Disgusted With Obama Administration.

• Ty Webb

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;910878 wrote:"My point was that you have rose colored glasses on for anything conservatives do. "
  
  Where have I said anything of the sort?
  
  I have real-life glasses for the current POTUS. He is completely unqualified and is bad for the U.S. He has been absolutely terrible and is desperately campaigning again. Whether he's making a fool of himself in a photo or making stupid statements in Cincinnati or Washington, he's an incompetent narcissist who is in over his head.
  
  If he happens to be a liberal Democrat, so be it. It doesn't make him any more competent or immune from criticism (despite what his sycophants try to preach). The title of this thread is Disgusted with Obama Administration, and there is plenty to be disgusted about.

  That would be your opinion
• I Wear Pants

  Manhattan Buckeye;910878 wrote:"My point was that you have rose colored glasses on for anything conservatives do. "
  
  Where have I said anything of the sort?
  
  I have real-life glasses for the current POTUS. He is completely unqualified and is bad for the U.S. He has been absolutely terrible and is desperately campaigning again. Whether he's making a fool of himself in a photo or making stupid statements in Cincinnati or Washington, he's an incompetent narcissist who is in over his head.
  
  If he happens to be a liberal Democrat, so be it. It doesn't make him any more competent or immune from criticism (despite what his sycophants try to preach). The title of this thread is Disgusted with Obama Administration, and there is plenty to be disgusted about.

  Obama really isn't that liberal of a Democrat. And every president is "desperately" campaigning at this point in their term. I imagine you won't have the same distaste 4 years from now if a conservative is president and is already campaigning.
• gut

  Obama never really stopped campaigning. He's just gone into "desperation campaign" mode a bit early.
• QuakerOats

  I Wear Pants;910926 wrote:Obama really isn't that liberal of a Democrat.

  You're right ..... he is a liberal socialist .... at best.
• I Wear Pants

  QuakerOats;911720 wrote:You're right ..... he is a liberal socialist .... at best.

  You're delusional and a partisan hack.
• QuakerOats

  He is the most liberal president in the history of the nation, and was among the most liberal senators ever ..... sorry if that disappoints you. I will not resort to calling a fellow OC member derogatory names, especially when it is so much easier to simply recite facts. Good luck.
• I Wear Pants

  What I mean is, you hold zero views that are not directly taken from conservative talking points.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;911827 wrote:What I mean is, you hold zero views that are not directly taken from conservative talking points.

  Liberals would, of course, see things that way. Just sayin'............
• Writerbuckeye

  

  I Wear Pants;911827 wrote:What I mean is, you hold zero views that are not directly taken from conservative talking points.

  How about disputing the "talking point" instead of denigrating it as if it wasn't true.
  
  Obama was rated one of the most liberal (if not the most liberal) US Senator during his brief time as a member of the US Senate. That's a fact.
  
  He was also a very liberal state senator in Illinois.
  
  So how is it that given those facts, and the information we know about his education and background, that you can claim he's "not that liberal" and not expect us to challenge it?
  
  While he has taken some more centrist positions on a few issues while in office, his two biggest "accomplishments" are a massive health bill that basically puts government in control of one-sixth of the US economy, and a so-called stimulus package that was one of the largest (the largest?) government expenditures of its kind in US history -- neither of which is something a centrist would do.
  
  A centrist would also not have imbued agencies like the EPA with expanded regulatory authority that has considerably widened that agency's powers.
  
  So tell us again how Obama isn't "that liberal' of a Democrat.
  
  EDITED TO ADD: Obama also was involved in the government takeover of two-thirds of the US auto industry that included two things a centrist or conservative would not have done: it bypassed legal stakeholders of those companies when reaching agreements for payouts; and gave sway (and lots of money) to the unions.
  
  Here's a link to what the EPA is up to under new regs on co2 that Obama wants...
  
  http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/26/epa-regulations-would-require-230000-new-employees-21-billion/
• I Wear Pants

  So was GWB a liberal? Because I think he also did a massive stimulous and expansion of Medicare. (Not bringing this up as a "blame Bush" thing but curious to see what you believe in that regard.)
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;912053 wrote:So was GWB a liberal? Because I think he also did a massive stimulous and expansion of Medicare. (Not bringing this up as a "blame Bush" thing but curious to see what you believe in that regard.)

  LMAO Writer asks the question, "So tell us again how Obama isn't "that liberal' of a Democrat" (which he clearly is by the way) and your response is to ignore the question and label Bush a liberal.
  
  There isn't a conservative on OC who hasn't questioned Bush's policies in the past including his big spending methods. Yet you still can't bring yourself to publicly admit Obama is as liberal as it gets.
  
  Why is it liberals avoid the "L" word like the plague?
• I Wear Pants

  How is he not?
  
  It's because his policies have not been very liberal. We're still in two wars (2 1/2 sort of), drug war rages on, has really not been proactive about regulating wallstreet, hasn't raised taxes like mad like the conservatives claimed he would, hasn't been very vocal in support of things like Network Neutrality, etc, etc.
  
  He's simply not that liberal in the policies he's implemented. You can think he holds viewpoints that make him a clone of Marx if you want but his policies haven't really been that liberal. Healthcare is about the only big one and even that he didn't go as far left as he could have.
  
  "Which he clearly is by the way" doesn't really prove anything at all.
  
  And you clearly didn't read/understand what I read. I wasn't labeling Bush a liberal but rather asking if he was one in Writer's eyes because of the stimulous he did since he listed the stimulus as one of the reasons Obama is super duper ultra libera
• Writerbuckeye

  

  You answer is lame. Sorry, but it is. Liberals are know for two things in this country: taxation and spending. While Obama hasn't YET gotten the taxation part he wants, he certainly has the spending down pat.
  
  I acknowledged that Obama has taken more centrist positions on a few issues, like national defense, but I believe he did that because it was politically expedient, not because it's what he wanted. Remember: he pledged to close Gitmo, end the wars earlier (which he is doing, in part) and bring troops home. I believe since public opinion was not with him on those specific choices, he opted to be the political animal he is and bide his time.
  
  In any event, I've provided more than enough proof that Obama is exactly what he is: a liberal, and mostly an unabashed one at that. He's only moved center at times to save his political ass in hopes of getting re-elected.
  
  It is funny, though, how Obama and other liberals do tend to run from that word. They know it doesn't play well with the public at-large, so they tend to use euphemisms like "progressive" instead.
  
  Laughable.
• I Wear Pants

  So a president is judged on what he wants not what he does? Gotcha. I
  
  And that's because conservatives have (quite effectively, turned it into a derogatory term instead of a label for the left side of the political spectrum).
  
  And public opinion is with him to end the wars and bring the troops home. It's just that he's a pussy and won't do it.
• jmog

  I Wear Pants;910352 wrote:Saying that CO2 gasses can cause problematic effects in too great of quantities is not calling CO2 a poison. You're stretching.

  The EPA in a statement said that CO2 is a danger to public health...it is NOT a stretch to say they called it a poison, which by definition is "a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health".
  
  Well, they say it is a dangerous pollutant to public health, a direct quote from them.
  
  That sure sounds like they are calling it a poison to me.
• I Wear Pants

  jmog;912465 wrote:The EPA in a statement said that CO2 is a danger to public health...it is NOT a stretch to say they called it a poison, which by definition is "a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health".
  
  Well, they say it is a dangerous pollutant to public health, a direct quote from them.
  
  That sure sounds like they are calling it a poison to me.

  Can I see this statement please?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Obama really isn't that liberal of a Democrat."
  
  Once again, do you even read other people's posts? Read mine again (hint, see the qualifier "happens to be", not "is").
  
  I don't care if he's a liberal Democrat as long as he's competent. He isn't. This week he's disgusted me more than he ever has with his petulant appeal to his base in Cincinnati (note to President "I never worked a day in my life", in order to be a warrior for the middle class to mean something, there needs to be JOBS to have a middle class), blaming the GOP (yet again) or acting like a Southern Baptist preacher to the CBC and sounding like a lunatic.
  
  I am disgusted with Obama, he can take the non-existent "inter-continental railroad" (again, a buffoonish gaffe) out of the U.S.
• majorspark

  

  This term "liberal". I try not to use it when defining the left. Our founders were once categorized as liberals. The term "liberal" has its root in liberty. In Latin I believe Libera. My internets is slow slow so I am not going to check it. I will rely on my memory. Something todays so called "liberals" do not stand for.
  
  This is why I refer to the so called today's "liberals" as the Left, Statists, or "Big Central Government". One can be a Statist and not be Big Central Government. Though rare. Obama is a Big Central Government Statist.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;912648 wrote:This term "liberal". I try not to use it when defining the left. Our founders were once categorized as liberals. The term "liberal" has its root in liberty. In Latin I believe Libera. My internets is slow slow so I am not going to check it. I will rely on my memory. Something todays so called "liberals" do not stand for.
  
  This is why I refer to the so called today's "liberals" as the Left, Statists, or "Big Central Government". One can be a Statist and not be Big Central Government. Though rare. Obama is a Big Central Government Statist.

  What's weird is in that regard the left tends to be more socially liberal (wants marijuana legal, Net Neutrality, people to be able to marry who they want, etc) while the right tends to technically be more fiscally liberal in the regard that they want people to have more control over their money.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;912184 wrote:You answer is lame. Sorry, but it is. Liberals are know for two things in this country: taxation and spending. While Obama hasn't YET gotten the taxation part he wants, he certainly has the spending down pat.
  
  I acknowledged that Obama has taken more centrist positions on a few issues, like national defense, but I believe he did that because it was politically expedient, not because it's what he wanted. Remember: he pledged to close Gitmo, end the wars earlier (which he is doing, in part) and bring troops home. I believe since public opinion was not with him on those specific choices, he opted to be the political animal he is and bide his time.
  
  In any event, I've provided more than enough proof that Obama is exactly what he is: a liberal, and mostly an unabashed one at that. He's only moved center at times to save his political ass in hopes of getting re-elected.
  
  It is funny, though, how Obama and other liberals do tend to run from that word. They know it doesn't play well with the public at-large, so they tend to use euphemisms like "progressive" instead.
  
  Laughable.

  You can't claim that tax cuts don't cause deficits as you have in many threads and subsequently decry Obama's "massive spending" when most of his proposals that are claimed to "cost money" are due to tax cuts...which you say is wrong.
  
  And finally, Obama only proposed tax raises as part of a plan to reduce the deficit...aka not to SPEND on new social programs as you would suggest...so as to tame our medium and longer term fiscal scenario with a lesser impact on economic growth that would be caused by using ONLY spending cuts. Nevermind that what Obama has proposed is more conservative than the average american's position on deficit reduction.
  
  
  Furthermore you have provided no "proof" that would stand up to scrutiny under any reasonable standard of proof. You can say Obama is a liberal in your heart all you want and blah blah but the fact is he has not governed as most liberals would desire a liberal to govern. In fact, that seems to be the exact standard the conservative folks on here use when the declare that RINO's and President Bush aren't the mythical true "conservatives."
  
  Obama's about as liberal as the Heritage Foundation in 1995 and less so than Richard Nixon but probably not quite as Conservative as President Bush and not even in the same room as the echo chamber of ayn rand and gold lunacy that is now the mainstream of the conservative movement. I'm tired of having this debate but reasonable conservatives who've seen the tide of conservatism shift the Republican party from the party of ideas to the party of principled blood lust agree with me but perhaps you and I will have to agree to disagree.
• BoatShoes

  majorspark;912648 wrote:This term "liberal". I try not to use it when defining the left. Our founders were once categorized as liberals. The term "liberal" has its root in liberty. In Latin I believe Libera. My internets is slow slow so I am not going to check it. I will rely on my memory. Something todays so called "liberals" do not stand for.
  
  This is why I refer to the so called today's "liberals" as the Left, Statists, or "Big Central Government". One can be a Statist and not be Big Central Government. Though rare. Obama is a Big Central Government Statist.

  I go with contemporary liberal as opposed to classical liberal (modern day libertarians align with many of these ideas) because contemporary liberals believe in the benefits of "positive liberty" through the social contract (i.e. increased ability to engage in commerce believing the sovereign who's authority is granted through the sacrifice of some negative liberty will enforce contracts and property rights, etc.) as opposed to unrestricted "negative liberty."
• believer

  

  BoatShoes;912669 wrote:I go with contemporary liberal as opposed to classical liberal (modern day libertarians align with many of these ideas) because contemporary liberals believe in the benefits of "positive liberty" through the social contract (i.e. increased ability to engage in commerce believing the sovereign who's authority is granted through the sacrifice of some negative liberty will enforce contracts and property rights, etc.) as opposed to unrestricted "negative liberty.

  "Negative liberty"? Oh.....that's right. We are "free" people provided we are willing to sacrifice some of our basic liberties to the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-caring nanny state.
  
  In other words, liberties are only liberties if the state says they are.
• BoatShoes

  believer;912672 wrote:"Negative liberty"? Oh.....that's right. We are "free" people provided we are willing to sacrifice some of our basic liberties to the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-caring nanny state.
  
  In other words, liberties are only liberties if the state says they are.

  What are you an anarcho-capitalist now? At least libertarians believe in the minimal state consisting of courts and law enforcement and armies. That's what creating a state is all about...when you give up some of your liberty in how you use your property to a popular sovereign through the electoral process, for instance, in the form of a tax payment in exchange for the funding of an army to protect the nation in which you are a citizen from invasion...you end up "more free" in the aggregate as you're able to invest capital that you obtain through your labor and engage in mutually beneficial transactions, etc. and on and on...
  
  I mean I think you're being funny but the "all seeing, all knowing, nanny state"...do you transpose everything into the ultimate conclusion of necessary nannyism?
• I Wear Pants

  The market is always right boatshoes. Always. The market will always make the correct decision. Always.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  ^^^
  
  Negative liberty = crony capitalism. i.e. the stimulus funds that did nothing but bolster public worker salaries/pensions that were sorely underfunded and administrative actions to prevent economic gain (read, the Boeing situation).
  
  I do enjoy reading Boatshoes' posts. I can read them dozens of times and wonder if he even knows what the heck he/she is talking about. It is like reading the text of an Al Gore speech where he uses a lot of big words in inappropriate manners that if one tries to piece it together - makes absolute zero sense.