Obama supporters "morally bankrupt" among other derogatory terms, I support your 'response' to them in this OP.
oh, and rec'd too!
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Well said, sir - very well said!
Citizen Worker
(1,785 posts)Bush. It was the closest election in US history and the supremes were so ashamed of their ruling that they refused to sign it and that ruling has not once been cited as the basis for a single decision since then.
John Kerry won in '04 with the popular vote but he could not overcome the Diebold voting machines rigged against him and Kerry conceded, despite being urged not to by John Edwards.
A strikingly familiar occurrence in both elections, the democrats refused to challenge either decision and instead remained silent. And since the theft of both elections the democrats have done NOTHING to ensure the integrity of voting and in '12 millions of minority voters will be prevented from voting.
So, yes there are many similarities between the D's and R's, especially when it comes to voting and counting the votes.
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)Questions,
Would 9/11 still have happened if Gore had been President?
Would we still have invaded Iraq at a cost of 800 billion dollars and tens of thousands dead?
Would millionairs still have gotten tax breaks?
Just thinking.
MH1
(19,149 posts)(those are my answers to your 3 questions)
OTOH, without 9/11, Gore would have been dealing with the highly controversial sanctions regimen that was then imposed on Iraq. He would have pissed off many people with whatever he did there. One of the less noticed consequences (and least important in the overall scheme of things) of the Iraq War was that it removed the need for an exit strategy from that sanctions mess.
As to tax breaks, millionaires already had them, Congress loves to tinker with taxes, and there surely would have been attempts to give more tax breaks to millionaires. Depending on the political calculation at the time, Gore may or may not have signed off on them - just as would any president.
(and I say "probably not" to 9/11 because Gore was deeply tied in to the intelligence around bin Laden's activities. He would have been paying far more attention than Bush was. If Gore didn't recognize the situation and stop it, there is not a person who could have been elected US President who would have.)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)all about the desperation of trying to define Obama as a failure or highly flawed.
That is why it's important to keep repeating it. They're angry that anyone dares to challenge that notion and that they haven't succeeded in convincing everyone of that fact. Think about premise of the name calling: Obama "defenders" are somehow preventing a true debate on the issues..."cheerleading" is getting in the way of criticism.
It's laughable.
As the election draws closer, they get louder in their condemnation, pretending that they've had an epiphany after all the President's "failures," but it's the same criticisms (Social Security, ending the war, Guantanamo) being repeated over and over, regardless of the President's overall record. Congress' role in the process is also ignored to lay the blame for every obstacle at the President's feet. This was true of Guantanamo.
Remember John MacArthur, Harper's publisher who called for Obama to be dumped?
March 2009: Obama is Far from a Radical Reformer
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/18-6
June 2009: Obama a Very Smooth Liar
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/17-4
December 2009: More and More, Obama Seems a Faux Liberal
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-r-macarthur/more-and-more-obama-seems_b_394341.html
Yeah, I knew the President wasn't a "radical reformer," but I had no idea how his Presidency would unfold two months into its existence.
MacArthur isn't the only one who has focused his negativity on Obama since early in his term.
Now he's calling for Obama to be dumped?
The Case for Obama...a truly historic presidency
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100233108
The "Bush = (insert Democrat's name)" equation has failed miserably
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100238406
jpgray
(27,831 posts)There is much that is morally bankrupt and contemptible in any president, and those who defend them at their worst should be prepared to face criticism. Think of Clinton with financial deregulation, free trade with China, welfare reform - think of FDR and Japanese internment, court packing, etc. Defenders of those policies deserve all the criticism they receive.
A refusal to defend such garbage does not amount to rejection of Clinton or FDR, and refusal to defend Obama at his worst does not amount to a rejection of his presidency, or his candidacy in 2012.
To support a president or party does not require we pretend our lies are answers. If being asked to do so were grounds for rejecting a candidate, we could never vote for anyone.
Spazito
(55,401 posts)"Short version: Obama's defenders are unassailable as regards what should be done in the next election. They are morally bankrupt and contemptible regarding the direction of the country over the long term. We must vote for the better candidate in this election, but if we continue as we have the better candidate will resemble Huntsman or Romney before too many elections have gone by."
Link to the thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100236215
I don't know what can be clearer than that as regards the "morally corrupt" aspect of the OP to which I linked.
jpgray
(27,831 posts)It refers to those who defend Obama in whatever he does, continuously. I would be surprised if a single criticism of Obama on this board has not been met with a matching rationalization, justification, or excuse. In many cases I do believe this behavior is morally bankrupt.
But honestly, I believe the defenses of the worst behaviors are more emotional than rational - and so of course are some of the most brain-dead criticisms. Just as you'll see bizarre justifications for inaction on DADT evaporate as soon as something is done, you can see eager predictions of contemptible failure fade in the same way.
In the end everyone here is uneasy with some Obama policies just as they will ultimately vote for him in 2012. In the meantime one group will argue for loyalty and another will argue for principle, and each will be convinced their side includes all the best parts of the other.
Spazito
(55,401 posts)The way I read the OP I cited in my post, there is NO differentiation in the OP between "defenders" and supporters. If the OP I cited was not referencing the Obama supporters as "defenders" then who are the "defenders"that were being called "morally corrupt and contemptible" in that OP?
There were no links included in the OP I cited that showed the intent was not toward Obama supporters but, rather, "defenders" from another forum, from articles, etc. ergo it seems to me the only thing left was Obama supporters were being labeled as "defenders" who are "morally corrupt and contemptible".
jpgray
(27,831 posts)But since the automatic assumption here is that everyone in this debate attempts to be the biggest possible asshole, I have no problem believing that it was easy to see my thread as condemning every single supporter of Obama that ever existed. That the description resembles most supporters very little if at all was just evidence of how unfair it was to Obama supporters, yes?
It's also, I'm sure, easy to see threads questioning an unfair criticism of Obama as advocating the complete proscription and gagging of all Obama critics that ever existed.
Spazito
(55,401 posts)and it might behoove the author of the OP I cited to clarify they were NOT calling Obama supporters "defenders who are morally bankrupt and contemptible".
The beauty of DU3 is that one can edit one's OP or post at any time, there is no longer a time limit. If the author of the OP chooses not to clarify then that, in and of itself, would seem to mean it WAS the Obama supporters who were the focus of the statement, right?
Owlet
(1,248 posts)Others perceive that you are not. Perception = reality on this board. The argument is unwinnable.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)the morally bankrupt is a new thing i guess i never saw it
as to the statement you posted i disagree with everything up to the words we must vote for and everything after that including the huntsman/romney thing i agree with
we are in a situation where the right keeps moving right and we try to meet them halfway which moves us to the right too
i understand a lot of the frustration out there
Spazito
(55,401 posts)and contemptible" is another, imo. One can express their frustration on the issues without labeling those who have a different perspective in the terms that were used.
My hope is the OP poster in the thread that does the labeling will edit the OP to clarify they were NOT referencing the Obama supporters on DU as such and was, instead, referencing something else. We will see.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)i think if they have a specific instance of corrupt behaviour or contemptabilty they should list them
i have issues with stances and policies this administration has taken but i dont feel there is an underlying morality at issue
sadly we are at a point where discussions about actual issues are becoming very rare
there are people on both "sides" who only seek to muddle the discussion with minutiae
i allowed myself to be part of it but if you are just one more person yelling nope or yup......well why post at all?
i think its important that issues like ndaa are discussed or the keystone pipeline but almost every attempt at a serious discussion of these or any subject devolves into a half a dozen 13 year old boys slapfighting in an amoco parking lot
i see shortsidedness on both "sides" since any discussion of future candidates is somehow seen as something the President needs to be defended against
we spend more time calling each other trolls,right wingnuts,apologists,cheerleaders,haters,shills,sock puppets, and whatever the flavor of the week is, than we do putting forth any useful dialouge on ANYTHING
and what happens in 4 years?,do the haters find someone to love?,do the defender,cheerleaders ride off slowly into a sunset? nope they all have to come together to get the next guy in there
at some point on DU we have to start making nice
A refusal to defend such garbage does not amount to rejection of Clinton or FDR, and refusal to defend Obama at his worst does not amount to a rejection of his presidency, or his candidacy in 2012.
To support a president or party does not require we pretend our lies are answers. If being asked to do so were grounds for rejecting a candidate, we could never vote for anyone.
...you did not refer to Clinton or FDR "defenders" as "morally bankrupt and contemptible." Your post was aimed at Obama supporters.
You spoke of health care reform. Now you can argue that it doesn't go far enough, but to argue that it's wrong to defend a law that improves the situation doesn't make much sense. Bernie Sanders defends the law.
What you're attempting to do is set up a situation in which your ideals are the only and right goal, and anything that doesn't meet that goal is "morally bankrupt."
It doesn't matter to you what's achievable and what was achieved, and now you've decided name calling is the way to stake out your superiority.
jpgray
(27,831 posts)They all had their defenders for their indefensible acts. How then is it particular to Obama? If it is a call to avoid voting for Obama, it is surely a call to avoid voting for any president.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)They all had their defenders for their indefensible acts. How then is it particular to Obama? If it is a call to avoid voting for Obama, it is surely a call to avoid voting for any president.
...your OP was highly offensive, and you're basically twisting like a pretzel to justify it in order to continue the name calling.
I'm trying like hell to stay out of this. I'm having a lousy day and I'll say something I'll (sort of) regret. But, he's just feeding the frenzy and it's making me reconsider my feelings about "ignore".
Crap. Now I've kicked another piece of garbage.
For the record, I don't believe all of Pres. Obama's critics are spoiled, petulant children.
Edit to add: NO, WAIT!!! I want to kick this piece of garbage! Sorry, I honestly got confused between phone calls and thought I was responding to that "other" thread.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--is morally bankrupt and contemptible. Anyone who defends FDR's internment of the Japanese is morally bankrupt and contemptible. There, now. Satsfied?
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Proud of that.
Lugnut
(9,791 posts)Barack Obama too. I'll be voting for the President again in November.
deacon
(5,967 posts)
Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)But the voters you need to worry about won't read your rant, and didn't read the OP to which you refer in your rant. How will you convince them to vote for Obama?
Will you beat on your chest and jump up and down in righteous indignation at people outside of DU who say, "You know, I think it's morally bankrupt the way Obama has basically said it's okay to kill American citizens without due process?"
Do you think browbeating them will work?
I believe the poster who so grievously offended you has stated that he or she will vote for Obama, so you're basically preaching to the choir, there. It's the voter IRL you need to preach to, and the OP you are so angry about is actually telling you why those Real Life voters might not cast their vote the way you think is "morally acceptable."
But hey, as long as everyone on DU feels all warm and snuggly about themselves and Obama, who cares about anyone else?
Rage on......
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)People who hate all things Dem, especially the Dem President, they come to Democratic Underground and are shocked to see people who support Democrats! Even the President!!1!! OMG!
lolz I daresay there aren't boots high enough to wade through the idiocy anymore. Was hoping to lose a few of the haterz with the switch to DU3...but where else would put up with such crap?
Julie
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Tsiyu
(18,186 posts)It's almost amusing the way posters here want to be offended.
Being critical of some of this administration's actions makes one a "person who hates all things Dem?"
Really?
And a poster's having strong feelings about those who defend this administration's actions, no matter what, means that poster is attacking all Dems personally? And all Obama supporters on DU personally? Really?
Wow.
I just don't understand people who revel in the righteous indignation of feeling insulted.
Apparently that RI keeps some folks going....but it won't win Obama any votes.
piratefish08
(3,133 posts)rah.
G_j
(40,567 posts)doesn't work very well
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and fight and forget about all those sweet lil liberal manners we are supposed to have while getting walked on.
is that what words on the internet, that you don't like, make you feel like?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Whether it's your neighbour or someone on the internet. I don't get your point.
Am I suppose to take someone calling me contemptible and morally bankrupt as nothing because it's just the internet talking, not a real person?
And I don't take that much of an insult by that really - it's more comedy than anything but I can see where people can get upset by it.
If I call Jane Hamsher the asshole she is, the Obama supercritics get pretty sensitive about that too - you going to tell them to not feel whatever it is they feel that make them go ballistic and spew the projectile vomiting hatred of all things Obama because Jane says so?
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)right freaking on, DR.
the stupidity and short memories is what is contemptible.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)
MH1
(19,149 posts)
great white snark
(2,646 posts)No more to say other than thank you.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)
bottom line
(94 posts)Thank You
This will be the last of my detailed replies.
HOPEFULLY, I'm going into UNITED: Cool Post, Beautiful Post, Great Post, Thank You, Thank You, Thank You.
I don't believe in Guilt or Manipulation, but when guilt is deserved for Pain, Suffering & Death, called.
I know these same backstabbing climatewarcriminals, are patting their EGOS with "Oh, look at all the chaos we caused" "Oh, it taught people how to rightfully hate" "Oh, it got us a President of Color" "Oh, it got us OWS" and it all happened because we, "We are so Great & Wonderful" "We Created All of the Above" stabbed our brothers & sisters in the back. "I, We, are really the creators of this all."
Atonement: When you find a Veteran's Family & commit Time, as in years, until they are back on their feet, until that point, there is no we from US, we are now the 99%, you some bizarre evil offshoot of the 1%, that small.
Until then stay the Hell away from us, we have & will continue our, Good Karma work to do.
PS. Love the photo of you at your yearly "Dish it out to the homeless" photo-op. There's a lot to mine for your next "Movie" there, slop.
gateley
(62,683 posts)of moral bankruptcy, but I sure get the gist of it.
Excellent rant, Paddy.
emulatorloo
(46,154 posts)Probably will be another one tomorrow.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Reminds me of the letter I sent to Nader in early 2001, in which I said that the blood of the folks Bush would kill in his wars for oil would be on Nader's hands. Don't think I have ever heard Nader express any sorrow for the fate of all those Iraqi civilians who died because of him. Even though anyone with half an ounce of sense could see what Bush and the NeoCons had in store for the world.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Any compromises President Obama made that were necessary to keep the government going were due to the existence of Republicans - and yet they get a free pass. Those Republicans got elected.
It's more or less either/or until Republicans are marginalized. These Obama critics from the left are not helping to do that at all - thus they move us all farther away from their alleged goals.
Number23
(24,544 posts)
So, if you're okay throwing your vote behind a person you know won't win, even if the direct result is to put a Republican in office, you're telling your fellow citizens to FUCK OFF.
TRUTH.
nevergiveup
(4,815 posts)
yellerpup
(12,263 posts)You've always been great at cutting right to the heart of the matter, and this needed truly needed to be said. :kick: & Rec!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I agree with you 100%.
But I've come to the conclusion that no discussion board, not even one called Democratic Underground, is focused on the reality you describe.
As an Obama supporter, I also appreciate that you said this ... Is Pres. Obama perfect? No. Has Pres. Obama fucked up? Yes.
No Obama supporter disputes that those statements ... and yet ... we are "morally bankrupt", "contemptible", "blind supporters".
I'm with you ... I call BULLSHIT.
While I would prefer to not have DU become a mini-civil war ... I'm not going to run from it either.
In the BOG area we had a new DU member come, and ask of they could join our group. The indicated that they had come to DU thinking that it would be a POSITIVE place for Democrats. But that was not what they found. They did find the BOG, and asked if they could join our discussions, we said absolutely.
Is that how DU should work? A person who wants to reelect or support Dem candidates has to stagger through an sea of anger to find some Dems who want to get more Dems elected?