Obama and how liberals think

[bingley]

Since Kirk and GPIA, among others, regularly read liberal rags all the time, I decided to take a look for myself to see what all that insanity is about. Normally I just read SWAT and Guns and Ammo. Lo and behold, I find a big flaming liberal totally dissing Obama:

No, the thing is he posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency. The torturers go free. The Wall Street executives go free. The war crimes in the Middle East, especially now in Gaza, the war criminals go free. And yet, you know, he acted as if he was both a progressive and as if he was concerned about the issues of serious injustice and inequality and it turned out that he’s just another neoliberal centrist with a smile and with a nice rhetorical flair. And that’s a very sad moment in the history of the nation because we are—we’re an empire in decline. Our culture is in increasing decay. Our school systems are in deep trouble. Our political system is dysfunctional. Our leaders are more and more bought off with legalized bribery and normalized corruption in Congress and too much of our civil life.

He disses Clinton, too:

And we ended up with a brown-faced Clinton. Another opportunist. Another neoliberal opportunist.

At first this confused me: aren't libtards brainless turds who can't think for themselves? But then it hit me: this liberal is just trying to show how open-minded he is by creating an illusion of heterogeneity amongst liberals. Don't fall for this trick!

Cornel West: ?He posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency? - Salon.com

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If he wasn't progressive enough for Cornell, I shudder to think....

 

[Birds Away]

I agree with all of his assertions about the current state of the country. I can be certain, though, that we would differ completely on what the problems actually are.

 

[Shadow8088]

I agree with all of his assertions about the current state of the country. I can be certain, though, that we would differ completely on what the problems actually are.

Then maybe it's time to stop dwelling on what separates us, and start looking for the things in which we think alike on...

 

[ViperJock]

Lmao that he brings up an Empire, culture, and schools in decay. Uh yeah, because of progressives.... What do you call a Left wing extremist that's even more extreme than a Left wing extremist? LoL. Actually he sounds a lot like some of the Libertarians.

 

[ViperJock]

Then maybe it's time to stop dwelling on what separates us, and start looking for the things in which we think alike on...

We all think...the country is the wrong color?

Great, see, we agree on something!

exactly! It should be Red!

don't you mean Blue?

red!

blue!

 

[Shadow8088]

We all think...the country is the wrong color?

Great, see, we agree on something!

exactly! It should be Red!

don't you mean Blue?

red!

blue!

Hi, I like guns. Do you like guns? *checkmark*
I think we need more emphasis on education. Do you think we need more emphasis on education?

and the list would go on... Find where you have things in common, and work from there.. I don't care how small we think the topic is.. it's the only way we're going to dig ourselves out from under this pile we've buried ourselves under...

Sure, there's going to be stuff where we'll never reach an agreement... but even finding one thing is a beginning...

 

[Twangbanger]

Someone saying they are "disappointed" with Obama should not be misconstrued as stating they disagree with his ideas. I suspect a lot of people who only say they're "disappointed" with him, toally agree with his ideas and are only disappointed he hasn't been more effective in implementing them.

This often takes the form of Lurking Liberals on gun forums, who say things like "I'm not crazy with the job he has done as President..." (ie, I was really hoping he would have passed single payer, amnesty, 40 acres and a mule, etc.)

 

[zippy23]

Liberals believe everything in this country is an injustice. They think american stole its riches. They think the 1% stole their money, because they are told this daily from their politicians. The liberal politician is markedly different than the liberal voter. The politician knows exactly what he/she is doing and saying. They say idiotic things because they know their voter base. That is why almost everything they say is a LIE. They know their base will believe it no matter what. Facts do not get in the way of emotionally attached people. Thats why the left race baits, thats why they say things like "war on women", 99%er, undocumented worker, "what difference does it make", etc. They know that their voters will believe everything they say, regardless of facts. The politician knows the voters are stupid. The voters blindly follow the left based on pure emotion and hatred of everyone else. Its very succesful, and its how people get elected and stay in power regardless of what they actually do.

 

[printcraft]

Someone saying they are "disappointed" with Obama should not be misconstrued as stating they disagree with his ideas. I suspect a lot of people who only say they're "disappointed" with him, toally agree with his ideas and are only disappointed he hasn't been more effective in implementing them.

This often takes the form of Lurking Liberals on gun forums, who say things like "I'm not crazy with the job he has done as President..." (ie, I was really hoping he would have passed single payer, amnesty, 40 acres and a mule, etc.)

ON. THE. NOSE.

 

[gravitas73]

Liberals believe everything in this country is an injustice. They think american stole its riches. They think the 1% stole their money, because they are told this daily from their politicians. The liberal politician is markedly different than the liberal voter. The politician knows exactly what he/she is doing and saying. They say idiotic things because they know their voter base. That is why almost everything they say is a LIE. They know their base will believe it no matter what. Facts do not get in the way of emotionally attached people. Thats why the left race baits, thats why they say things like "war on women", 99%er, undocumented worker, "what difference does it make", etc. They know that their voters will believe everything they say, regardless of facts. The politician knows the voters are stupid. The voters blindly follow the left based on pure emotion and hatred of everyone else. Its very succesful, and its how people get elected and stay in power regardless of what they actually do.

I don't speak for all liberals but the 1% isn't really considered the problem despite it sounding catchy in protests. It is the 0.1%, the 0.001% that we have a problem with.

1% is a family income of $400,000 or more. That is a successful small business owner, doctor, or lawyer.. I'm sure I'm leaving some out.

The evil liberals you speak of have nothing against those people. What we have a problem with are the vultures on Wall Street that defraud the American people and go unpunished and the deregulation that made it possible.
We have a problem when billionaires like the Koch's take their wealth beyond the scope of buying multiple mansions to influencing politics and hosting meetings with certain members of the Supreme Court and high ranking Republicans who whore themselves out. When they bribe universities to have control over their curriculum in exchange for an endowment.
When the richest family in the country inherits daddy's hard work and instead of helping their full time workers to be able to survive off of their measly wages, they force them to have to get on food stamps.

I would hope we can all agree that when 85 people have the same amount of wealth as half of the population of the world, that something isn't working correctly.

[video=youtube_share;QPKKQnijnsM]http://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM[/video]

We have a problem with the statement "Corporations are people", and the fact that they are legally more than people and have more rights than people.

We have a problem with the arrogance that meddling in the Middle East and picking which tyrants or militant groups we like most is a good idea, only to eventually lose control of them, or their own people topple them because of what deals they have made with us.

We certainly have a problem with going to war under false pretenses and see little difference between fighting them with boots on the ground or drones in the air, since both makes the US look like a bully, and one even makes us look like cowards.

Speaking of drones, we have a problem with one man having control over who lives or dies, American or not, with no due process.

We despise what the government has done in the name of "national security" by eroding our civil liberties, to fight a "war on terror" that anyone with a brain knows cannot be won and is only meant to be maintained and giving defense and surveillance contractors a limitless supply of money for many years to come.

We have a problem when those in power want to declare an official religion of the country by drafting laws that reflect the agenda of that majority that we are all held to.

Liberals have plenty of problems of their own that conservatives do provide an answer for.. but the points I laid out above are typically enough to get people running the other way... and in my opinion, until the Republican party starts dealing with those things, they won't be attracting too many new people, especially young people, minorities, and women to their base.

There are a few signs of hope. Libertarians seem to be gaining more strength in the party and in many ways, liberals and libertarians are very similar... enough that I would sooner vote for a libertarian WAY before a neo liberal like Obama or Hillary.

 

[Twangbanger]

I don't speak for all liberals but the 1% isn't really considered the problem despite it sounding catchy in protests. It is the 0.1%, the 0.001% that we have a problem with.

1% is a family income of $400,000 or more. That is a successful small business owner, doctor, or lawyer.. I'm sure I'm leaving some out.

The evil liberals you speak of have nothing against those people...

I'm glad you're mathematically-inclined enough to see the error in where the "Rage Against the Machine" fans are placing their decimal point.

But, I don't know...when I hear the hateful way liberals in my circle of acquaintances talk about people up in in Carmel (pronunciation: Car-MEL'), small business owners who provide jobs for people right here in Indy...I'm not so sure your side isn't against people in the $400,000 income bracket. Since those people aren't as hyper-represented in Washington as the 0.0001%, their wealth represents one of the last relatively-undefended, un-organized, untapped sources of money left for liberals to lay hands on.

I know this perhaps doesn't represent you, personally, and I admire that you don't see these folks as "the problem." It's just that your view isn't very universal among liberals, if the vitriol I hear out of my acquaintances, coworkers, and family members (once they have a couple glasses of wine aboard) is any indication.

I do hope you'll also make note of a couple points:

1) Ron and Rand Paul, current Libertarian standard-bearers, chose to ply their trade under the Republican, not Democrat, banner. Why? (There has to be a reason).

2) Simply being a Liberal who likes guns does NOT make you a Libertarian. Liberal and Libertarian are not in the least similar, despite what you state in your conclusion.

 

[gravitas73]

I'm glad you're mathematically-inclined enough to see the error in where the "Rage Against the Machine" fans are placing their decimal point.

But, I don't know...when I hear the hateful way liberals in my circle of acquaintances talk about people up in in Carmel (pronunciation: Car-MEL'), small business owners who provide jobs for people right here in Indy...I'm not so sure your side isn't against people in the $400,000 income bracket. Since those people aren't as hyper-represented in Washington as the 0.0001%, their wealth represents one of the last relatively-undefended, un-organized, untapped sources of money left for liberals to lay hands on.

I know this perhaps doesn't represent you, personally, and I admire that you don't see these folks as "the problem." It's just that your view isn't very universal among liberals, if the vitriol I hear out of my acquaintances, coworkers, and family members (once they have a couple glasses of wine aboard) is any indication.

I do hope you'll also make note of a couple points:

1) Ron and Rand Paul, current Libertarian standard-bearers, chose to ply their trade under the Republican, not Democrat, banner. Why? (There has to be a reason).

2) Simply being a Liberal who likes guns does NOT make you a Libertarian. Liberal and Libertarian are not in the least similar, despite what you state in your conclusion.

The video would tend to agree with you, they only mention the 1% and not the 0.1-0.001% like I did although the salaries they list for the 1% are millionaire CEOs and celebrities where in reality those salaries are much higher.

A liberal in the traditional definition anyways, is merely someone who espouses ideas of liberty and equality for all.

It may mean something else to other people, that has something to do with the size of the federal government, but that isn't saying much since conservatives also like a large federal government in other ways, like extending into our bedrooms and using our treasured tax dollars for a military bigger than the next 20 countries of the world combined.

So in the traditional sense, there is a lot that liberals and libertarians have in common when it comes to civil liberties and due process that our past two Presidents have utterly failed at and probably even more before them.

The biggest difference really is that a libertarian believes the free market is the only feasible and moral solution to fiscal problems, and liberals tend to think it is silly to allow corporations to self regulate and that the government should be involved in making sure our banking institutions are protected from greed and our food and water is safe to eat and drink. The debate as to whether or not the market can regulate things like that is one I would love to see.. but that debate is shielded from the voters eyes and anytime a candidate arises to talk about them the establishment laughs them off the stage.

 

[Twangbanger]

Put a different way...if Liberal (in the actual, modern sense - any other definition is irrelevant) and Libertarian are so very similar, as you state - why don't Ron and Rand throw their hats into the Democratic primary and try to change that party from within? Why do they seem to think making that shift from within the Republican party is an easier job?

I for one would love to see Libertarians making the case for free markets during a Democratic Primary debate. But the fact is, not only would they get laughed off the stage - they would never be allowed anywhere near that stage.

In fact, if you went to an Occupy protest carrying a Libertarian sign, extolling the virtues of small government and free markets, you would be lucky if they didn't call _you_ the "oppressor."

I'm not going to get into this stupid, adolescent discussion about lines, spectrums, circles, ideological matrices and graphs. I'm just trying to get you to see that Libertarianism not only has very little in common with actual Liberalism (that is, modern Liberalism, not this historical abstraction you speak of), but is in fact completely opposed to it. There's no shared DNA there. None. Not even a little. The Democrat party makes _no_ room for Libertarian ideals in its platforms. Not a little. Not some. NONE. Zero. No similarity.

 

[gravitas73]

Put a different way...if Liberal (in the actual, modern sense - any other definition is irrelevant) and Libertarian are so very similar, as you state - why don't Ron and Rand throw their hats into the Democratic primary and try to change that party from within? Why do they seem to think making that shift from within the Republican party is an easier job?

I for one would love to see Libertarians making the case for free markets during a Democratic Primary debate. But the fact is, not only would they get laughed off the stage - they would never be allowed anywhere near that stage.

In fact, if you went to an Occupy protest carrying a Libertarian sign, extolling the virtues of small government and free markets, you would be lucky if they didn't call _you_ the "oppressor."

I'm not going to get into this stupid, adolescent discussion about lines, spectrums, circles, ideological matrices and graphs. I'm just trying to get you to see that Libertarianism not only has very little in common with actual Liberalism (that is, modern Liberalism, not this historical abstraction you speak of), but is in fact completely opposed to it. There's no shared DNA there. None. Not even a little. The Democrat party makes _no_ room for Libertarian ideals in its platforms. Not a little. Not some. NONE. Zero. No similarity.

Civil rights and due process aren't a shared value for both liberals and libertarians? The leftiest of the left who hate Obama for lying about protecting whistleblowers, guaranteeing a transparant government, and campaigning against the Patriot Act say the same things Ron Paul was saying in the debates and after. Both stand with Edward Snowden and agree the NSA has gone too far and needs to be reigned in. Same goes for their foreign policy. As Ron Paul once said, peace is a compelling issue and the presumed "peace" candidate has a long winning streak in presidential politics.

The Anonymous movement who largely supports OWS are sometimes more libertarian than liberal in that they want the power to rest in the hands of the people and that includes owning firearms. They also do not like a large government that goes after their hacktivist bretheren for exposing the truth.

In the 2008 elections after he dropped out, Ron Paul publicly announced his support for 4 candidates: Cynthia McKinney (Green Party); Bob Barr (Libertarian Party); Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party); and Ralph Nader (independent). If Ron Paul felt he was closer to the Republican Party platform, don't you think he would have endorsed McCain instead of Nader or McKinney??

 

[Twangbanger]

Ron Paul is a Republican.

Rand Paul is a Republican.

They apparently don't think their views will find acceptance in the Democratic (modern Liberal) party. Why?

 

[ViperJock]

Liberal hate anyone that has more of anything than they do regardless of their starting point.

 

[Shadow8088]

Liberal hate anyone that has more of anything than they do regardless of their starting point.

Blanket statements are bad.. mmk?

 

[gravitas73]

Ron Paul is a Republican.

Rand Paul is a Republican.

They apparently don't think their views will find acceptance in the Democratic (modern Liberal) party. Why?

Abortion and Keynesian economic policies I would guess.

That doesn't mean liberals and libertarians don't share some common ideals that neocons and neoliberals crap on every chance they get.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Come on guys, finding common ground isn't that difficult, is it? Let's see...R's, D's, L's, and non-party-conformist conservatives, liberals, and libertarians seem to be in agreement that showering regularly is a good thing. Most agree with the prohibition against murder of another human being, at least post-birth. There is almost universal agreement on a heliocentric view of the solar system. See, we have some common ground!