Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?And this is relevant how? Or are you just like Lois here, who is willing to attribute every single bad thing that Obama has been connected with to those "evil Republicans?" It is a relevant response to this statement: "The cult of personality that has formed around Obama is intoxicating to his fans. That will likely protect him from too much criticism, no matter how bad he is." I suspect that you would being saying the things that you have been saying, regardless of who were POTUS currently, as your motivation seems to be geared toward the entire system crumbling so that a Brave New World can emerge. No, what's different from me and you is that I call a spade a spade, while you still say that a war criminal is "doing a pretty good job", that is, as long as he's a Democrat, I guess. It's as if the majority of the liberal base is suffering from a massive collective case of Stockholm Syndrome. And no, my desire is that the people have a chance to decide their destiny, not a bunch of corporate bureaucrats who have no interest in the people they claim to "represent". Oh, I see you're not a Republican, then. Congratulations.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?In fact that describes the whole Republican Party. They started denigrating him from Day One and have not let up for a moment. They block everything he's tried to do, then they call him ineffective. Typical Republican tactics. The biggest mistake Obama made was to try to negotiate and compromise with them. They will always be political warthogs. Lois And what about Obama? What about the Democratic party? Do you have anything to say about them? Sure, thry make mistakes and bad decisions, but at least they are not obstructionists for the sake of obstructionism, which present-day Republicans have proven themselves to be. Lois I see. If Obama or Democrats do it, then it's nothing more than a "mistake" or "bad decision". Do you not detect the cognitive dissonance that results from such logic? If you do, then you're just being intellectually dishonest.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?And this is relevant how? Or are you just like Lois here, who is willing to attribute every single bad thing that Obama has been connected with to those "evil Republicans?" It is a relevant response to this statement: "The cult of personality that has formed around Obama is intoxicating to his fans. That will likely protect him from too much criticism, no matter how bad he is." I suspect that you would being saying the things that you have been saying, regardless of who were POTUS currently, as your motivation seems to be geared toward the entire system crumbling so that a Brave New World can emerge. No, what's different from me and you is that I call a spade a spade, while you still say that a war criminal is "doing a pretty good job", that is, as long as he's a Democrat, I guess. It's as if the majority of the liberal base is suffering from a massive collective case of Stockholm Syndrome. And no, my desire is that the people have a chance to decide their destiny, not a bunch of corporate bureaucrats who have no interest in the people they claim to "represent". I think that you would call a teaspoon a spade if it suits your purpose.
I think that you would call a teaspoon a spade if it suits your purpose.I'm sorry, but I think that sounds a bit more like your position than mine. You're the one that would call a teaspoon a spade, as long as it protects Obama from culpability, remember?
I think that you would call a teaspoon a spade if it suits your purpose.I'm sorry, but I think that sounds a bit more like your position than mine. You're the one that would call a teaspoon a spade, as long as it protects Obama from culpability, remember? You're the one who equates the "evil Republicans" to the "evil Democrats". Shall we continue or just resolve that we are in our separate boats, and we each consider our own boat to be superior?
I think that you would call a teaspoon a spade if it suits your purpose.I'm sorry, but I think that sounds a bit more like your position than mine. You're the one that would call a teaspoon a spade, as long as it protects Obama from culpability, remember? You're the one who equates the "evil Republicans" to the "evil Democrats". Shall we continue or just resolve that we are in our separate boats, and we each consider our own boat to be superior? Exactly. As I said, I call a spade a spade. And its not about arguing about who's got the "superior boat". It's the fact that repairs to a boat can't be made until you first acknowledge the problem in the first place, despite how much the truth may hurt. Look, I'm not trying to attack you. These are passionate issues we are discussing, and inevitable tensions are going to rise. I'm just trying to get some people to see that ignoring the fact that the boat is sinking, and instead choosing to point fingers back and forth (Reps vs. Dems) doesn't solve the problem. It simply compounds it, and paralyzes the people from focusing on the things that they have in common, such as the fact that we are ALL being raped by a system that doesn't work for us.
Cloak, We don’t disagree that he boat is sinking. We disagree about who is poking the most holes in the boat, who is most trying to repair the holes, and who is most keeping the holes from being repaired. We also, seemingly disagree about the solution, as I think that your solution is to let the boat sink and hope that some can make it to shore and build a new boat.
Cloak, We don't disagree that he boat is sinking. We disagree about who is poking the most holes in the boat, who is most trying to repair the holes, and who is most keeping the holes from being repaired. We also, seemingly disagree about the solution, as I think that your solution is to let the boat sink and hope that some can make it to shore and build a new boat.No, that's not my solution, friend. I'm arguing that we should cast off the weights that are making this boat sink in the first place: capitalism, this debt-based monetary system that it spawned, consumerism, and the illegitimate centralized authorities that are protecting all of it. We need to adopt localized, direct, and participatory democracies in which the people themselves are in charge of the country, not some untouchable group of ruling elites. In fact, this is what the Occupy Movement was really about, telling Wall Street to give us back our country. Unfortunately, the very group that we have appealed to for backup in this endeavor were the same people who decided to protect Wall Street instead.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?The cult of personality among Obama is cool, so that is what the f*** actually matters. He was elected twice, remember.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?The cult of personality among Obama is cool, so that is what the f*** actually matters. He was elected twice, remember. Being cool, wasn't the deciding factor in Obama getting elected twice. It is true that some love him. It is equally true that some despise him. I believe that the most important factor in him getting elected twice was that he ran two of the most well organized campaigns in history.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?The cult of personality among Obama is cool, so that is what the f*** actually matters. He was elected twice, remember. Being cool, wasn't the deciding factor in Obama getting elected twice. It is true that some love him. It is equally true that some despise him. I believe that the most important factor in him getting elected twice was that he ran two of the most well organized campaigns in history. What got Bush elected the one time he was elected? What got Reagan elected twice? What got Bush I elected? Dumb luck? Lois
Cloak-No, that's not my solution, friend. I'm arguing that we should cast off the weights that are making this boat sink in the first place: capitalism, this debt-based monetary system that it spawned, consumerism, and the illegitimate centralized authorities that are protecting all of it. We need to adopt localized, direct, and participatory democracies in which the people themselves are in charge of the country, not some untouchable group of ruling elites. In fact, this is what the Occupy Movement was really about, telling Wall Street to give us back our country. Unfortunately, the very group that we have appealed to for backup in this endeavor were the same people who decided to protect Wall Street instead.I'm sure with some moderate legislative action and some real reforms all around you could be happy in this system. There's no need to throw away the baby with the bath water. The system just needs a long overdue tune-up. It sounds like you're proposing radical change and a complete new system. That's impractical and it aint gonna happen. The system we have is pretty good. It does need reform, and we are in a malaise I agree.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?The cult of personality among Obama is cool, so that is what the f*** actually matters. He was elected twice, remember. Being cool, wasn't the deciding factor in Obama getting elected twice. It is true that some love him. It is equally true that some despise him. I believe that the most important factor in him getting elected twice was that he ran two of the most well organized campaigns in history. What got Bush elected the one time he was elected? What got Reagan elected twice? What got Bush I elected? Dumb luck? Lois Dumb voters.
Actually, Karl Rove was one of the most effective political manipulating phenoms of his day. (Not to say that I don’t despise the man.) Reagan got elected the first time by going against Jimmy Carter who was crippled by the Iran hostage crisis. He got elected the 2nd time because enough people bought into his smooth B.S.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?The cult of personality among Obama is cool, so that is what the f*** actually matters. He was elected twice, remember. Being cool, wasn't the deciding factor in Obama getting elected twice. It is true that some love him. It is equally true that some despise him. I believe that the most important factor in him getting elected twice was that he ran two of the most well organized campaigns in history. What got Bush elected the one time he was elected? What got Reagan elected twice? What got Bush I elected? Dumb luck? LoisTheir fan bases.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?The cult of personality among Obama is cool, so that is what the f*** actually matters. He was elected twice, remember. Being cool, wasn't the deciding factor in Obama getting elected twice. It is true that some love him. It is equally true that some despise him. I believe that the most important factor in him getting elected twice was that he ran two of the most well organized campaigns in history.I think it was because his competition was not as cool as him. Even if he ran bad campaigns, he probably would have still won.
Romney just plain creeped me out. Any GOP I may have voted for was knocked out early.
I think it's fairer to say that this "overdue tune-up" you speak of is never going to happen, not while the constructs that we've built to prevent such solutions still exist. Look, I'm not saying that the Libertarian-socialist vision of society is exactly the way things should work. I'm just saying that anything that is remotely close to it is better than this. That's what we should be shooting for, instead of repeatedly placing our hope in the next slick package that the Rebloodlicans or Democrips introduce to us. And it is not about finding a system that "I could be happy in". I am more concerned about my two daughters' futures.Cloak-No, that's not my solution, friend. I'm arguing that we should cast off the weights that are making this boat sink in the first place: capitalism, this debt-based monetary system that it spawned, consumerism, and the illegitimate centralized authorities that are protecting all of it. We need to adopt localized, direct, and participatory democracies in which the people themselves are in charge of the country, not some untouchable group of ruling elites. In fact, this is what the Occupy Movement was really about, telling Wall Street to give us back our country. Unfortunately, the very group that we have appealed to for backup in this endeavor were the same people who decided to protect Wall Street instead.I'm sure with some moderate legislative action and some real reforms all around you could be happy in this system. There's no need to throw away the baby with the bath water. The system just needs a long overdue tune-up. It sounds like you're proposing radical change and a complete new system. That's impractical and it aint gonna happen. The system we have is pretty good. It does need reform, and we are in a malaise I agree.
Are you saying that there is not an almost equal number who desperately want Obama to fail and who do not desperately want him to be blocked from doing anything productive?The cult of personality among Obama is cool, so that is what the f*** actually matters. He was elected twice, remember. Being cool, wasn't the deciding factor in Obama getting elected twice. It is true that some love him. It is equally true that some despise him. I believe that the most important factor in him getting elected twice was that he ran two of the most well organized campaigns in history.I think it was because his competition was not as cool as him. Even if he ran bad campaigns, he probably would have still won. I disagree. If Coolness alone were sufficient to becoming POTUS, I would think that we would have had a lot more cool Presidents. In Obama's case, it probably helped overcome the reputation of being a Kenyan born, Socialist, Muslim named Barack. And probably helped overcome the fact that he is a black man in America. I doubt that he would have been elected twice, if at all, without the likes of David Axelrod, and the organized use of social sciences. e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/13/health/dream-team-of-behavioral-scientists-advised-obama-campaign.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
BTW, mid, You seem to be pretty cool. Perhaps you could test your assertion by running for office.