TRUE or FALSE: It is possible to criticize President Obama

[branders seine]

Poll question: TRUE or FALSE: It is possible to criticize President Obama

and not be a filthy right-wing doodoohead.

[flvegan]

1. If the criticism is valid, then yes. Though to some posters, NOTHING is valid.

He could burn down a small city on purpose, and some folks would smile and say "look at all the jobs he just created!"

[Skip Intro]

3. .

:rofl:

[Proud Liberal Dem]

11. Though to some posters, he is ALWAYS doing something WRONG

and/or can't do ANYTHING right. And often times there is a tendency to flog an incendiary column/op-ed piece without the context necessary to fully understand/comprehend something Obama said and/or did (which almost always turns out to be more benign or at least less awful than what it originally appears as in the headline). I don't believe any/all criticism of President Obama is invalid or makes somebody a wingnut, however.

[flvegan]

14. That's why I said specifically that said criticism has to be valid.

I agree completely. Obama could solve world hunger and cure cancer and someone would still fault him for the price of gas. Every action or statement should be "judged" on the merit of that individual event. I'm a "criticize him for THIS, but applaud him for THAT" kind of person.

Your point is well made and well taken, though.

[baldguy]

2. It's not only possible, it's necessary.

The difference is, of course, that right-wing doodooheads will criticize him for doing things right and sane progressives & liberals will only criticize him for doing things wrong.

[mmonk]

4. I don't care what I'm called when I criticize someone if I feel

I have examined the issue thoroughly, gathered facts, and feel correct of my assessment. Sticks and stones... Name calling is for those without a proper counter argument.

[one_voice]

5. Yes it is possible to...

criticize President Obama, without being a doodoohead, right-wing or otherwise. No one person is going to make everyone happy all the time. That's a ridiculous expectation.

There are some things I wish he'd done differently, and others I'm ok with. Then there are those, that only time will tell.


edited...I hate trying to figure out where commas go.

[Capitalocracy]

6. Very true, and as someone else already responded, necessary.

... despite the fact that some people seem to be voting to the contrary with unrecs.

And please check out this petition:

BP STANDS FOR BALLOT POISON

Pledge not to vote for any candidates receiving campaign donations from BP in 2010.

Petition: http://www.petitiononline.com/bp2010/petition.html



Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=113423272036102

Twitter: @bpballotpoison

[Dr Morbius]

7. Any disagreement, no matter how slight, is seen as an attack.

I don't want to criticize the President but I don't agree with him all the time.

He works for us; seems to me that we have an obligation to critically review his Presidency. I would see it done respectfully, though, if I could.

[stray cat]

8. Of Course - its also possible to be a progressive and ignorant and just like the right wingnuts

[Incitatus]

9. Yes, but when that criticism is in the form of ad-hominem attacks, it hurts your credibility. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

10. If we do not agree with our government we should criticize it.

However, if some other person disagrees with out criticism, or we disagree with theirs, we should not automatically assume the other poster is a DLC'r, GOP plant, closet conservative, or a disruptor.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with policy.

It is the disagreeable shit that happens around those disagreements that bugs me.

[Rex]

12. If I can't criticize the man I voted for, then what good is Democracy?

As much as I might be harsh toward Obama...he is still a ZILLION ZILLION ZILLION times more qualified to be POTUS than George "I fuck up everything I touch" Walker Bush.

[SidDithers]

13. However, if all a poster ever does is criticize...

then they just might be a filthy right-wing doodoohead.

Sid

[branders seine]

21. It certainly couldn't be justified criticism.

There's us and there's them, and the difference is that they are filthy doodooheads.

[treestar]

15. But one who does nothing but criticize

Is like a right wing doodoohead in that. At least right wingers disagree with the politics of most Democrats and can be expected to criticize all the time. They don't like what he's doing period. Left wing critics that he does not do enough fast enough - that's a more personal criticism than just disagreeing with his politics. And reflects some underlying ignorance about how things work.

[butterfly77]

16. Does this even need to be asked...

he has been criticized about any and everything before he was even sworn in and they weren't all repubs..

[petronius]

17. Is it possible to be a right-wing non-doodoohead? I think you could have

saved some words in one of your answers. :)

And my answer is that if/when President Obama does something worthy of criticism, it is our prerogative and perhaps even duty to provide that criticism. In a constructive, courteous, non-doodooheaded way...

[NNN0LHI]

18. Need a third option. You left out the Larouchies

And we have plenty of them around here with their banana fungus hysteria and such.

Don

[KonaKane]

19. Criticism is one thing. Circular firing squads are another.

And lately I see more of the latter than then former.

[havocmom]

20. I see the chorus line has been busy pushing un-rec button

What a bunch of goofs.