K&R if you feel President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Re-elected!!!
Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)
Thanks, "Old and In The Way" - good idea for a thread title!
So now the first thing a visitor sees when they come to the DU is this:
>>> MOST DISCUSSED <<<
President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped
233 | Better Believe It
WTF?! I've been trying to play nice with the "Dump Obama" / Obama hater crowd but this has gone far enough. The damage that has been done should be clearly obvious.
"President Obama Richly Deserves to Be Dumped"? That needs to be hidden. Go take it to the Freepers or whatever if you want Obama kicked out of office. Or stuff it until the 2016 election season.
In my opinion the DU isn't here so that people can do the Republicans' job for them!
Kick and record if you think it's CRAZY or just downright IMPRACTICAL to call for Obama to be Primaried or any of that mess.
Remember Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992 and Nader in 2000. Don't let the Democrats be the victim of the next disruptor candidate! And remember to vote SUPER PROGRESSIVE in 2016 and in EVERY other election!
Would a jury agree with me if I reported it?
It's downright embarrassing...
Are you saying their hopes and frustrations don't count?
(And yes, I know that their frustrations concern certain House and Senate Democrats and the political system itself too.)
Because a president/ senator/ congress(wo)man ignoring ever the same ten percent of his/her base may be a good politician, but a bad Democrat.
To be alienated, they would have had to at some point start out supporting him. While some people have gotten frustrated, the fact is that Obama's approval rating among liberal Democrats in December 2008, right after the election and before he did anything, was 88 percent. Today it's around 83 percent. More than two thirds of the people who bash him from the left never supported him, but that doesn't stop them from endlessly going on about how betrayed they feel, or bashing Obama's policies as the source of disapproval that they already had BEFORE said policies.
First, I very enthusiastically supported Obama. I, like many liberals, are rethinking that (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145268/obama-approval-slipping-among-liberal-democrats.aspx I've personally gone much farther and will not vote for him). The warrantless wiretapping, granting BP a license after the spill to drill in the gulf, granting a license to Shell to drill in the Arctic, indefinite detention (for acquitted detainees), suspending new air quality standards, cuts to the community development block grant, more drone attacks (and, therefore, more murdering of civilians), complete immunity for the government for warrantless wiretapping and many others just don't warrant (pardon the pun) a liberal's vote. I have to admit I don't understand, truly, how so many won't call him out on this stuff. If Bush did the same things (which he did...and Obama has frankly gone further in some ways), people would be screaming. I don't understand people giving him a pass on these things when they seem to be such fundamental items that go to the very core of the constitution and the bill of rights. I guess I'm calling a truce of sorts (as one of those really angry at this president...whom I still won't vote for) and trying to understand how one who intends on voting for him can overlook these things. Is the reason (or ONE of the reasons) really because "the Republicans are so much worse?" I truly don't get it (yes, I know, cue the "you're clueless" or "you just don't get it" or "you never really supported Obama" comments). On a final note, I have reached the conclusion that the system is not reformable and needs to be destroyed. Perhaps that's why I don't see a real difference between the two because, in the end, the who system needs to end. Honestly seeking insight from his still supporters because I just can't get my head around, what I see as, the betrayal of what I always thought were fundamental principles for a liberal.
Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2011/06/little-change-in-liberal-democrats.html
Edit: Fixed link
I'm the author of the "deserves to be Bumped" alternative thread. (Have you K&R'd that one?)
I'm not happy with that message being the most discussed topic on DU's front page either. But true democracy always comes with a little bit of embarrassment, a little bit of groaning, and a little bit of being on the unpopular side. Anyone who can't handle that isn't ready for democracy.
The day we start shutting up those we disagree with is the day we have to turn in our liberal hats, kick off our fair-trade Birkenstocks, and start wearing the shameful fedora and galoshes of intolerance.
Really sucks that a site dedicated to supporting and electing Democrats needs to showcase this kind of crap.
The problem needs to be discussed.
I'm curious to see just how many posters here do support Obama and see how that compares with the ones that don't. Why the "Dump Obama"thread isn't a ToS violation is beyond me. I know plenty of Republicans that would love the Democrats to dump Obama, but I've never met a Democrat in real life that thinks that's a good idea.
This thread is already past both of those numbers.
If I was a Dem looking for a home and saw some of these threads, I'd move on. Hell, the only reason I've stayed this long is because my work computer is so friggin' old DU is the only Dem site I can access.
That and a lot of good people.
And I wanted to cheer for you, but you have been here less than a year. My Mom has been posting here since 2002 and turned me on to DU, so your comment about staying this long is ludicrous. Really 11 months on a board is a long time?
But, I came from a different site because it was updated and no longer accessible from work. The atmosphere was much different than it is here.
No one would have referred to my statement as "ludicrous". What is "ludicrous" is believing that someone can't form an opinion of a site in 11 months...or two weeks. The attitude in your post is one of the reasons why I almost left after only a few weeks.
opportunities, such as HR676 or EFCA 2.0, but also nothing to say about MORE Repuke appointments to SCOTUS.
Almost all they have to say is "Lesser of two evils - bad!"
Ever notice how the activism area has so little activity?
Hopefully all of them will end up just bullshitting bullshitters.
remember where it came from ( the Rove machine). The purpose is to discourage turnout. Always has been.
Because a close election, they can steal.
thread, I also believe that people have the right to speak their minds and opinion and that this shouldn't just be one big circle jerk. It should be a DISCUSSION, even when, and maybe especially if, there's such disagreement.
Personally, the sentiment of that OP and its followers drives me batshit crazy. He's done a lot more than people think, but people expect him to be pure and perfect and just wave his magic wand and everything will be exactly as they want it. They're as bad as the RW base demanding every single thing be done exactly as they want or else. You CANNOT have everything you want in politics, you just cannot. It isn't possible. Not in a democracy. Yes, I will agree that Obama has been quite frustrating at times, but I'll still take him in a heartbeat over any of the GOP candidates and shudder to think of what might happen with even one month of a presidency of any of the candidates. They make Obama look like Che Guevara.
And, being a sort-of oldtimer (not quite fifty, but getting close) I have just one word for those screaming for Obama's blood and demanding a primary challenge: 1980. I'll say it again: 1980. A major reason Carter lost (besides his ineffectiveness in many ways) was precisely due to the primary challenges against him as well as the independent candidate John Anderson. The primary challenges seriously and severely weakened him, seriously divided the already-weakened party and weakened in further, infuriated many within the party which caused them to leave, and caused rifts and divisions, some of which have not healed and have carried over to this day. And what was especially infuriating was that there was little to no chance of any primary challenger prevailing and those who challenged KNEW it. And they wouldn't have been able to wave a magic wand and make everything happen at once, either. We cannot go down that same path this time.
Hurts to say that, but history doesn't lie. Anderson in 1980, Perot in 1992. Nader in 2000.
Reagan also worked with the Iranians to keep the hostages until he was elected. I'm sure that had nothing to do with the results.
But I didn't say primarying Carter caused his defeat...I was agreeing with the poster's observation that there is evidence of 3rd Parties damaging election results (see 2010 Maine Governor's race where a teabagger wins the election because 62% of the voters split between the Independent and Democrat) and expanded on his observation to include primarying a sitting President, using Carter-Kennedy as the most recent example. Surely, you don't believe a bruising primary fight in 1980 helped Carter's re-election campaign?
I would think you'd agree that having a primary election means raising and spending a lot of money that could be better used in the GE. It also generates animosity between Democrats and likely results in suppressing the turnout of Democrats for the Party in the GE. A primary election provides the Republicans with lots of video opportunities to use the words and ads of the primary candidate to help sell the idea that the incumbent is so bad, his own Party wants to get rid of him. Using primaries as a means to pressure the incumbent to modify his policies and agenda is akin to using a 10lb sledgehammer to nail brads into a piece of fine furniture. You might get the job done, but the final results will most likely create a worthless product.
DU has rules against attacking or working to defeat Democratic candidates for office.
for recruiters from other campaigns.
was posted long before that OP, and of course it resulted in a lot of discussion and even argument. The OP was an already-stale dupe, and I begin to wonder if the word "dupe" might not apply to those folks who flocked to rec it so quickly. There are obviously more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy.
that thread on the home page. If someone (visitor) clicked on it and read the ensuing comments/discussions/fights, they'd get a sense of how DU can be. We are what we are.
in the Democratic primary with a different candidate. As far as I know, this is not an Obama only 2012 site. Because this is a democracy, people do have a right to express opinions for challenging Obama with another candidate on the Democratic party side.
I think you are way off base to say other people shouldn't be able to express that opinion.
Now, talking about the DU home page, well, who really cares. Let them only put pro-Obama articles there for all I care. It really is not that important.
Come on now. What are the odds of that ever happening? Much less that person winning?
I have never seen DU say, even during the height of the Obama-Hillary conflict and race, "If you are not a 100% Obama supporter then you must leave DU, you can't support anyone but Obama here"
This site has always allowed people to advocate for different candidates during the Democratic primary and has never been exclusively tied to one candidate.
Yea even if it is highly unlikely for anyone to run much less win against Obama, that isn't the point.
Obama was not President during the Obama-Hillary conflict.
Other than that I can understand your point even if I am not so quick to agree to it.
I miss the unrec button, too. Now it's "most discussed" that hit the front page, and frankly, it's embarassing to see what's there most of the time.
and he would be if the Dems had anyone better. and i wish someone would primary him - he's been a total failure as president in my book. you are of course, free to disagree. if a name other than Obama's shows up on my Dem primary ballot - that person will have my vote.
You must have been born recently:
This is a Democratic president signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act that protects women in the workplace:
This is a Republican president signing a bill that restricts certain abortion procedures:
He also passed the best public health care plan possible in this political climate and saved GM from Republicans who wanted to kill it so they could run the UAW contracts through the shredder. I owe the man my pension. Without it, I wouldn't be able to post on this internet forum or donate to his campaign, and therein lies the rub.
I'm still stuck in an underwater mortgage, but now I have a payment I can actually afford.
Those two pictures are totally amazing.
And I grow ever that much more disgusted with any idiot that wants to believe that there is "no difference" between Bush and this president.
IMO, people have selective vision to think this President is a "failure" who's "done nothing".
Or perhaps if his accomplishments haven't benefitted an individual personally, they don't mean anything to that individual.
Obama's picture is the only one where both genders (albeit mostly women) are present during signing.
which is a cold cell in the Hague.
If you're a fellow union member, you know what that means.
great to know.
There are Plutocrats standing behind Obama, threatening him with TOTAL economic collapse if he doesn't do as they say.
It doesn't matter who you get to replace Obama, if someone doesn't expose and deal with this bunch, any hopes of Leftist reforms will ALWAYS fail.
Pick your ultra Leftist candidate. He won't make it an inch. The Plutocrats will assassinate him if he does get close to the Presidency.
Hence, like it or not, he (or any other pResident) is where the buck stops, at least from an 'official' standpoint.
The beginning of the end of the Chain of Responsibility starts with Obama, and ends with the plutocracy, and includes most 'elected' officials in between.
I think that ever since JFK was assassinated, we've had a shadow government operating things. As you say, they need to be exposed and they need to be exposed soon. Obama is doing what he's told to do, just as he will in his next term, if he has one.
The far right wackos are now predicting we won't have a election. They claim Obama will pull off a false flag attack and invoke martial law. These were my fears in 2008. After being selected in the 2000 election, pulling off the greatest false flag attack of all time, and topping it off by stealing the 2004 election, I didn't think shrub could allow another to be president. The powers that be must have assured him that no matter what happened, he and his cohorts would never be prosecuted.
This is why the #occupy movement is so important. If nothing else, they have proved that we do know that our republic has been lost to them and we will take it back.
Unfortunately, the same money men that are holding Obama hostage also have maybe 500 of our 535 "Representatives" held hostages well.
The 2012 elections will be about much more than just the presidency. We really need to replace just about every member of the House and Senate. With the exception of Kaptur, Franken, Sanders ,Kucinich, and a few others,our Congress is a wholly-owned subsidiary of big business.
Maybe there's a site called Liberal Loveland or Idealist Uptopia where you can lament that politics itself is the root of all evil, but you'll run into a lot of people here who, like me, carry a DNC card in their wallet. People like me who over the years have seen a marked difference when Democrats are at the levers of power in this country.
Maybe you're a young man who thinks he has the time and energy to burn it all down and rebuild anew. Perhaps you see the country as a potential blank canvas just awaiting your talent to paint an ideal society where wrongs are righted, greed is passe, and all men are truly created equal, but I see the country as a struggle between factions where one side wants to drag the nation back to a time when men on the street begged to let them shine your shoes, and another that upholds the dignity of a working class. This struggle doesn't live in my head, the battle rages on around us every day of the year while you concern yourself with destroying both parties in the name of justice and leftist purity.
I'm old and mature enough to know we have a better shot at a future by working within the system than inventing a new one that suits only a minority who think the entire country is behind them in creating a far left utopia that can only exist on paper and wisps of drum circle smoke.
It's telling that you refer to the Democrats in the White House as "my team" and wish them ousted through criminal court. Are you here to talk DUers out of their party membership? If so, you must be seeing the very beginnings of the immense challenge you face in remolding the nation into your ideal vision.
You stay at it though, someday the whole world will see things your way.
And it the primary reason nothing every changes. You should be so proud, to put Party over All, rather than justice for All.
Your initial entry was a blanket statement that simply called for Obama to face charges in the Hague as a war criminal. There were no specifics and no evidence that you have an ulterior motive, but I want to sort that out first and see if your interest is indeed in the name of blind non-partisan justice. I want to know if you truly want justice, or if you just hate Obama and are grasping at any straw you can find to bring him down.
We both understand that no American president will ever be turned over to an international court without slam the door-there's no excuse-hard evidence that has a better than 90% chance of conviction. After all, you'll not find a Democrat in the country who will consider bringing charges against Obama, and for a Republican to take interest there has to be some real meat to your accusations.
With that in mind, and if you could miraculously find an interested ear in the GOP, what would be your case against Obama? How would you present these serious charges in a way that would leave someone with the capability to see it through convinced that they have Obama dead to rights? After all, no one is going to politcally embarass themselves chasing a partisan snipe just because you hate Obama, so it has to be pretty good and airtight.
Please be somewhat specific, and I know you can, because I'm sure you did some research into international law before levelling charges that have never in history been presented to an American president. As a follow up, can these charges apply to any other president who presided during a military action. or are you just setting your sights on this administration? What other American presidents would you like to see tried at The Hague, even retro-actively if you could? How untainted is your sense of justice?
The US Government's execution of the so-called 'war' on 'terror' is a blatant affront to the Rule of Law, because it defines an asymmetrical protocol for conducting military incursions anywhere on the planet that blatantly ignores the sovereignty of any other nation.
If Yemen, for example, started flying drone sorties in US airspace, you can be damn sure the US would not be pleased, yet the US government proclaims this very 'right' in its definition of this 'war'.
Many of the drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan have killed civilians. Again, this would not be tolerated were the roles reversed. The killing of civilians is a war crime, plain and simple.
Further, like it or not, the extra-judicial assassinations of bin Laden and Ghadaffi were very clearly war crimes.
And my reprisals are not limited to Obama, as you suggest. The entire neocon cabal is guilty of similar crimes, and should also be held accountable. Hence your insinuation that I would find some GOP thug to bring charges against Obama is a Red Herring. BOTH parties are responsible for war crimes, and BOTH parties should be held accountable. Without accountability, there is only totalitarianism.
Which is where we're headed now.
And since Obama chose not to even bother to investigate the neocon cabal, he becomes an accessory to their crimes after the fact, and a member of that cabal by proxy.
This isn't about political parties. This is about Justice and the Rule of Law, and the restoration thereof.
Obviously, you'd never consider voting for a war criminal, and since both parties are equally culpable, you can't turn to the Republicans next November for help either. That must mean you intend to vote for no one, and you're recruiting others here to join you in staying home election day.
Have you tried taking this solid evidence you hold to your representitive, or an attorney general and demand they uphold the law as you see it? Perhaps a foreign government like Canada will offer sanctuary while they carry out your will on Obama in your stead. Maybe if you read the international laws to them and order them to begin legal extradition to The Hague they'll have to listen. For a while. Before they throw you out of their office. Frankly, I think you got nothing. I don't agree that he's a war criminal, and the vast majority of both parties are with me on that.
I know that sounds like I'm being a smart ass, but you have to understand my stance. I'm posting in a Democratic web site in support of the party and the president, and run into someone who wants to pull the rug out from under the Democratic incumbant because he fears the US has suddenly gone too far in global interference. You'll accomplish nothing here except to raise the ire of DU members, and the change you seek is way over your head. At any rate, you're barking up a tree that leads to nowhere, and I'm afraid you're marching to a drummer that no one else hears.
Good luck, and a Merry Christmas if you can, with all this moral idealist weight on your shoulders.
I cede the last word to you because I feel you're going nowhere with this war crimes nonsense anyway.
I've been posting on this website since 2002. The fact that the 'team' changed in the WH has nothing to do with it.
But imagine my chargin when I saw that after Obama was (s)elected how things that we railed against under Bush were now, quite suddenly, just fine because the guy had a (D) in front of his name.
Soooooo... 'starting'? No. I'm posting what I've been posting since I joined this site a decade ago.
It's called ethics. You should consider looking into it over raw partisanship.
I know from your replies that you just think I'm some Democratic loyalist with no motivation other than blind partisanship. While it's true that I find one party preferable these days, I have personal reasons.
I retired in 2003 after working 30 years at a division of General Motors with the full pension they promised me. Had I not been assured of this pension, I would never have been able to leave. When Delphi went into failure, GM took over my pension as they agreed to in a contract before the subsidiery was spun off. Everything was fine until GM faced a similar fate in 2008.
It was then, as Republicans strengthened their hand in the House and Senate, that republicans like Mitt Romney, Illinois Senator Dan Burton, and California's Darrell Issa began their demands that GM be sent into total bankruptcy hearings to reorganize without the UAW and their contract to members and what they termed "legacy costs". Well, that legacy cost has a face, it's me.
In 2009 when a fresh Barack Obama put together his bailout team under his much reviled "Car Czar", I stared abject poverty right in the eye for the first time in my long life. Had Obama caved to the growing calls from Republicans to let GM "rot on the vine", I would suddenly be left with $0 income and no job prospects for an older man, and that was fine with Mitt Romney.
As we know, Obama did not cave, and my union was given a chair at the restructuring meetings along with other GM creditors. From then on, the matter was in the hands of Judge Drain instead of the Washington politicians, and a decision was made to continue half my pension from the GM pension fund and the other half from the govt PBGC. I lost most of my health care, but I'm surviving now thanks soley to the Democratic president you want to see in a "cold dark cell".
That's why I defend this president in particular. I litterally owe him my pension and my dignity until I reach SS age in a couple years. When I hear someone with a single issue interest call for his ouster, I react. I've read here where various people have called for a single term because gays can't marry yet, Marijuanna is still illegal, or because Gitmo is still open.
Since the GM decision and loans were made, current House Oversight leader Darrell Issa has been bombarding this White House with subpeonas to get his hands on the documents pertaining to the GM pensions. Issa is certain Obama worked behind the scenes with the UAW to assure my pension, and he want to use them to bring him (and me) down. So far, the White House has rebuffed his efforts, but all he needs now is a President Romney to void my pension along with that of tens of thousands of union brothers and sisters across the country.
I know from reading your journal entries and posts that your issue is war. Until we have a president who extracts the US from global conflicts, you will continue your very sincere plight to find someone who will. I understand, I'm anti-war myself, but that's only one issue I use to judge this president's worth. Selfish as it may seem, that he stood up for workers in our time of need is an even bigger one to me.
I have two sons who are single handedly raising my combined six grandchildren without a spouse in the picture. One has a decent job, but $13 an hour only goes so far with three growing sons. Both receive govt food subsidies, and all my grandchildren get discounted or free school lunches. Will a president Romney or Gingrich see to it that these important services are continued? Will my grandchildren be forced to shine shoes and mow lawns so the family can survive? I'm not willing to take that chance just because Obama killed bin Laden. I'm not willing to let voters stay home next year and hand over my family's fate to a Republican president just to teach Obama a lesson about drone attacks.
Instead of blind partisanship, I believe our real differences over Obama involve the issues that drive us. You want world peace, I want to eat and live indoors. I may find reason to be loyal to the Democratic Party these days, but I'm not some partisan hack without morals or a cause. I'm also not alone as many, many millions more are in my well worn shoes with their family's personal fate hanging in the balance next November.
on your side.
I'm not saying you're a partisan hack, I'm saying that demanding accountability for one party, while simultaneously ignoring accountability for yours, or any other, is moral relativism.
Do I want world peace? Sure. But in order for world peace to manifest the basic Hierarchy of Needs must be fulfilled. At the base of that hierarchy is food and shelter. Hence food/home/job security must exist prior to actualizing world peace.
This is why the Bill of Rights is so important, and why I rail against ANY political party who seeks to limit the rights guaranteed within. And currently (since the 80's, actually), I see this type of action from BOTH parties, not just one or the other. Further, the food/home security you seek will never materialize in the absence of the Bill of Rights. That's why it came into existence in the first place.
And if you think the solution to the aforementioned issue is simply to (s)elect democrats, I believe you'll find you're sorely mistaken. Behind the scenes, there is only ONE political party, and that party doesn't give a hoot whether you eat or not. Democrats may offer up lip service to such things, but at the end of the day they serve their True Masters.
This is why both parties have supported the atrocious 'war' on (some) drugs, and it's ugly younger brother, the 'war' on terror.
And it is this corrupt servitude which I'm oppose. It is the corrupt collusion between politicians and corporations that I oppose. And I'm not alone, either. This is the raison d'etre of the Occupy Movement.
I'm fed up with that bogus notion that there isn't a sliver of difference between the two parties. It's a nonsnse argument set up by the GOP when they're playing defence. I've seen it happen over and over before.
"My vote doesn't matter". "There's only one party". "There's no difference between the two". ...and so goes the mantra, until the GOP gets back in power, then they're the "grownups" in charge.
There are many more Democrats than there are Republicans in this country, the problem is Democrats don't vote. They always find one excuse or another to stay home or find something else to do that day. Republicans on the other hand, vote as a birthright handed down by their conservative fathers. To win elections as the underdog, all they need is to find people to help spread the word that Democrats are wasting their time at the voting booth.
No difference indeed.
This is a Democratic president signing the Lilly Ledbetter Act that protects women in the workplace:
This is a Republican president signing a bill that restricts certain abortion procedures:
change the fact that voting D/R is a vote for the status quo, and NO CHANGE.
Oh, and as far as your cherry-picked pics go, I can post pictures of Democrats applauding measures that jail non-violent pot smokers, or that degrade the Bill of Rights.
Are you using this site to advocate for a third party?
There are certainly better venues where you can extol the virtues of voting out both parties without putting up with democrats like me. You remind me of an atheist who won't leave the church until everyone in the congregation sees things his way.
I'm advocating for NO PARTICULAR PARTY. I'm advocating for and an end to government corruption, complete transparency and accountability for those conducting the People's Business. I'm advocating for an end to power in politics, and a COMPLETE restoration of our civil rights defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. And I'll be damned if I'll support ANY politician who acts in any way contrary to these goals, irregardless of political affiliation.
For someone who claims not to be a hack, you sure do post like one.
I've heard it all before from my Tea Party friends. They too like neither party and want representitives that focus soley on a literal reading of the constitution where it concerns their interests. They too want to tear it all down and start over with a clean sheet of paper. They support only politicians who answer to them alone and pledge to govern with their demands at the forefront.
You and the Tea Party can let me know when you're both done redesigning the world in your conflicting utopian vision, I plan to work within the existing system to affect change in the short term. That involves my working to re-elect president Obama and my senator Sherrod Brown.
We'll see who gets there first.
than OWS, but you can classiify yourself as you see convenient. I don't see anywhere that you could find an argument with one of his 2008 supporters, and while that's not necessarily a bad thing, I personally just don't happen to agree with him or you on certain issues.
In ending, I looked back at what begat this war of incendiary words and reread your original comment. In it you called for the imprisonment of our Democratic president in a cold dark cell. Incredibly, you took great offense that someone would find difference with that statement here on DU, and spent the rest of the discussion comparing me as morally inferior to your ethically pure self.
I appears you typed those original words and thought to yourself that no one here could possibly refute what you should have known in advance was such a divisive statement. I have the common sense to know if I wanted to start a viral flame war here, I'd copy and paste that very sentence into a post in GD and sit back to watch.
If you don't believe me, try it. See if all the OWS supporters here you claim as bretheren give you a thumbs up. If you get an overwhelmingly positive response, then I guess I'm the one in the wrong forum.
The Occupy Movement is attempting to force an end to government / corporate collusion, which I support whole-heartedly.
The Tea-baggers are a bunch of astro-turf nutbags who don't really support the things they claim to support, but, again, I won't get in the way of your snark.
With that in mind, "throw them all out" is a TP battle cry from 2010 that comes to mind.
I don't think they got a patent on it, if it helps.
Everytime I vote, I pick one person whose vote I want to symbolically cancel. In '08, it was a friend who danced before me as a monkey as he chanted "Obama gonna be buy me a Cadillac" as he scratched his armpits. I effectively cancelled his McCain vote.
Next year I already choose you, albeit for different reasons.
I feel better.
you rob the word of any meaning.
The standard definition works just fine, and does indeed include Obama.
The drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the extra-judicial assassinations of bin Laden and Gaddaffi are just two.
If these events had occurred while Bush was in the WH, I'm sure you'd feel differently.
Further, if the roles were reversed, and Pakistan was flying sorties and bombing US neighborhoods, I'll bet you wouldn't think it was a-okay, then, either.
criminal - now back it up. You have listed actions that you say are war crimes, now show me the laws those actions violate?
It's funny how murder isn't such a bad thing, now that Obama is in the WH.
law, treaty, etc. that you are relying on to make such an extraordinary claim.
Killing civilians can be a war crime under certain circumstances, but it isn't one per se. The word "crime" means to break a law, a specific law, ok? You call the president a war criminal, and then can't name a single war crimes statute he's violated. Tht's what's funny.
That's a real laugh riot, Alice.
It's not rocket science.
instead of a wikipedia definition. BTW, Obama has done none of the things in your wikipedia article anyway.
I'll not waste more time on the likes of you.
Your premise: That one sovereign nation may kill whomever they please anywhere in the world for any reason, is ludicrous.
I don't believe this shit.
If you are so warped towards a particular party or candidate, that you fail to see that the direction that this country is headed is FATAL, then you are part of the problem! There are too many issues, too many "solutions", and too many people with headupassitis to ever get an optimum solution for any of the dead ends we're merrily trotting down.
If we were debating the issues we face as a nation in terms of what's best for our country, that would be fine. But the power plays, the back biting, the blatant corruption of both parties, the appearance of superiority, and finally, the abdication of the true bosses of this fine nation are harbingers of a bigger fate.
But what the hell right? The environment will settle it, and we can revert to hunter/gatherer rural community type status.
The system as it exists, broken and busted, is too firmly ingrained and thoroughly paid for, to allow any meaningful change to occur. Are you blind? Mad? Stubborn to the point of closing your mind?
Argue away lemmings.
Democrats have been good to me all my long life, and Obama is no exception. I owe the man my pension and my dignity, because without him Republicans would have gladly killed GM and shredded all the UAW contracts. Romney in particular wanted to use the pension fund to pay creditors and pull a Bain Capital gang bang on the dead carcass.
You go ahead and start your revolution all by yourself next year. I'll be doing volunteer work for Obama/Biden 2012. You can take care of the hand wringing and foot dragging.
As those who will not see.
They are using your grandchildrens income to prop up your pension and benefits. Through a corporation that was run into the ground and then raped.
But alas... no concensus exists for the type of action that would turn this ship around.
Live it up big guy!
But they've done such a good job of keeping everyone so busy fighting with one another
to even SEE what's really going on. And, apparently, the vast majority seem to be just fine
with their severe case of headupassitis. I'm truly scared for my country and my children.
opinion based on what someone else posted here on DU?
I think everyone here is pretty well dug in. We are one opinionated bunch.
That being said, Obama is the candidate, like it or not. Agree or disagree, happy or unhappy, he's it. There could be a challenge, but it won't displace Obama.
So all you supporters, things are going your way and you have the advantage. Be happy! Don't worry about detractors. Don't let them bring out the worst in you. It would be very wise to be cordial as you are campaigning on his behalf because, as a supporter, you represent your candidate whenever you show your support. Be nasty and you will turn people off. And you don't have a vote to waste. It doesn't help Obama for you to be mean and belittle people who could vote for him.
It's a question of what will happen to the world if he loses.
Not a pretty thought.
He works really hard for us in the best way he can. We may disagree with some of what he does at times, but on the whole he does really well with the hand he has been dealt.
And I can hardly stand to visit now. Sometimes, I take a look at the homepage and decide to read my e-mail, instead.
The goal of the "dump Obama" folks is to depress Dem turn out ... because that give the right win g nut jobs a shot.
Obama should win in a landslide. Some are terrified of that because the GOP implode after.
Jane Hamsher and her ilk still working for Republicans to defeat Democrats.
I will probably vote for him. But I don't believe in someone 'deserving' to be president. It is about policy and not anything else.
takes place slowly....it is a constant battle. We have 1st administration goals and 2 administration goals. I hope that we can win back some congressional seats in 2012 so that we can make even more progress and I look forward to voting for Barack Obama in November 2012.
Support Obama in 2012 and local liberal causes today.
He's been doing pretty well facing into the headwind he has. IDO have pretty big probs with his "see no evil but pot" Justice Department. Law Enforcement needs a good colonic.
Besides, I don't think he richly deserves to be re-elected. I just think he "pretty much" deserves it.
It will only help elect a republican...
It would be a nice change around here.
that seems like an impossibility to get a pro-Obama, a Democratic president, on the first page here at DEMOCRATIC Underground.
The question is what is in the best interests of the country and the world?
Of the two fascist, capitalist candidates running, Obama will be the less scary.
Even according to Jonathan Alter, not exactly friendly toward President Obama's policies, has had to agree that our president, despite an unprecedented obstructionist GOP and wishy-washy Dems, he's gotten more progressive policies through since Lyndon B. Johnson.
Oh yeah, if any president deserves reelection, it's President Obama. Hands down.
FOUR MORE FOR 44!!!!!!!!
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA UNTIL JANUARY 20, 2017!!!!!!!!
But I think it is absolutely imperative to prevent a Republican from taking the presidency.
It should have been obvious. But here it is.
GIVE 'EM HELL BARRY!
to stand at that news confernece reading those what can you do with $40.00 puts a face on a guy that really does care. He got in the game brilliantly with the what could you do with $40 dollars campaign. I saw the extended video of him interacting with the good citizens while shopping and he is by far one of the most down to earth POTUS's we have ever had. Yeah so we didn't get all we wanted this guy caught Boners punt and ran it back for a touch down.
Obama does not "richly deserve to be reelected" and a large faction of democrats agree. Obama needs to be reelected (because the opposition has essentially gone insane) but there is a significantly huge difference between that and "richly deserves".
Wish we still had unrec ...
would have said the same thing about FDR.
FDR was not perfect, but, in my opinion, if someone like W had been in office at the time Pearl Harbor was attacked, we would all be speaking German now.
May be a dialect thing, though.
but I plan to vote for him anyway.
I am a pragmatic leftist who won't take a chance on the crazy righties getting in again.
to try and replace him with another of the same party is politcal suicide.............imho
I didn't like the "deserves to be dumped" OP, but at least it had some content.