what are barack obama's flaws?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2673 of them)

ironic coming from you

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:06 (fourteen years ago) link

yes, unless you articulate a sensible argument im going to 'pretend' that what youre saying is kneejerk dem therapeutic juvenilia about sticking it to the man!! every time things arent working out the way they should

okay, and i'm going to pretend you don't want to punish liberman because you're a gigantic democratic pussy. deal?

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:06 (fourteen years ago) link

can you at least admit that sometimes you do have to put up with stupid shit -- and sometimes you shouldnt? cuz i feel like im being more open to the possibility of pragmatic moves here than u are, simply by ASKING for an argument whereas as far as i can tell j0hn d's approach is 'fuck the dems they fuck everyone over anyway'

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:07 (fourteen years ago) link

explication on . . . this strategic thought
are you familiar with the concept of punishment? as in, step out of line on major shit and we publicly go after you? it's not just for the punished but also to intimidate people from not fucking up in the first place. a flaw of obama's is no once is afraid he'll punish them. making an example of lieberman would have helped with party discipline, and somewhat rallied the troops fed up with the plutocratic bullshit going on. it's not a "feel good" measure; it's a political tactic

kamerad, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:07 (fourteen years ago) link

okay, and i'm going to pretend you don't want to punish liberman because you're a gigantic democratic pussy. deal?

― that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:06 PM (30 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

internet political discussion hardman over here

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:07 (fourteen years ago) link

you're being a troll, basically

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:07 (fourteen years ago) link

i dunno, i think that John D. and Alfred are pretty good presenters of their positions (even when i've disagreed with them) here and elsewhere on ILX.

and whatever arguments existed for Clinton to have tolerated Lieberman's antics back in the 1990s don't really apply any more -- the GOP does not control either Congressional chamber, and the tide of public opinion has swung more strongly towards center-left Democrats than it has since any point since the 1980 election. so i just don't see any reason why Obama should just grin and bear it the way that Clinton did during the 1990s (which is my criticism of Obama).

How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:08 (fourteen years ago) link

can you at least admit that sometimes you do have to put up with stupid shit -- and sometimes you shouldnt?

For the last fucking time WE KNOW THIS.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:08 (fourteen years ago) link

deej you'll call anything a pragmatic move - you basically take what the party went with and say "the only practical solution is to be satisfied"

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:08 (fourteen years ago) link

I mean newsflash you're in the extremely small minority of people to the left of, like, *anybody* who don't think lieberman should be made to accept consequences

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:07 PM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

strawmen again -- i want him to be made to accept consequences & have never claimed otherwise. ive simply asked, repeatedly, "what is the best time, what is the best method, that will yield the best outcome."

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:08 (fourteen years ago) link

deej you'll call anything a pragmatic move - you basically take what the party went with and say "the only practical solution is to be satisfied"

― Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:08 PM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

except no? im questioning the logic of 'no time like the present,' but i dont see why thats 'trolling'

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:09 (fourteen years ago) link

deej sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit . . . but not at the 11th hour on fucking health care dude!

kamerad, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:10 (fourteen years ago) link

can you at least admit that sometimes you do have to put up with stupid shit -- and sometimes you shouldnt

you wanna give an example of when you shouldn't? I cannot, straight up, imagine you actually saying "we should oppose the nat'l party on this position" in any circumstances. for real.

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:10 (fourteen years ago) link

ever

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:10 (fourteen years ago) link

deej sometimes you have to put up with stupid shit . . . but not at the 11th hour on fucking health care dude!

― kamerad, Sunday, December 20, 2009 7:10 PM (5 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

we're having to put up with the health care resolution no matter what -- punishing him isnt changing that vote

so i guess the argument you guys are making is that, without a doubt, the best possible solution is to immediately strip lieberman of all his positions in order to preserve the sanctity of the party's discipline, regardless of climate change, regardless of abortion issues on which lieberman is generally friendly, that there is really NO QUESTION in your mind that the best time to do this is now?

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:11 (fourteen years ago) link

strawmen again -- i want him to be made to accept consequences & have never claimed otherwise. ive simply asked, repeatedly, "what is the best time, what is the best method, that will yield the best outcome."

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?

so i guess the argument you guys are making is that, without a doubt, the best possible solution is to immediately strip lieberman of all his positions in order to preserve the sanctity of the party's discipline, regardless of climate change, regardless of abortion issues on which lieberman is generally friendly, that there is really NO QUESTION in your mind that the best time to do this is now?

lol wait weren't you the guy complaining abt ppl misrepresenting arguments a minute ago?

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:12 (fourteen years ago) link

YES!

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), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:12 (fourteen years ago) link

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!

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:12 (fourteen years ago) link

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

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:13 (fourteen years ago) link

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

kamerad, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:13 (fourteen years ago) link

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

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:13 (fourteen years ago) link

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.

Hell is other people. In an ILE film forum. (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:14 (fourteen years ago) link

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.

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:14 (fourteen years ago) link

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), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:14 (fourteen years ago) link

"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.

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:15 (fourteen years ago) link

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

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:15 (fourteen years ago) link

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

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:15 (fourteen years ago) link

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?

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:15 (fourteen years ago) link

ok.

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:16 (fourteen years ago) link

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?

How About a Nice Cuppa Shit on a Shingle, Soldier? (Eisbaer), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:16 (fourteen years ago) link

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"

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:16 (fourteen years ago) link

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

kamerad, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:16 (fourteen years ago) link

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.

Herodcare for the Unborn (J0hn D.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:16 (fourteen years ago) link

j0hn thats not even fucking true

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:17 (fourteen years ago) link

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

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:18 (fourteen years ago) link

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

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:18 (fourteen years ago) link

xps to j0hn

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:18 (fourteen years ago) link

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

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:19 (fourteen years ago) link

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

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:19 (fourteen years ago) link

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)?

nostragaaaawddamnus (Hunt3r), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:19 (fourteen years ago) link

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.), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:19 (fourteen years ago) link

my argument is what it is

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:19 (fourteen years ago) link

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!!

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:20 (fourteen years ago) link

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

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:20 (fourteen years ago) link

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"

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:21 (fourteen years ago) link

"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

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:21 (fourteen years ago) link

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

that sex version of "blue thunder." (Mr. Que), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:22 (fourteen years ago) link

ok, then stfu?

deej, Monday, 21 December 2009 01:22 (fourteen years ago) link

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"

Quiet, I'm making my Youtube Star Wars Review (Z S), Monday, 21 December 2009 01:24 (fourteen years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.