probably has a clogged pore or two
― dan m, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
In that case, all this 'bipartisanship' talk makes me worry he'll let the plutocrats walk all over him in the name of unity. It's too early to tell, of course. The problem is, I'm guilty of being a little star struck by the dude and his speeches and advisors and stuff, so I'm probably missing important defects. So maybe that's a flaw, too.
― Oilyrags, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
too cool
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:37 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah, basically
Born in the wrong country at the wrong time.
Both Hillary and McCain would be "good" Presidents, especially in comparison to the current Commander-In-Chief, but neither of them are in the same league as Obama.
Oh yeah, he's also an elitist, as the children of single moms tend to be.
― j-rock, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:38 (5 years ago) Permalink
Wife seems like a dick.
― paulhw, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
Better writer than every single last one of his critics and most of his supporters.
Dave Matthews endorsement.
Trick move in pickup b-ball is to fake to the right, plow in hard to the left. No symbolism there at all.
― suzy, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:41 (5 years ago) Permalink
i actually wish people would take this thread seriously; i didnt realize it wasnt about electability & i think the answer is probably the same either way (we dont know yet), but even tho im behind the guy 100% & have been for months my gut says myself & probably a lot of people here are gonna be dissatisfied with him 4-8 years down the road. a discussion of concrete reasons why this might be so seems worthwhile to me
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
foreign policy naivete. biggest thing that worries me about him by far. if he gets elected, pulls us out of iraq, closes gitmo, and restores civil liberties to their pre-9/11 status, and then ta-da something actually blows up, how many times is he going to say "uh um" during the press conference in which he capitulates to the chickenhawks in both parties screaming for his head
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
thank u deeznuts i am serious about like actual clintonesque character defects not more empty lolz how everybody except us is superficial & racist
― and what, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:45 (5 years ago) Permalink
what elmo and tom said, basically--the dude comes across as too trusting in america's ability to be smart about shit
― max, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
not good at speaking for 10 second clips on the 6 o clock news
― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:48 (5 years ago) Permalink
hard to say but i think he believes his own hype at this point
messiah complex (likely to evolve into martyr complex)
― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah what max/tombot/elmo said fourthed.
― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:51 (5 years ago) Permalink
might not be able to tame congress and end up like Clinton in 1994
― Catsupppppppppppppp dude 茄蕃, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
Also a bit of what deez said - I'm worried he's setting himself up to disappoint everyone.
― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
has convinved people like me to be largely uninterested in this question
― gabbneb, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
He has a bit of this tendency to come off like "I fully understand this problem because I've read many essays about it." Which makes me like him and wince at the same time.
― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
if he gets elected, pulls us out of iraq, closes gitmo, and restores civil liberties to their pre-9/11 status, and then ta-da something actually blows up, how many times is he going to say "uh um" during the press conference in which he capitulates to the chickenhawks in both parties screaming for his head
It's hard to see how staying in Iraq is helping to prevent domestic terrorism. Even McCain wants to close Gitmo. I doubt civil liberties will go all the way back to pre-9/11 status, and not sure if Obama is even suggesting that they should
― o. nate, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 20:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- gabbneb, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:55 PM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
shock of shocks
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:04 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- max, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 8:48 PM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
i really want to believe this is true, but it sounds the kind of bs that be lipped by his supporters - his flaw is that he's TOO right about everything? ill take that.
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:07 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- El Tomboto, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 4:45 PM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Link
this is more lol gwb put u in a jackpot sry!
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:09 (5 years ago) Permalink
i am really curious as to what hes gonna do w/the gitmo dudes who we have evidence against thats inadmissible due to torture tho
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:10 (5 years ago) Permalink
i wonder about his ability/willingness to get his hands dirty and wrestle things to the ground. saying you're willing to talk to iran/hamas/whoever is all well and good, but if you go into those situations you have to go in saying, "here's the deal: you can get this and this, you can't get this and this, and we're going to have to fight about this and this -- but if the fight goes on too long, you get nothing." the bushies have been terrible at that stuff, so it's not like the bar is set particularly high, but it would be nice to have someone who can actually get some things done. (wouldn't have to be him personally, but he'd need some hardball players around who knew how to do that.) (same applies in dealing with congress, obviously.)
― tipsy mothra, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:11 (5 years ago) Permalink
deex -- i didn't say he's overly correct, but i think he may be presumptuous that America will be eager or grateful about implementing the changes he wants
― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
also I am dead serious that his uh um uh tic that he has when you can tell he's thinking on his feet is really not reassuring at all
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
he actually comes across as a guy who would be an absolute expert at that kind of stuff to me tipsy
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
yah he def should cut that out xp
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
nodding slowly and looking thoughtful is the way to go
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
his uh um uh tic that he has when you can tell he's thinking on his feet
this doesn't bother me so much -- it's campaign season and he has to be excruciatingly calculating about his diction. when he speaks off the cuff he gets in trouble, but really only because he running for office
― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
or alternatively quit being so optimistic about your fellow humans that you keep getting surprised by shit, like Wright dropping an atom bomb on you on national television
― El Tomboto, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:16 (5 years ago) Permalink
xp Still, I think Hillary is a better extemporaneous speaker.
― jaymc, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:17 (5 years ago) Permalink
his almost musical hand-gesture of 'conducting' a discussion / 'putting a fine point' on an argument
it's like the new bubba remote
― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:17 (5 years ago) Permalink
I don't think Tom's point is that Obama is going to cause terrorism to happen, just that when it does he's going to look bad.
― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
you guys all seem to think obama waaaaaaaaay less pragmatic than i do, i guess
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
I actually HOPE he's more cynical and pragmatic than I'm giving him credit for.
― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:19 (5 years ago) Permalink
eh tom did begin his post w/"foreign policy naivete." soo...
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:19 (5 years ago) Permalink
-- Hurting 2, Wednesday, April 30, 2008 9:18 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Link
isnt this precisely cuz its easy to paint him as a pussy/pushover, which you guys all seem to be buying into?? i think hes far from either of those things. and i dont mean to draw this into electability issues, just that im more interested in what might be lurking behind the 'optimist' facade
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
i mean, this guy is naive?? he comes across as a freaking borderline genius to me
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:21 (5 years ago) Permalink
The Bush adminstration has done so much to restore if not empower the executive branch that I doubt President McCain, Clinton, or Obama would be so eager to rescind those powers -- why would you?
I wish he was an atheist -- with his oratorical skills he could do lots for the millions of us who want to hear a convincing defense of godlessness put to theists. And yet, and yet, I suspect he IS less of a god-fearing man than he pretends. Something about his preternatural coolness bespeaks a kind of deism.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:23 (5 years ago) Permalink
Can't see that happening. He's got too many friends there already on both sides. Senators apparently luv the dude.
unless you ask her about bill's position on nafta and she goes into that uncomfortable cackle that's soooo painful to watch.
― kenan, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:23 (5 years ago) Permalink
just a little armchair psychoanalysis, let's all be cool
― elmo argonaut, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
its funny how everyone buys the optimist/naivety package - its a symptom of dumb cynicism - those two really dont have to come together
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:25 (5 years ago) Permalink
in fact i bet that obama is closer to the optimist/cynic model
its funny how everyone buys the optimist/naivety package
^^^. The right wing has been all "SEE? SEE? AUDACITY OF HOPE MY ASS!" the last couple of weeks; they've accepted the narrative that Obama is a New Kind of Politician. To me he's "new" only in that he understands the importance of words and is uncommonly quick-witted.
― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:26 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah i dunno if thats directed at me or not but i agree -- im not saying i dont believe the guy isnt genuinely optimistic, but i def dont believe he's remotely naive, like not even remotely remotely xps to jhoshea
― deeznuts, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:27 (5 years ago) Permalink
not directed at u in the slightest deez
― jhøshea, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:29 (5 years ago) Permalink
paranoid/optimist ^^^ lol
More on Obama & civil liberties: he voted to make permanent all but two of the PATRIOT act provisions that had been originally passed with an expiration date - so not exactly a wide-eyed innocent on that front.
― o. nate, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:34 (5 years ago) Permalink
Early on I thought he came off as naive when he said that having lived abroad was a foreign policy credential. Like not only naive for thinking that (which he might not have, really), but naive for thinking it sounded good.
― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 30 April 2008 21:42 (5 years ago) Permalink
haha damn you beat me
― j., Monday, 3 September 2012 14:45 (8 months ago) Permalink
Haha this too https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/31/us/holder-rules-out-prosecutions-in-cia-interrogations.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
― mick signals, Monday, 3 September 2012 15:02 (8 months ago) Permalink
looking forward to lewis article on obama
― backed by regular small people (Hunt3r), Friday, 7 September 2012 16:45 (8 months ago) Permalink
that ny times article is the dumbest shit i have seen in a long time--of course someone who wants to be the president is obsessed with winning--Bush was the same way, Clinton, too. stupid.
― Mr. Que, Friday, 7 September 2012 16:49 (8 months ago) Permalink
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
conor friedersdorf sez no on greenwaldian/morbsian grounds
― j., Wednesday, 26 September 2012 12:20 (7 months ago) Permalink
from Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer, right after the first debate.
I think there’s a lot of the narcissist about Obama. There’s something chilly and empty about him. Unlike Bill Clinton, he doesn’t revel in human company. It makes him uncomfortable. He wants the rich and powerful to love him, but doesn’t care about the masses (unless they’re a remote but adoring crowd). Many people seem to bore him. It shows.
And the charms of the narcissist wear badly over time. All the marvelous things his fans projected on him in 2008 have faded. He’s no longer the man of their fantasies. And that shows too.
Which is not unrelated to a more political problem. Unlike Franklin Roosevelt, who famously said that he welcomed the hatred of the rich, Obama wants to flatter them.... FDR came out of the aristocracy, and had the confidence to step on the fancy toes of the rich now and then. Obama came out of nowhere, was groomed for success by elite institutions throughout his impressive rise, and no doubt wants some of those nice shoes for himself.
More broadly, the political problem of the Democrats is that they’re a party of capital that has to pretend for electoral reasons sometimes that it’s not....
What do liberals stand for these days? Damned if I know. It’s not a philosophy you can express in aphorisms. (Yeah, politics are complex, and slogans are simple, but if you’ve got a passionately held set of beliefs you can manage that contradiction.) Too many qualifications and contradictions. They can’t just say less war and more equality, because they like some wars and want to bore you with just war theory to explain the morality of drone attacks, and worry about optimal tax rates and incentives. Join an empty philosophy to an empty personality and you get a very flat and meandering performance in debate.
Romney believes in money. Obama believes in nothing.
http://lbo-news.com/2012/10/04/why-obama-lost-the-debate/
― cancer, kizz my hairy irish azz (Dr Morbius), Friday, 19 October 2012 20:46 (7 months ago) Permalink
from today's begging-for-cash email: "If you're proud to be on the President's team, give him a virtual high five -- donate $4 today."
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 19 October 2012 20:49 (7 months ago) Permalink
Even Mr. Obama’s speech has changed a bit, close observers say. Though he still disdains Washington, he often sounds less like a disapproving outsider and more like a participant. One former aide was startled to hear Mr. Obama use “impact” as a verb, a particular tendency in the capital.
I'm glad we had a president aware of this.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/us/politics/after-4-years-friends-see-shifts-in-obamas.html?ref=politics&_r=0
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, 20 January 2013 12:49 (4 months ago) Permalink
"impact" (v) is disgusting savagery
admittedly takes a backseat to police statism & war crimes
― saltwater incursion (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 20 January 2013 16:02 (4 months ago) Permalink
oh that's vile
― fiscal cliff paul (k3vin k.), Sunday, 20 January 2013 22:42 (4 months ago) Permalink
Signs that read “Deer Crossing” and the like are going to continue to pop up throughout our country including Avon Lake, but who are these signs for? Deer cannot read, do not obey the law and probably will cross where they wish. Although adorable companions, it is hard to remember the last time that the news reported an animal talking, thinking or providing significant input for the benefit of society. Yet, these signs cost taxpayers like so much of government.
Dogs, cats, whales, seals and deer are animals that might enhance a human’s life, but all cannot read, write or think. They are animals. Yes, people dress them, buy them extravagant blinge and do other strange things with them; however, animals are not human. They are on this earth like trees to make humans’ lives better. As humans we must be kind to them, eat them when hungry, feed them when they are, but remember they are here to enhance our lives. Besides, it appears that this gesture of kindness to animals does not extend human to human. This President’s Obamacare appears to welcome abortion of innocent babies. It is painful to think that there are those who cry for seals while Obamacare never blinks an eye at abortion.
Somewhere the advancement of society has been limited by animals and the unscientific malarkey of loons. America has had to halt drilling, construction, experiments for medicine and cosmetics and much that might benefit humans.
Yes, signs are important-- to humans; “Stop” signs, and others are more than just costly decorations scattered along the roadways. However, depending on the school district, most humans can read them, but animals not so much.
― k3vin k., Saturday, 16 February 2013 19:21 (3 months ago) Permalink
Was that in the SOTU address? Cuz I don't remember it there.
― Aimless, Saturday, 16 February 2013 19:30 (3 months ago) Permalink
"blinge"?
― SOYLENT GREEN IS SHEEPLE (stevie), Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:34 (3 months ago) Permalink
Check her blog: http://www.theprickleypear.com/
Rich ain't bad.Unless your parents literally gave you the farm and several million dollars, you are not the one percent that President Obama is working to devalue and destroy. Most of us have settled for working hard to earn our paychecks and then the government taxes and steals most of our money.It used to be that liberals would pit conservatives against the population by using the race card. Discrimination as it relates to sex, age and race might be an issue, but last I heard this President is part Black and part White and, probably, an American citizen, who received 51 percent of the American vote. So it appears race is a non-issue.
With those three discrimination labels less important, now there’s a worse label that Jesse and Al most likely will travel first class to stomp down--”rich.” Unbelievable. Getting people fired up about “rich” rather than jobs, taxes, health care, billions spent by this Administration on failed plans, failed projects seems to be the new plan. Who could ever have imagined an American President devaluing hard work and the American Dream?
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Saturday, 16 February 2013 20:51 (3 months ago) Permalink
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest "Deer Crossing" and other signs located on a road are for the operators of road-bound vehicles. I'm not really sure why that is such a difficult concept to grasp.
― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Sunday, 17 February 2013 16:36 (3 months ago) Permalink
Words are fun and worth clearly stating, in English if in America, and with an opinion that is yours because it’s good to have an opinion.
― :C (crüt), Sunday, 17 February 2013 22:41 (3 months ago) Permalink
and, probably, an American citizen
i guess we've just gotten so numb by Birther craziness -- and Teabag craziness has exceeded even Birther craziness -- that we just let this one slide w/t comment.
― i have a history of enabling your mother. (Eisbaer), Monday, 18 February 2013 03:04 (3 months ago) Permalink
Fuck this guy:
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
― Jersey Al (Albert R. Broccoli), Friday, 29 March 2013 05:22 (1 month ago) Permalink
fuck a house and a senate more like, tho he's still a dick for signing it.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Friday, 29 March 2013 05:44 (1 month ago) Permalink
One year could be all it takes to cause catastrophic damage to the environment by allowing laboratory-produced organisms to be planted into the earth without oversight
lol orly.
not really down with the anti-GMO crowd tbh
― k3vin k., Friday, 29 March 2013 13:57 (1 month ago) Permalink
Why? In the UK, we don't do GM food. The public DO NOT WANT.
― karl lagerlout (suzy), Friday, 29 March 2013 14:16 (1 month ago) Permalink
US ILX = agribusiness cheerleaders. Obama SCOTUS 2017!
― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Friday, 29 March 2013 14:20 (1 month ago) Permalink
Precautionary principle seems warranted. And don't hate the grateful dead just because their fans suck!
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Friday, 29 March 2013 14:22 (1 month ago) Permalink
Xposts
― your holiness, we have an official energy drink (Z S), Friday, 29 March 2013 14:23 (1 month ago) Permalink
J-Pod says some things.
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 29 March 2013 17:34 (1 month ago) Permalink
http://badskeptic.com/?p=123
― Mordy, Saturday, 30 March 2013 15:27 (1 month ago) Permalink
It's not filibustering Republican senators it's the guy in the White House, says inside the beltway rightward leaning columnist:
Obama’s failure to strike while the iron was hot offers a lesson in presidential leadership that goes beyond gun control. On almost every topic, from budget negotiations to national security, Washington seems only to act these days in response to crisis, if it acts at all. Obama erred in trying to use Newtown to build support for his positions on taxes, energy and immigration. And he compounded the error by sending Joe Biden off to conduct a study — an unnecessary delay when solutions were obvious. Once the president took his foot off the accelerator, no other action — not even Michael Bloomberg’s ad campaign — could maintain the momentum.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-obama-on-guns--too-little-too-late/2013/03/28/93a2287a-97f1-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 30 March 2013 16:56 (1 month ago) Permalink
failure to strike while the iron was hotthe president took his foot off the accelerator
Does the WaPo not hire editors?
― the little prince of inane false binary hype (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Saturday, 30 March 2013 17:26 (1 month ago) Permalink
I would vote for dana milbank instantly and repeatedly for any position where he would never be heard from again.
― Aimless, Saturday, 30 March 2013 18:26 (1 month ago) Permalink
I really don't think they ever have editors look at the work of their columnists.
― curmudgeon, Saturday, 30 March 2013 18:46 (1 month ago) Permalink
Not only is Barack Obama wrong politically, he's not a good guy, "cool," or even moderately likable.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/04/30/30-reasons-to-dislike-barack-obama-n1582397/page/full
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 14:56 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
howbout we just keep the posts focused on what a right-wing authoritarian fuck he is, who would be loved by the above if they weren't racist?
― Pope Rusty I (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 14:59 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
x-post -That's like 3rd-rate National Review material
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 30 April 2013 15:02 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
can we vote on these?
9) He ate a dog once which is just gross.
― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 15:04 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
no prob dr. m! just wanted to give the responses of townhall commenter "commiedregs" a hearing
http://townhall.com/social/commiedregs-606149/comments/
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 15:05 (3 weeks ago) Permalink
my favorite
29) After it came out that the Korean rapper Psy had wished death not just on American soldiers, but their wives and children, Obama made a point of shaking his hand publicly even though the fact he was in the same room with him had been controversial.
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 30 April 2013 15:06 (3 weeks ago) Permalink