|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Obama | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If he were so liberal he would make some sort of liberal stand on something. What would you call six votes against telecom immunity provisions, and joining a filibuster against the bill, if not "making a stand"?
It isn't compromise when you are always giving in. That is, actually, exactly what compromise is. Compromise means recognizing when you can get something you want by giving something your opponent wants. A reasonable adult person seeks any opportunity to do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I saw something today that substantiates what I was saying about Oni's point:
No they are not. They may not approve of the presidents way of getting it, but they all want affordable insurance for everyone. Well, no, they don't. They want some people to get less care:
quote: Opinion | Bigger Is Easier - The New York Times As Matthew Yglesias points out:
quote: In other words, the conservative answer to rapidly rising health care costs is simply to buy less health care, for less people. Conservatives have no desire to expand access to health care; they want to diminish access to health care because health care is expensive. You know, assuming David Brooks and Paul Ryan can be taken as representative conservatives. (Who the hell are those guys, right?) Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
quote: Congress repeals ban against gays in military | Reuters You just can't make money betting against Obama.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
I will give him this one.
But he is still not a liberal on gay marriage. He is very right center on gay marriage. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i dunno about that. he strikes me as very "compromisey". and there are things that perhaps we shouldn't be willing to compromise on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
there are things that perhaps we shouldn't be willing to compromise on. The problem is that a lot of liberals can't seem to recognize when "not compromising" is going to result in "getting nothing." The Constitution has no provision for passing legislation just because you really, really want to. Once again Obama has sidestepped the circular firing squad and done more to advance the liberal program than any living politician as a result of being ready to compromise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3911 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
The problem is that a lot of liberals can't seem to recognize when "not compromising" is going to result in "getting nothing." The Constitution has no provision for passing legislation just because you really, really want to. Once again Obama has sidestepped the circular firing squad and done more to advance the liberal program than any living politician as a result of being ready to compromise. I haven't been able to participate lately due to restrictions at work but I just want to say well done on this thread crash. Progress is slow and hard fought anytime it has resulted in anything meaningful. The problem with 2008 is that we had a Democratic wave and not necessarily a progressive wave and people weren't paying attention enough to know the difference. Democracy is messy and a massively inefficient way to get the right things done quickly. If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
crashfrog writes:
quote: I believe the words you are looing for are "in spite of Obama." DADT certainly wasn't repealed because of what he did. In fact, his efforts went down in flames. It's only because, and I shudder to say this because he's a complete tool...only because of Lieberman that it happened. It's only because Reid was willing to keep the Senate around up to the change of seats in January. They managed to get the House to pass a stand-alone bill. If they hadn't managed to get things done at the very last second, it never would have happened because Boehner would never have allowed it. He got lucky. It didn't pass because of him. It passed in spite of him. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
quote: I'm confused...how, exactly, does one "compromise" on an either/or proposition? Either DADT is repealed or it is not. And speaking of "compromise" and the silliness of insisting upon it, the Virginia legislature was discussing new ethics rules, some of which pertained gifts to the spouses of legislators. A woman then asked that since she was married to her wife but Virginia doesn't recognize it, does that mean these ethics rules don't apply to her? Everyone in the body sat there in stunned silence, unable to respond. Some things in this world are black-and-white and for which there is no physical way to "compromise." Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
onifre responds to me:
quote: What does that have to do with anything? If the people wanted it, they'd get it. There were people running who were gunning for single-payer, universal coverage. Why weren't they elected? Why did we have people screaming, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"?
quote: But that's just it: We're not getting a good return on our money. We spend more and we get less.
quote: If you had good healthcare, why would you want to give it up for the "reform" that was instituted?
quote: You do understand the difference between what people say and what they do, yes? Of course, they're going to say that they want a good education, but then you look at their actions and their justifications for those actions and you find that they don't actually believe that at all. When you ask them to provide bonds for the funding of schools, to pay taxes, to give so that districts outside of theirs can be improved, they suddenly start to pull up short. No, they don't want a good eduction in the best schools.
quote: When it came time for them to elect officials who would regulate the industry and ensure that those jobs weren't lost, they caved into the magic of Reaganomics.
quote: Alive? Yes. Well? Please. Exactly how much of the workforce is unionized? Compared to 10 years ago? 20? 50?
quote: Again, you do understand the difference between what people say and what they do, yes? That when you ask them to justify why they are doing what they are doing, it suddenly becomes clear that they don't actually mean what they say, yes? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I believe the words you are looing for are "in spite of Obama." LOL! I wondered how you were going to try to turn this around. All that time to think of the spin, though, and that's the best you could do? Disappointing.
...only because of Lieberman that it happened. Hey, wasn't there some controversy about Lieberman back in 2009? Something about how after his return to the Senate as an independent (having been kicked out in his own primary) he endorsed McCain instead of Obama? And how everybody wanted to strip him of his committee chairs and seniority since, if he was going to act like a Republican, who the hell needed him? But then somebody stood up and said, "look, we need Lieberman, eve if it doesn't seem like it right now" and made sure Lieberman suffered no reprisals for his actions? Who was that, again? Oh, right - Obama. I'm not saying the kid can see the future, but you have to admit he's ten steps ahead of you or I. Hell, even I thought the compromise on Lieberman was a "cave too far" but I was dead wrong and so are you - Lieberman was genuinely the hero of this 11th-hour DADT reform, but the only reason Lieberman was in a position to play the hero was because of Obama. Case closed.
It's only because Reid was willing to keep the Senate around up to the change of seats in January. They managed to get the House to pass a stand-alone bill. Frequently good leadership is simply a matter of putting the right people in place to do the right things.
He got lucky. Oh, right. The most effective progressive presidency since FDR, and it's all the result of luck. Good luck with that one, bub.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: Hmmm...you don't actually respond to the point and you say I'm the disappointment. OK. If that's what you need to tell yourself.
quote: Ah, so you're all about surface. It doesn't matter about any of the other things Lieberman did or the means by which he carried out his actions, so long as the immediate surface result is what you want, then that's fine by you. Never mind the long-term results, never mind the precedents established, so long as he does one good deed, that makes up for everything else. Let's see...he was the one who killed the health reform bill, making it only an insurance reform bill, by killing Medicare buy-in. This "reliable liberal" stated, "I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year and takes action to prevent the estate tax from rising back to where it was." He wants to privatize Social Security. So yes, he will fight for the right of gay people to serve in the military...because he doesn't want the war to end. The favors of the fallen, we do not need. Do you really think if he had bowed out and let Lamont run without his interference that Lamont wouldn't have also championed the rights of gay people to serve?
quote: OK...let's go with that. Exactly how did Obama manage to put Murphy and Hoyer in the House?
quote: Oh, that's precious. You really believe that, don't you? Hint: That legislation was passed during a time when the administration was not ravingly right-wing does not equal "progressive." Indeed, a lot of legislation was passed despite Republican obstructionism. I don't think passing a bill that kills Social Security can be called "progressive," do you? Even if it manages to extend unemployment benefits for a short time, it's still dismantling the New Deal, which isn't exactly "progressive." The insurance reform bill is also not "progressive." It was the same conservative plan that was being kicked around back in the 90s when Clinton tried. Again, you seem to be caught up in the surface and are refusing to look at the deeper results. It isn't "healthcare reform." It's insurance reform with nothing but huge giveaways to the insurance companies. They're already raising their rates. Guantanamo is still open.Even more egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment rights are enshrined. Hell, Obama has called for the ASSASSINATION of an American citizen without trial or even formal charges being written up. Not even Bush tried that. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Hmmm...you don't actually respond to the point and you say I'm the disappointment. Well, yeah. You know, I saw that you had replied last night and rather than read it, I said to myself "eesh, better save that till tomorrow - Rrhain's so good at this, I'll be tossing and turning all night if I read his reply." And then this morning I actually read your post and it's this. Imagine my disappointment.
Never mind the long-term results, never mind the precedents established, so long as he does one good deed, that makes up for everything else. You act like all Lieberman did here was get a road or a state park named after somebody. Rrhain, he ended decades of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the armed services, many of whom had been wounded in service to their country. That's quite the mitzvah. Does it "make up" for anything? I have no idea. But I do know that Lieberman being in a position to do so was directly and solely the result of Obama's foresightedness in preserving Lieberman's connections and seniority in the Democratic coalition, at a time when all the rest of us were calling for his head. I don't know if DADT repeal is enough to save Lieberman from the Flames of Liberal Perdition. But I do know that if you're arrived at the point where the assignment of committee chairs are now a matter of inviolable progressive principle, you're truly at the point where futile last stands on principle are more important than actually governing. You know, like how the conservatives are.
You really believe that, don't you? Because it's objectively true. You can act like the death of public option health care was the death of All American Liberalism, Rrhain, but it's not true. The ACA allows millions to have insurance who would not otherwise have it. DADT is dead, and need I remind you that it was repealed with precisely the exact strategy you claimed was a non-starter? Now you're predicting the demise of Social Security as a result of the employment benefits extension deal, and I have news for you - your track record as a swami isn't very good.
It's insurance reform with nothing but huge giveaways to the insurance companies. Funny, I feel like I've addressed this, to no substantive reply. To recap: if it's such a giveaway, why did insurance companies spend millions to block its passage? How is it a "giveaway" when the millions of new customers are precisely the customers insurance companies didn't want to insure - those who are going to immediately make expensive medical claims well in excess of the revenue from their premiums? How is it a "giveaway" when it carves the heart out of the profit mechanism of the medical insurance industry - rescission and adverse selection?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1407 From: usa Joined: |
Hi Jazzns,
I am disappointed in you. This "progress" that you speak of means more pain and death around the world while furthering elite's power and profits. Besides not closing Gitmo, underage torture, extraordinary rendition, increased military spending, and all the other items in this ten page thread, I'll add these items: 1. The Obama administration wanted to open up oil and gas drilling three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history despite grave ecological warnings. 2. Obama has ordered more drone-attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan THAN Bush Jr.. This guarantees more death to innocent women and children and guarantees more retaliatory strikes (blowback) against US in the future. 3. Status quo in Israel. Though the US continues to bribe Israel with billions of $, the continuation of illegal building and criminal discrimination/torture/death of Palestinians will continue. That you consider ALL this to be "progress" is sad.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The Obama administration wanted to open up oil and gas drilling three weeks before the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history despite grave ecological warnings. And before that three weeks he'd been a relentless opponent. His stance on offshore drilling was becoming a stick with which to beat Democrats.
Status quo in Israel. Oddly enough Barack Obama is not the President of Israel.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024