what are barack obama's flaws?

that this isnt a discussion that SHOULD be discussed? that basically im a troll for even asking that someone make an argument for right now? i mean, there are smart people out there who dont think it should happen!

I do not believe you would ever call it "the right time" for consequences. how on earth is now not the time? how on earth was after endorsing mccain not the time? how on earth wasn't it time in 2002, 2004, 2006? when, exactly, will it be time for the party to grow a spine? oh wait - any semblance of a spine will mean no more bills passed, ever, right?

i dont believe that i ever argued about the mccain endorsement being the 'wrong time.' this is the only time ive ever argued about this

no deej the time for cracking skulls passed already. obama should have been tougher. lieberman should have known ahead of time he couldn't pull this bullshit

"sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit. it's always 'sometimes,' though."

deej, I would have thought that, after five days of this twaddle, you would have read at least a couple of articles detailing Lieberman's treachery over the years.

deej for you, it sounds like there is some perfect time when he should be punished which will achieve the most damage versus punishing him when he does dumb stuff. that's just a little crazy to me, that's all i'm saying. the time is now.

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:12 PM (41 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

no, for me there is never a perfect time but there are 'better times' and 'worse times' and im questioning that right now is one of those 'better times' & im really honestly surprised that you guys are so certain that now will yield the best possible outcome, right before significant climate change resolutions on which lieberman is a part.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I haven't articulate what makes Lieberman a contemptible worm, why haven't you tested your arguments against other things you've read?

"sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit. it's always 'sometimes,' though."

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:13 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im. not. saying. this.

I guess dems could put off punshing Lieberman until there are no more votes left on any important issue.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that I haven't articulate what makes Lieberman a contemptible worm, why haven't you tested your arguments against other things you've read?

― Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:14 PM (9 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

him being a contemptible worm is NOT WHAT IS AT ISSUE HERE

that basically im a troll for even asking that someone make an argument for right now?

i don't owe you or anyone else an argument as to why i think the democrats should strip lieberman of his power, okay?

ok.

i don't speak for anyone else, but as for myself i would DEFINITELY approve of stripping him of his positions immediately. Lieberman has just renounced his previously-stated positions on the public option and Medicare buy-ins, for reasons that don't seem to be based on any principled reconsideration of those policies. why, then, should he be trusted in any other policy area, even if his record and statements on abortion and the environment are in line with the Democrats?

right before significant climate change resolutions on which lieberman is a part.

i bet you would have made this same silly agrument a few months ago, except replace "climate change" with "health care"

q: deej what's to keep lieberman in line for climate change after he bucks the president's oft-stated desire for a public option?
a: punishment. strip him of power
that's how you treat worms

deej I will hang my hat on this: you will never, ever, ever say "now is a good time to apply some sort of consequence to lieberman." you may say "it would have been good to do it in 2000/2003/whenever" but you'll never say "now's the time." you're a centrist; it's never time to act for centrists.

j0hn thats not even fucking true

i mean, do you really need more of an argument than this?

deej--the point is not to punish him so he adheres to the party line, the point is to strip him of his power because he's an egotistical obstructionist asshole

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, December 21, 2009 12:20 AM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

im ASKING FOR DISCUSSION not ADVOCATING POSITIONS & im sorry in your fascist fucking view of left wing politics that this isnt allowed

xps to j0hn

que that argument sounds a lot like 'because he deserves it' instead of, 'because smart strategic thinking suggests now is the time'

well that's you reading between the lines, isn't it?

what is so hard about the upside of setting an example by stripping the twat of his privileges outweighing the risk of his future votes being crucial (esp. when he's likely to try to fuck up your plan anyway)?

like I say man, I would bet money on it. I cannot conceive of you thinking the party should do anything that might cost them one (possible, unreliable) vote on a bill.

my argument is what it is

if you guys could get off the language of repudiation / revenge, and into the sort of 'here is the best way to achieve the best possible ends' i would be a lot more sympathetic. in some ways this is more a matter of your approach to the argument than the actual position you're taking!!

"i don't like your tone, so i'm disagreeing with it"

like I say man, I would bet money on it. I cannot conceive of you thinking the party should do anything that might cost them one (possible, unreliable) vote on a bill.

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:19 PM (21 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude.

1) im not resolutely against stripping him of his positions now. im just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

2) if you're wondering about my general approach i do prefer "passing bills" to "standing up for my principles and passing nothing"

"i don't like your tone, so i'm disagreeing with it"

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:20 PM (45 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

its not about fucking 'tone' its about your justification for the argument

like i said, i don't owe you an argument or a justification

ok, then stfu?

1) im not resolutely against stripping him of his positions now. im just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

You already expressed this view, and in response several of us highlighted the many points posted over the past couple of hours that are not "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!" but are in fact "BECAUSE IT'S WELL PAST THE TIME THAT A SEMBLANCE OF PARTY DISCIPLINE IS IN ORDER"

if you can't see by his actions & the way he killed the public option plan of this health care bill, just fucking tanked it even though he agreed with the *same* position a couple of months ago, if you can't see why that is a) being an obstructionist asshole which b) leads to unreliability, then i can't help you. if you really think the dems can rely on him, then you are nuts.

i mean what more do you need

i prefer passing bills, too! in fact, i'm more often accused of being too much the pragmatist and not enough the guy who argues for standing on principle. and i think that i've stated my argument as to WHY letting Lieberman get away with his antics will NOT lead to Obama passing more of his bills -- if anything, punishing him may make it easier to do so b/c there will be one less obstructionist and less incentive to be obstructionist.

do you really think he is a reliable senator, a reliable vote for the democrats? he's not, dude.

i certainly dont think the dems can rely on him

deej all the arguments have been presented in so many forms at this point that there's hardly any point in rephrasing them but:

1. he isn't a reliable vote; it's damaging to party unity & strategy to be constantly kowtowing to a guy who may or may not vote with you & you never really know except increasingly you do
2. the future consequences of letting any asshole who likes camera time know that he is free to singlehandedly tell the party how they'll rewrite bills to make him happy are CATASTROPHIC.

there are about 6 more that've been presented to you also but only one had had all the anger surgically removed so those ones you dismiss as immature I guess.

if anything, punishing him may make it easier to do so b/c there will be one less obstructionist and less incentive to be obstructionist.

― How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:25 PM (17 seconds ago) Bookmark

im not arguing here -- im asking for explanation

how does punishing him make him less obstructionist? serious question

History of the past 2 hours, Ch. II

At which point you moved on to "I'm just trying to figure out when is the best strategic time to strip him of power. Dems should probably wait until important votes are over."

In trying to explain why he can't be trusted and it's best just to strip him of power NOW, and long overdue at that, we were forced to make reference to what an hypocritical asshole Lieberman has historically been. Which leads us back to "I'm just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

deej all the arguments have been presented in so many forms at this point that there's hardly any point in rephrasing them but:

1. he isn't a reliable vote; it's damaging to party unity & strategy to be constantly kowtowing to a guy who may or may not vote with you & you never really know except increasingly you do
2. the future consequences of letting any asshole who likes camera time know that he is free to singlehandedly tell the party how they'll rewrite bills to make him happy are CATASTROPHIC.

there are about 6 more that've been presented to you also but only one had had all the anger surgically removed so those ones you dismiss as immature I guess.

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:25 PM (28 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah but none of these are reasons to punish him -- they're arguments that punishing him wont have negative consequences. so what is the positive outcome of 'increasing party discipline' ... evan bayh will no longer say stupid things? i might by that -- can you explain to me that aspect of this argument? im genuinely curious to know how punshing him will result in a positive outcome! not questioning that idea that it will -- asking what it would be! because i dont know!

many xposts

*might buy that

At which point you moved on to "I'm just trying to figure out when is the best strategic time to strip him of power. Dems should probably wait until important votes are over."

In trying to explain why he can't be trusted and it's best just to strip him of power NOW, and long overdue at that, we were forced to make reference to what an hypocritical asshole Lieberman has historically been. Which leads us back to "I'm just asking for a smart argument in favor of it that isnt "BECAUSE HES AN ASSHOLE!!!"

OTM

i very genuinely feel as if the position that this will 'increase party discipline' has not been articulated -- the idea that lieberman has pushed hard enough, that i get. but what is the strategic outcome of hammering him?

"well it would increase party discipline"
"which would do what?"
"WHY CANT YOU STOP BEING A CENTRIST DO U WANT TO MARRY LIEBERMAN AND OBAMA IN SOME KIND OF CENTRIST GAY WEDDING"

im genuinely curious to know how punshing him will result in a positive outcome! not questioning that idea that it will -- asking what it would be! because i dont know!

who here besides Eisbar is saying punishing him will result in a "positive outcome." the only reason i am advocating punishment is because he's been unreliable.

At this point it's possible to stop typing new things and instead quote sentences from the past few hours, because deej is stuck in a vicious cycle here.

dude come on, are you not listening? look into the damn future. there are more joe liebermans waiting in the wings. politics is almost entirely about precedent. the precedent that not "punishing" (your term, I don't agree with it but I'm not going to argue) lieberman sets suggests a party that can be commandeered by...pretty much anybody who might vote with 'em sometimes!

outcome? outcome? the guy is unreliable, which means the dems don't know how he will vote on things which means (this may blow your mind)

the dems don't know what the outcome will be w/r/t to Joe lieberman anyway!!!

OMG!!!!