That's right, you all need drug tested and your heads examined if you dare criticize the Obama regime or compare him to Bush .......according to the obnoxious Mr. Robert Gibbs, Barracks mouthpiece. Gibbs had said liberals were too hard to please and that they wouldn't be content even with Kucinich as president. Thats pretty fucked up referring to ya all like a bunch of whining bitches. The ultra-liberal congressman from Ohio responded: "Any remarks that can be seen as divisive at this point, could actually have create injury in November for Democratic candidates," Kucinich said. He referred to those on the left who criticize Obama instead of walking lock step with him as the "professional left" Hows it feel to have your support appreciated? This comes as Obama is being severely criticized with in his own party. In other words he hasn't lived up to his hype.... He's a miserable failure on gay rights. A miserable failure on medical marijuana, and the issue of decriminalization/taxation of marijuana, going as far as laughing at how ridiculous he thought the idea was when poised with the question. Instead of bringing peace to the middle east (even having undeservedly won a Nobel peace prize) has actually escalated the war in Afghanistan. There are numerous other issues he has failed on, but you see the track record he has. Racheal Maddow said "his position is clear......clear as mud". Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher said ""He just sort of assumed that these people would stick with him, but he's having trouble across the board by not delivering for his constituents" Do any of you think he should resign as those in the democratic party have demanded? Or do you think he's right, and those criticizing him need to STFU?
Obama won a nobel peace prize, and I don't believe that you have. He's 1 bajillion times better than everyone else.
The DEA is still going after legitimate MMJ dispensaries/growers in those states, despite Obama's promise.
I have never been that impressed with Gibbs. It always seemed to me as if the White House spokesperson should be better at...well....speaking. Obama's biggest problem has always been that he has attempted to live up to his campaign promise of "reaching across the aisle" often to the detriment of his other campaign promises. I think that the Democrats are finally beginning to get it through their thick skull that the Republicans are not interested in working with them and by continuing to try to reach out to those that can never be reached they are losing the support from those that got them elected. Gibbs frustration that the more liberal media outlets aren't as willing to toe the party line as their conservative counterparts is understandable but damn stupid. He should try to keep in mind that if those that are on your "side" are offering criticism that it might be a good time to listen rather than condemning them for it.
Using the terms, "liberal" or "conservative" to broadly define and categorize large groups of people is to generalize such that no real group of people actually fit into the category that's being described. It's a description of an ideal that's being judged as good or bad, intended to appear as though it's describing a portion of society, but when definitions are so broad as to do that they are normally contradicting and meaningless. It's just a thing that talk radio people do as part of their act. 90% of Americans don't know the difference between the varying contexts in which the terms liberal and conservative can be applied, and they just equivocate on the terms endlessly to make circular debates that never go anywhere. I mean we have social liberals and conservatives. We have fiscal liberals and conservatives. We have in the judicial branch judges and justices who interpret either liberally or conservatively and in doing this they may serve the social goals of the opposite camp, because it's not really opposite when you change the context. I think when people use a word as a pejorative for an entire section of the populous it's tantamount to racism. Like using the term, liberal or conservative to defame the loosely defined ideals of a group of people w/ out addressing the individual deviations from the ideal in it's pure form. It's like saying "china glass", or "hoodlum", or some worse words that I wont use here. China glass may suck, and hoodlums may make you nervous, and you might not like liberals or conservatives, but funtionally speaking by referencing the structure of these generalizations, there is no linguistic difference in the way these terms are being applied. It's just an IST. People use ISTS, to avoid either having to reason in a more complex fashion. When you see something in the form of an ISM or an IST. You can be assured that there's a ready made refutation. At least on paper, (or computer screens).
My liberal side supports Obama's spending because he's trying to fix the economy. My conservative side thinks he's the biggest fucking idiot for adding to our debt.
He (and the Democratic party) have "negotiated" the hell out of just about every piece of legislation they have tried to pass only to have the Republicans vote against it anyway. When they have managed to pass something despite the opposition it is with the watering down having already taken place. In this way they have managed to allow the Republicans to manipulate them in such a way as to be sure that no one is happy with what eventually passes. Just sharing the point of view of a liberal that is becoming a bit disillusioned with both parties.
So your actually saying all those closed door meetings where they shut the republicans out of the debate did not happen, and there has been over all transparency with this administration? Really? Wow! What negotiations are you talking about because some how the slipped by me. The democrats hold both houses, exactly how did the republicans stop anything or make them water any legislation down? The opposition you are referring to was from with in their own party due to public pressure. I agree both parties suck, but i don't agree with your reasoning why they suck, or your fantasized view of the Obama administration.
I can't take anyone voicing an opinion in a political context seriously if they have Glenn Beck as their avatar. Let him go back to Daytime Fox News and be scared.
LMAO! You're actually trying to blame the Republicans for Obama's failures You do realize the Democrats have a MAJORITY in congress, and for bills to fail, DEMOCRATS have to be voting against them too?
I think it's becoming painfully obvious that Obama is not a strong leader. It's a given that the Republicans will do their best to trip him up at every available opportunity but if he can't even manage his own party (which he can't, at least so far), what chance does he have to lead a nation? You can blame his failures on the Republicans all you want, but the bottom line is he's the man in charge and ultimately, it all falls on him. Continually making excuses and blaming others instead of taking responsibility for his own shortcomings shows weakness and a lack of character. We all know people like this in our own lives and in general, would not consider them leadership material. He should have gone to Hollywood to become famous, not the Whitehouse.
Never said that....or anything close to that. Since I wasn't invited to any "closed door meetings" I would hardly be in a position to speculate about such a thing would I? Yes, there was opposition within their own party because that tends to be what happens. People differ in opinions even along party lines. We have not seen that much though have we? The Republicans however have been far more successful building a united party against Obama then the Democrats have been at finding a scapegoat of their own. My "fantasized" view of Obama? Pardon me but I believe it is far more of a fantasy to believe that one man (even the President) is responsible for everything that we dislike about what has been going on than it is to state that he has been screwing up and should try to take the criticism in the spirit it is intended. The entire "blame Obama" bandwagon is getting old. Is he perfect? Of course not...but he is hardly the devil incarnate so many want to make him out to be. I have problems with many of his decisions and the way that the Democrats have thrown away their opportunity to actually make some real change. That does not mean however, that I am suddenly willing to overlook the bi-partisan games that have helped to impede those same efforts. No, I am not. I am merely pointing out that the "failures" are not simply the responsibility of one man. And you do realize that a simple majority is not how everything is decided don't you? Trust me, I know that there have been a few Democrats that have voted outside of their party....probably far more than there have been of Republicans. Since when is the ability to vote against the majority of your party something worthy of derision?
Well let me fill you in, as far as the content of those "closed door meetings", they were to discuss legislation without republican input....its no secret and has been widely reported on. So what your saying is its the republicans fault that more of the American public supported their positions on legislation than the democrats? Your right, its not just Obama's fault, it the entire democratic party and all the intellectually blind people who support him even in the face of such incompetence, however; just as in football, he's the quarter back and the lighting rod for the blame....the poster boy of a failed ideology if you will. It seems a bi-partisan agenda, and bi-partisan games were not only over looked during the Bush adminisrtration, but were actually encouraged.