Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Former Clinton USDA Official: “Our political system is basically evil versus spineless now" [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)80. That's hilarious
No I don't agree with him on that -- But it's not all-or-nothing
I don't think one has to agree with everything someone might say to agree with parts or a majority of it.
It's just such a common pattern of yours that you put everything through a filter of How Obama Is Involved.
For example, if Bernie Sanders blasts something Obama says or does, you either ignore or disparage it. If he says something supportive of the President, you post and cite it.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but that is the general pattern with you (or the collective you, I'm never sure). Issues only seem to exist in the Obama framework.
I don't think one has to agree with everything someone might say to agree with parts or a majority of it.
It's just such a common pattern of yours that you put everything through a filter of How Obama Is Involved.
For example, if Bernie Sanders blasts something Obama says or does, you either ignore or disparage it. If he says something supportive of the President, you post and cite it.
I'm sure there are exceptions, but that is the general pattern with you (or the collective you, I'm never sure). Issues only seem to exist in the Obama framework.
I guess your point is that only you are allowed to agree or disagree with someone? I mean, I can disagree with Sanders, and if I can't I'll refrain from comment.
On the other hand, if someone posts something positive about Obama, the same people who claim they agree with him when he's right and disagree with him when he's wrong do one of three things: 1) "ignore" it (I know I post a lot of stuff that gets ignored). 2) "disparage" it or 3) attempt to throw the person under the bus (that happened to Krugman, recently)
Even more hilarious: "Issues only seem to exist in the Obama framework."
You mean like blaming him for inequality and poverty? Or giving Congress a pass until it's time for Obama to sign a bill?
Look around, nearly every post about the issues is in "the Obama framework."
It reminds me of the "I'm not responsible for Obama like the people who wanted to vote for him because he lied to me or I only held my nose and voted for him."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
191 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Former Clinton USDA Official: “Our political system is basically evil versus spineless now" [View all]
cali
Feb 2014
OP
Please, you act like the RW bringing up Benghazi every time someone mentions Christie.
Beacool
Feb 2014
#59
don't go dinging anyone but rabid racoons coming for your bankie with that cast iron!
dionysus
Feb 2014
#134
So funny that you diss Clinton when Obama gets a clear pass from you for the same things.
lark
Feb 2014
#120
Still unworthy tactics. Obama set out to cut safety nets, succeeded in some and failed in others.
merrily
Feb 2014
#144
Now, you are not even trying to make sense. Cutting entitlements absolutely was his goal.
merrily
Feb 2014
#150
'We moved millions of people off welfare'. Really, where did they go? Did they get
sabrina 1
Feb 2014
#168
And so focused on it, to boot, that cuts to welfare and food stamps get a ROFL emoticon.
merrily
Feb 2014
#135
I quit giving that one an excuse to increase her word count a long time ago. n/t
A Simple Game
Feb 2014
#23
Because the Rank-and-File Republicans ARE So Stupid they Will Believe Anything Faux Nooze Says
AndyTiedye
Feb 2014
#129
Republican voting patterns aren't what you might think, it's full wallet that votes Republican
Fumesucker
Feb 2014
#180
The Senate AND the House have to vote to override a veto. The Senate has the votes but the House
neverforget
Feb 2014
#141
Sanders does an excellent job spelling out why he voted for it - it does substantial good
karynnj
Feb 2014
#20
Sanders is one Indie Senator of 100. Obama is one President and Dem Party head of one.
merrily
Feb 2014
#146
It was in there. But I guess once you saw the word Obama the auto-pilot kicked in
Armstead
Feb 2014
#33
As I said before, your criticism is legitimate but I agree with his larger point
Armstead
Feb 2014
#105
Charlie Pierce wrote a great piece on this apathy regarding our health-care system
bullwinkle428
Feb 2014
#75
Hey, shouldn't you be telling us how progressive Warren and Sanders are for voting for this bill?
Beacool
Feb 2014
#64
In a nutshell, and exactly what the oligarchy wants, non-action, they thrive & prosper and
mother earth
Feb 2014
#66
It is interesting to me that Republicans are wiling to pass the farm bill which funds crop
JDPriestly
Feb 2014
#72
"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2014
#106
If by 'evil' you mean a government in service to the richest people in the world...
Octafish
Feb 2014
#112
with a plentiful helping of delusional on "both" "sides" to keep the state of affairs going
MisterP
Feb 2014
#114
Evil, a four-letter word that best describes this type of right-winged-soused governance
indepat
Feb 2014
#124