General Discussion

beerandjesus

(1,301 posts)

76. In the real world, it is not an ideology-free term.

Thu Oct 31, 2013, 12:21 PM

Oct 2013

I'll spare you the hassle of a quick Google search. Here are the first three results:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=obama%20derangement%20syndrome

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/10/real-world-consequences-obama-derangement-syndrome

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/how-obama-derangement-syndrome-is.html

In the Real World, i.e. the world outside of Internet forums, ODS is a bagger affliction, and is a manifestation of the right-wing attributes you correctly identify (craziness and virulent racism). Attributing left-wing criticism of Obama with tea-bag ODS is about as intellectually honest as saying Republicans can't possibly be racist because George Wallace was a Democrat.

If you intend no malice, then cut it out. There are plenty of good names to call people. "Asshole" is an ideology-free term. "ODS" is not.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

232 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Robert Reich: Obama Should Have Gone With a Comprehensive Public Insurance Plan [View all] kpete Oct 2013 OP

And it would have been unquestionably constitutional. n/t lumberjack_jeff Oct 2013 #1

That was back in the President's "Can't we all just get along" days. russspeakeasy Oct 2013 #2

Yup. We can thank him, and Max Baucus, the Blue Dogs and truebluegreen Oct 2013 #5

Don't forget DINO Ben Nelson and his abortion antics, nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #7

As much as we wished that Lincoln, Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Olympia Snowe geek tragedy Oct 2013 #3

I think RR's point is that, as President, he should have insisted on a much more progressive bill. Dawgs Oct 2013 #8

Do you think that he could have persuaded Lieberman or Collins? karynnj Oct 2013 #11

If he would have started with something more progressive, absolutely. Dawgs Oct 2013 #48

Lieberman specifically rejected Medicare for those over 55 karynnj Oct 2013 #54

Of course he did. Obama had absolutely no leverage. Dawgs Oct 2013 #59

It's certainly possible he could have done more to sideline Baucus, but geek tragedy Oct 2013 #65

So, then why did we elect Obama if Baucus, Lieberman, and others were going to design ALL policy? Dawgs Oct 2013 #71

He mishandled a lot of it. There are about 1000 scenarios as far as how this could have geek tragedy Oct 2013 #74

10/1000 with a weak President. Much higher with a stronger one. n/t Dawgs Oct 2013 #92

Sigh. You're way to obsessed with the idea that the President is a national daddy geek tragedy Oct 2013 #94

Sigh. All I wanted was for him to try. Instead, he left it up to the blue dogs. n/t Dawgs Oct 2013 #96

+1 That's the game. woo me with science Oct 2013 #114

Woo, this should be pinned to the top of the page. How they play us. And the SUCKERS who fall for it chimpymustgo Oct 2013 #170

That doesn't even make sense. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #157

So you're admitting that he's worthless when it comes to policy then. Nice to know. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #194

No, he's neither powerless nor omnipotent. nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #195

Too late. You've already said he has to leave policy up to Congress. Can't take it back now. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #198

Yes, I made the remarkable observation that when it comes to passing geek tragedy Nov 2013 #199

I know exactly know you meant, and I'm not surprised one bit. At least you're consistent. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #200

Yes, I understand how government actually works, as opposed to geek tragedy Nov 2013 #201

Except I never said, or don't believe, that Presidents make shit happen. Dawgs Nov 2013 #209

In your view, how does a bill become a law? nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #210

What does that have to with Obama not pushing for something more progressive than the ACA? Dawgs Nov 2013 #213

Obama did push for a public option, and also lowering the Medicare age was put on geek tragedy Nov 2013 #214

Sorry. I'm starting this argument over again. Look at my previous posts if want an answer. n/t Dawgs Nov 2013 #215

Yes, your answer is that you would have done a much better job. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #216

He got something done... Drunken Irishman Nov 2013 #186

That's how I remember it. mountain grammy Oct 2013 #77

Yes, just like other Dem President's have made it clear to their party sabrina 1 Oct 2013 #181

Problem was Lieberscum kept on moving the goalposts. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #14

Romneycare + PO was hardly "extreme". It was more like center-left. Dawgs Oct 2013 #53

No, it wasn't extreme. But the problem was the math in the Senate, which made geek tragedy Oct 2013 #57

See post #59. n/t Dawgs Oct 2013 #61

He did not allow single payer advocates to sit at the table and discuss health insurance reform JDPriestly Oct 2013 #63

+1000.. whathehell Nov 2013 #192

Exactly. cui bono Oct 2013 #113

I think there would be great value today if a beter plan had been advocated by Obama, even if Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #10

the plan advocated by Obama was better than what passed, but geek tragedy Oct 2013 #15

Straight out of the gate? zipplewrath Oct 2013 #49

That was the plan he campaigned on--it was based on the plan geek tragedy Oct 2013 #55

He campaigned on a strong public option and his oppostion to individual mandates. Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #69

The individual mandate stuff was a counterattack against Hillary after geek tragedy Oct 2013 #73

'Kay, but zipplewrath Oct 2013 #133

The plan as it started was fairly centrist, with a few sprinklings of geek tragedy Oct 2013 #135

Heritage Foundation zipplewrath Oct 2013 #138

If you haven't picked up on the GOP's game (including Lieberman and Heritage) when geek tragedy Oct 2013 #144

Still trying to see how Lincoln et. al. drove Obama to pick this up zipplewrath Oct 2013 #145

You have sourcing for the claim that Heritage secretly liked Obamacare? geek tragedy Oct 2013 #150

Closest I've found zipplewrath Nov 2013 #207

Professor Krugman is mistaken as you can clearly see from reading the geek tragedy Nov 2013 #208

And this is due to Lincoln et. al. zipplewrath Nov 2013 #211

Huh? Krugman's main complaint with Obama's plan geek tragedy Nov 2013 #212

But you said zipplewrath Nov 2013 #228

If I said that the conservative document was originated by Lincoln & Co geek tragedy Nov 2013 #229

The Obama Administration had TONS of "leverage" that went unused. bvar22 Oct 2013 #127

nice conspiracy theory, wherein every shitty thing that any geek tragedy Oct 2013 #129

No. It is called "politics", bvar22 Oct 2013 #131

Lincoln got the endorsement in exchange for voting for the ACA itself. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #132

Excuses, excuses, excuses,...and more excuses. bvar22 Oct 2013 #136

Congress is a coequal branch of government. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #141

from woo's excellent post #114 questionseverything Oct 2013 #137

Greenwald, the Libertarian, is lying about the Dems. pnwmom Oct 2013 #163

reconciliation bypasses filibuster questionseverything Oct 2013 #168

Laws passed by reconciliation also only lasts a decade. jeff47 Oct 2013 #174

Excellent dreamnightwind Oct 2013 #143

Lieberman took one for the Connecticut insurance industry. pnwmom Oct 2013 #164

When the Dem leadership wants unity, they can get it. sabrina 1 Oct 2013 #146

When Dem leadership gets unity, they thank their lucky stars. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #151

When the leadership is on the page as the Blue Dogs, when they sabrina 1 Oct 2013 #173

So do you agree that the Blue Dog Democrats are the scourge of the Party? nm rhett o rick Oct 2013 #179

This is a revisionist meme; he wouldn't even let single payer advocates into the original meetings: grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #190

Single payer was never on the table. Wasn't during the campaign either. nt geek tragedy Nov 2013 #193

That's the point. It is the better idea and would have avoided all the blowback the admin is grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #220

It's a goal, but going cold turkey for single payer was not plausible. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #221

Well, it's actually what most of Americans want, so it would have happened, IMHO, but I can agree on grahamhgreen Nov 2013 #231

Bait and switch. woo me with science Oct 2013 #4

Surrrre BeyondGeography Oct 2013 #6

It did not have 60 votes in the Senate - and was not going to get 60 votes because of Lieberman, karynnj Oct 2013 #9

The public option was very popular in polls, and public opinion woo me with science Oct 2013 #12

Do you really think one Republican would have been swayed by the public opinion numbers? karynnj Oct 2013 #16

Defeatism is *always* the argument. The truth is that woo me with science Oct 2013 #20

Now you're using Cruz's "surrender caucus" language! geek tragedy Oct 2013 #26

... woo me with science Oct 2013 #29

If the jester's hat fits . . . nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #30

It would have been a very high stakes risk karynnj Oct 2013 #41

No, it would not have been a risk. woo me with science Oct 2013 #43

Yes it was a risk karynnj Oct 2013 #50

From the very beginning, of course. The country *already* polled in support of a public option, woo me with science Oct 2013 #112

Absolutely correct. cui bono Oct 2013 #121

But I heard Putin stopped us from invading Syria. JoePhilly Oct 2013 #45

Nope and we didn't get those votes anyway so fuck em. TheKentuckian Oct 2013 #80

"public opinion could have been mobilized to change those numbers" geek tragedy Oct 2013 #17

Unattainable? The power of public opinion = See Syria n/t leftstreet Oct 2013 #21

Puh-leaze. Syria resolution never stood a chance of passing Congress-- geek tragedy Oct 2013 #22

Public opinion forced the WH to go to Congress leftstreet Oct 2013 #25

There was a ton of debate over the public option. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #27

There was? YoungDemCA Nov 2013 #217

You remember incompletely. geek tragedy Nov 2013 #219

Methinks you are dealing with the "last word" rule. woo me with science Oct 2013 #34

I win! leftstreet Oct 2013 #37

Nah uh! woo me with science Oct 2013 #47

+1 zeemike Oct 2013 #79

+10000 Corporatists loudly support policies that help the 99 percent woo me with science Oct 2013 #35

In hindsight, I think it was Obama buying time while keeping the pressure on karynnj Oct 2013 #88

That was NOT public opinion karynnj Oct 2013 #87

LOL n/t leftstreet Oct 2013 #89

You are aware that he did go to Libya karynnj Oct 2013 #100

UK & US citizens said NO! leftstreet Oct 2013 #104

"no one cares" -- rather presumptuous to assume that karynnj Oct 2013 #115

Quite the opposite leftstreet Oct 2013 #123

However, there is NO cause and effect that you can prove karynnj Oct 2013 #126

Just like it stopped the strikes on Lybia!!!! jeff47 Oct 2013 #176

The Republicans just shut down the government, against the vast majority of public opinion. jeff47 Oct 2013 #175

Funny how that works though. zeemike Oct 2013 #75

On what did Bush not have the votes? karynnj Oct 2013 #86

that is such a tired argument. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #185

Of course. I don't see a lot of health insurance CEOs whining and moaning about the ACA. jsr Oct 2013 #13

Du rec xchrom Oct 2013 #18

So, the most popular excuse today is the Lieberman/Baucus/Nelson BS. Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #19

+1. SammyWinstonJack Oct 2013 #23

There's this thing called "elections" you should learn about. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #24

And here we are again. You ignore what was written and argue against a point Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #31

You're ignoring the role of the filibuster, because it destroys geek tragedy Oct 2013 #33

No, I'm not. But if you just keep inventing stuff to argue about long enough, people might forget Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #38

You falsely claimed that the role of Lieberman, Baucus, and Nelson geek tragedy Oct 2013 #40

You've corrected nothing, and all you've done is argue with yourself over points Egalitarian Thug Oct 2013 #52

Here we go again.... beerandjesus Oct 2013 #42

Blaming Obama for the fact that 60 votes were required to geek tragedy Oct 2013 #46

You legitimize the tea baggers by aping their tactics. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #51

LBJ had 68 Democrats in the Senate. nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #60

That doesn't excuse calling DUers tea-baggers beerandjesus Oct 2013 #62

It's not calling them Teabaggers. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #68

In the real world, it is not an ideology-free term. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #76

Are you denying that there are Firebaggers? nt geek tragedy Oct 2013 #78

Yes. Because you're using the same slander in the term "Firebagger" as you are in the term "ODS". beerandjesus Oct 2013 #84

Well, if you insist that every single critic of Obama from the left geek tragedy Oct 2013 #90

So you might as well call them racists? beerandjesus Oct 2013 #93

I accused no one here of being a racist. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #95

Indeed we do. But you DID call them racist. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #98

The people who call for Obama's impeachment or compare him to Hitler geek tragedy Oct 2013 #101

Then don't call them racist by lumping them in with the racist right. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #105

You're the one insisting that ODS means racist. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #107

I already refuted that "point". beerandjesus Oct 2013 #108

You cited urban dictionary as exemplifying external reality. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #109

I cited urban dictionary as the first thing that comes up when you Google ODS. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #110

ODS is a lot more common on the right. geek tragedy Oct 2013 #111

We're all allies here. I don't understand why slander is such an important tool in your arsenal. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #116

Wow leftstreet Oct 2013 #97

Hahaha! My pleasure... that's why I find the epithet so infuriating. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #99

They know those get hidden leftstreet Oct 2013 #103

I've been tempted to start flagging posts that accuse DUers of ODS. beerandjesus Oct 2013 #106

Well Done! bvar22 Oct 2013 #159

LBJ would have had 60 votes because the Democrats had 68 Senators in 1964! karynnj Oct 2013 #118

Thank you for making the point without saying "ODS"! beerandjesus Oct 2013 #119

Your welcome, I have always thought the "X" syndromes response no matter who X was is bullying karynnj Oct 2013 #120

I strive for your serenity! beerandjesus Oct 2013 #122

+1 liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #189

agreed gopiscrap Oct 2013 #28

I agree, though we might still be mired in debate over it ... Auggie Oct 2013 #32

Yes - Dems "win" only when they implement RepublCON plans... polichick Oct 2013 #36

But, but, but...we won!!1 progressoid Oct 2013 #39

Too Willing to Compromise gussmith Oct 2013 #44

There's no way that Medicare for all could reward politician-stockholders who voted for the ACA. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #56

Obama should have gone with single payer ProSense Oct 2013 #58

I also remember the ads that liberal groups began to run to pressure Blue Dogs... polichick Oct 2013 #64

It didn't pass, and frankly this is a colossal waste of time. ProSense Oct 2013 #67

It's a RepubliCON plan - Medicare for all would be the Dem plan. polichick Oct 2013 #70

It's the law, and "would be" isn't going to get people coverage in January. n/t ProSense Oct 2013 #72

So is medicare. zeemike Oct 2013 #82

Yeah, ProSense Oct 2013 #83

It will never happen unless Democrats try to make it happen zeemike Oct 2013 #130

+1 leftstreet Oct 2013 #91

That's OK, we designed the plan to do that. jeff47 Nov 2013 #202

Well, the sooner the better - it's way past time to join the civilized world. polichick Nov 2013 #205

One in which you invest heavily zipplewrath Oct 2013 #134

What the hell are you talking about? Here's something more important ProSense Oct 2013 #139

You call it a colassal waste of time zipplewrath Oct 2013 #142

I want this guy as President. nt Demo_Chris Oct 2013 #66

Of course. Cleita Oct 2013 #81

I totally agree with Reich, but...... ReRe Oct 2013 #85

Yep... WillyT Oct 2013 #102

How was he supposed to overcome Lieberman and the 60 vote requirement? pnwmom Oct 2013 #117

Maybe if he had worked as hard for a Public Option... bvar22 Oct 2013 #149

Give me a break. Lieberman wouldn't have budged. pnwmom Oct 2013 #153

Lieberman "took one" for Team DLC by playing Judas in the Kabuki Theater. bvar22 Oct 2013 #161

Lieberman was NOT a Dem. And the only group that controlled him pnwmom Oct 2013 #165

What do you not understand? bvar22 Oct 2013 #171

reposted from woo questionseverything Oct 2013 #152

Yes, Greenwald does spout a lot of woo. n/t pnwmom Oct 2013 #155

the point is all we needed questionseverything Oct 2013 #160

Greenwald was wrong. Lieberman voted against cloture pnwmom Oct 2013 #162

reconciliation bypasses the filibuster questionseverything Oct 2013 #166

They couldn't bypass the cloture vote. Reconciliation bypasses the filibuster pnwmom Oct 2013 #167

http://www.ehow.com/info_7954864_budget-reconciliation-definition.html questionseverything Oct 2013 #169

Reconciliation bills also can not last more than 10 years. jeff47 Nov 2013 #203

link pls questionseverything Nov 2013 #222

Can't find Wikipedia yourself? jeff47 Nov 2013 #223

frm your wiki link questionseverything Nov 2013 #224

"Increase the Deficit" means "Increase Spending" jeff47 Nov 2013 #225

because if dems actually promoted policies that helped questionseverything Nov 2013 #226

Would it have separated the deathhold employers have over their Rex Oct 2013 #124

+1 Couldn't agree more! B Calm Nov 2013 #191

+2 madrchsod Nov 2013 #227

Also... kentuck Oct 2013 #125

With all due respect, Mr. Reich, you go out and whip the votes. Arkana Oct 2013 #128

Exactly! Armchair quarterbacking is always so effective ;) arthritisR_US Oct 2013 #140

If Reich can get 60 votes in the Senate to overcome an almost-certain filibuster Arkana Oct 2013 #147

Wish more blokes would remember this because reality does interfere with arthritisR_US Oct 2013 #148

of course no one else.. stillcool Oct 2013 #154

well, they DID try, but got the heave-ho MisterP Oct 2013 #172

Obama has less political will than any president in my lifetime Doctor_J Oct 2013 #156

Newsflash for Reich: It wouldn't have passed both houses. His is bullshit 20/20 hindsight criticism. ancianita Oct 2013 #158

So Reich can't count to 60. The good news is the ACA gets us to the same end jeff47 Oct 2013 #177

Obama's Paymasters On Wall Street Call The Shots. blkmusclmachine Oct 2013 #178

This presumes that Congress would have gone along with it. Jesus, while we're wishing.... NYC_SKP Oct 2013 #180

k&r idwiyo Nov 2013 #182

exactly. Obama was too accommodating because he was trying to avoid a fight. Well he got one anyway. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #183

The only way single payer will be possible is state by state eridani Nov 2013 #184

I do not believe that. Wages are down. Inflation is up. Costs of rent, college, groceries, liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #187

If that was true, we wouldn't be in this situation. jeff47 Nov 2013 #204

believe whatever you want. I disagree. liberal_at_heart Nov 2013 #232

NO SH** Skittles Nov 2013 #188

I absolutely agree.... but.... Adrahil Nov 2013 #196

American Exceptionalism In A Bad Way colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #197

yep, of course this should have been pursued quinnox Nov 2013 #206

Meh, shoulda woulda coulda Prism Nov 2013 #218

And Reich shouldn't have peddled NAFTA Skidmore Nov 2013 #230