Obama and how liberals think

[Shadow8088]

The question is who's complicit in that change? Who stands to profit from that change?

every single politician in D.C.

 

[Draco]

Democracy isn't broken. "We have seen the enemy, and he is us." We just can't get enough people to put down the knife of government, and use the tools of Liberty constructively. Including, I suspect, some people talking on this very thread. When I hear dedicated wealth-redistributionists like Occupy getting mentioned in discussions like this, rolled into a defense of how Liberals really do have some nifty Libertarian ideas (which I see as dubious), it just occurs to me that some on the Left are finding a way to disguise their ideas as Libertarian in order to try to make their agenda resonate with a whole new group of people.

Is it so beyond all that is fathomable that a Progressive would have some ideas in common with a Libertarian? It makes me laugh – and cringe, if I were to be honest – each time I hear such things. I may disagree with you on religion, the role of government, the proper way to run an economy; I could vehemently oppose you on everything from abortion rights all the way down to brand of orange juice, but if we agree on one issue, why would you not work with me?

Even if your cynicism is right and it’s all a clever rouse to hijack the Libertarian, would you not further your own ends right up until the time there is a split? (And do you really believe the Left in general is capable of that kind of sustained trickery? I think you’re wildly overestimating the ability of the Left to organize, but maybe I’m wrong.)

I’m Progressive, generally speaking, and yet I see allies in many Libertarian causes. Not because I seek to be some puppet master or to hijack a narrative, but because we are not inherently opposed on every single issue. And I tend to believe that working with people towards a common goal is generally a good thing, even if we tend to disagree on any number of other goals.

Or Libertarians can demand purity in philosophy and politics and only somewhat work with Republicans and continue being a voting bloc that goes largely unrepresented. Maybe they’ll even let Rand into the debates in 2020! But only if you behave very, very well and keep weakening your base by shunning people who may actually agree with you.

 

[Draco]

I've learned a lot about Liberals in the last 5 days since it was my first week of college. Everything sounds GREAT on paper! But they forget to factor in that people are selfish, corruptible, and completely unique. They are far more concerned with pushing to help the social minority to the top while completely screwing over the actual majority in order to prove a point. They would rather see America change it's values to accommodate minorities than to keep it's core values and beliefs and God is now not welcome in the Pledge of Allegiance by many. What ever happened to "If you don't like it here, then leave?"? The Liberals happened.

First off, did you seriously not notice anyone on the Left before college? You do realize we’re all over the place. Remove the gun issue and you’d see it more openly, I think, but nevermind that.

Second, God wasn’t originally welcome in the Pledge of Allegiance, so..I’m not real sure what to tell you on that, actually. He doesn’t belong there. (I mean this in many ways; why would he favor America and no one else? If you believe in an omnipotent God, aren’t all nations under Him?) Eisenhower pushed for the inclusion of God in 1954.

And maybe you should spend a while longer getting to understand their perspectives and motivations. Generally the overriding goal for Progressive folk isn’t to go around “screwing over the actual majority in order to prove a point.” Or, barring that, talk to me. I garauntee you this: if you are fair and objective, even if you disagree with me (or them), you’d see that it isn’t some shallow, short-sighted, or daft motivation.

Finally, it’s our country, too. Maybe – and I’m just going out a on limb here – but just maybe the founders of this country thought that people with opposing perspectives might be able to be decent neighbors to one another. I’d like to think they got that right. ..even though I’ve my doubts about it.

 

[Twangbanger]

Is it so beyond all that is fathomable that a Progressive would have some ideas in common with a Libertarian? It makes me laugh – and cringe, if I were to be honest – each time I hear such things. I may disagree with you on religion, the role of government, the proper way to run an economy; I could vehemently oppose you on everything from abortion rights all the way down to brand of orange juice, but if we agree on one issue, why would you not work with me? Even if your cynicism is right and it’s all a clever rouse to hijack the Libertarian, would you not further your own ends right up until the time there is a split?...

(First off, the quote at the beginning of that post somehow got misattributed during copying/pasting - I said that, not Tetsujin, so I just don't want him getting bombarded by my hate mail).

I don't think anybody said there's anything wrong with working together on certain issues, if we agree on the merits, define those merits in the same terms, and work towards them honestly. What I have a problem with is 16 hyenas, who happen to enjoy eating baobab leaves, standing on each others' shoulders, putting on a Giraffe costume and calling themselves a Giraffe, when they're not. It's ok for us to warn each other of wolves nearby, to mutual benefit...but I'm not really interested in eating carrion with you. Or being told that we had a shared interest in it all along.

And if you want to redistribute wealth because you think the wealth curve "looks wrong," knock yourself out, within the democratic process - but don't try to blow smoke up my arse and give me some tortured explanation of how that's "Libertarian."

 

[tetsujin79]

I'd like to point out the discussion we're all having would never be heard outside of this forum. Most times I've engaged to political discussion with anyone (left, right, center, purple alien), it winds up with me asking them to go deeper then the latest "news" bites. Thank you INGO.

Since the left is running things now (more or less), I'm vocally disgusted with them. I had a mean hate-on for baby bush and company when they were in charge too. I think it's only natural to distrust those that would sell their children and eat someone else's to stay in office.

Libertarians? They're already "selling-out" for votes aren't they. DOA, if you ask me.

As for agreeing on certain things and going from there, that's a western culture thing. Which the loudest on the left seem to talk about dismantling out of, for lack of better terms, embarrassment.

Do you want to really know why people on the right have a hate-on for Obama? The answer is this question: would a conservative politician have nationally made fun of progressives like Obama has? If the answer is yes, this thread is pointless since they'd be two sides of the same coin. Please find some youtubes of the last few republican presidents calling the left a bunch of godless, tree-hugging, f4gs and then I'll agree that demoncrats & rethuglicans are the same and any disgust with progressives & etc. is serious dumb-butt-ery.

I get that not everyone on the left or progressive or democrat is always towing the company line. Just as not everyone on the other side is a secret Newt-cultian. What bothers me the most is national politicians are going out of their way to divide us the people. The most reported on of those happen to be from the left. Make your own conclusion from that.

 

[billt]

Which voters?

Liberal.

 

[Tombs]

Do you want to really know why people on the right have a hate-on for Obama? The answer is this question: would a conservative politician have nationally made fun of progressives like Obama has? If the answer is yes, this thread is pointless since they'd be two sides of the same coin. Please find some youtubes of the last few republican presidents calling the left a bunch of godless, tree-hugging, f4gs and then I'll agree that demoncrats & rethuglicans are the same and any disgust with progressives & etc. is serious dumb-butt-ery.

I couldn't care less what they say in front of a microphone.

I only care about what they vote for, and what actions they take. And so far, I'm not seeing a difference, at least not in my lifetime.

 

[tetsujin79]

I couldn't care less what they say in front of a microphone.

Well, my exposure to what some people would call "low information voters" has proven that the talking, image, & feelings matter much more then results or actions. I'd be willing to bet that 30 to 40% of all voters are also concerned with those three. There's always been a mighty bit of smack talk relating to Nixon Vs. Kennedy TV debate or even Gore on TV. Think of all the hay made of "no new taxes" and the effects on the public's opinion of poppa Bush... How many voters went Obama after the slickness that poured from his mouth?

Weak minds can be bent by flashy flash.

I only care about what they vote for, and what actions they take. And so far, I'm not seeing a difference, at least not in my lifetime.

I agree, and I'm glad you do, because I don't think they do. You can't seriously ignore what they say or is said about them on the public stage. How else would you ever find anything else out in a timely manner? Go to every rally?

 

[Tombs]

Well, my exposure to what some people would call "low information voters" has proven that the talking, image, & feelings matter much more then results or actions. I'd be willing to bet that 30 to 40% of all voters are also concerned with those three. There's always been a mighty bit of smack talk relating to Nixon Vs. Kennedy TV debate or even Gore on TV. Think of all the hay made of "no new taxes" and the effects on the public's opinion of poppa Bush... How many voters went Obama after the slickness that poured from his mouth?

Weak minds can be bent by flashy flash.


I agree, and I'm glad you do, because I don't think they do. You can't seriously ignore what they say or is said about them on the public stage. How else would you ever find anything else out in a timely manner? Go to every rally?

If only on the basis of talking and image, Obama failed miserably on those platforms for me. He never spoke in detail about a single important issue, he never addressed a single real concern, he only spoke in HUGE generalities that could not be pinned down to any specific position. I still can't understand how people think he's slick or charismatic.

He treats the audience like children who have no clue what's going on, making himself seem like an smug and egotistical brat. How on earth people find that appealing is beyond my understanding.

I'll give W the benefit of the doubt when it came to talking, even though it seems people thought he was far worse at it than Obama?

 

[tetsujin79]

....spoke in HUGE generalities that could not be pinned down to any specific position...

People today don't have time to think and certainly aren't encouraged to, so the least offensive & most inclusive blabber wins. Bug/feature, you decide. I'll say that Obama is greatest politician this country has seen. He has said as little as possible, performed as little executive action as possible, and he is glorified by the media still. Parker Lewis Can't Lose...

I'll give W the benefit of the doubt when it came to talking, even though it seems people thought he was far worse at it than Obama?

Baby Bush did his best to give concrete answers and statements so he got flack for it. Obama speaks only in feelings and everyone comes up with their own idea of what he said so they love him. I'm no baby Bush fan, but he handled his dealt cards fairly well. Romney and Cheney? Jeesh... If you want to see what would have happened with Gore in office, I say look at the middle east now. Same party playbook, IMHO.

He treats the audience like children who have no clue what's going on, making himself seem like an smug and egotistical brat.

Always know your audience.


The big O is actually a great president. He hasn't done crap. It's all those buttholes that are writing legislation that they hope the dork wants. If you ever wanted to know what the country would look like if administrators ran it, we've got a front row seat right now. We've stopped electing leaders, but why?

 

[Tombs]

The big O is actually a great president. He hasn't done crap. It's all those buttholes that are writing legislation that they hope the dork wants. If you ever wanted to know what the country would look like if administrators ran it, we've got a front row seat right now. We've stopped electing leaders, but why?

Like I remind people from time to time, Harry Reid is the one running the show today. It was Cheney when W was in.

Biden must be on a short leash locked away in some cellar, as I've never seen a vice president kept this quiet in my lifetime. Which is funny because he's more presidential material than Obama, maybe that's why he's being hidden away. He's also the greatest gaffe generator of all time, and would be a fantastic tool for getting O impeached.

How a man with literal brain damage got to become vice president is astonishing.

 

[tetsujin79]

How a man with literal brain damage got to become vice president is astonishing.

I made a comment somewhere on INGO about lefties being actually brain damaged... LOL

 

[Tombs]

I made a comment somewhere on INGO about lefties being actually brain damaged... LOL

In case you didn't know about the brain aneurysms: Democratic VP nominee Biden releases medical records - CNN.com

 

[Draco]

(First off, the quote at the beginning of that post somehow got misattributed during copying/pasting - I said that, not Tetsujin, so I just don't want him getting bombarded by my hate mail).

I don't think anybody said there's anything wrong with working together on certain issues, if we agree on the merits, define those merits in the same terms, and work towards them honestly. What I have a problem with is 16 hyenas, who happen to enjoy eating baobab leaves, standing on each others' shoulders, putting on a Giraffe costume and calling themselves a Giraffe, when they're not. It's ok for us to warn each other of wolves nearby, to mutual benefit...but I'm not really interested in eating carrion with you. Or being told that we had a shared interest in it all along.

And if you want to redistribute wealth because you think the wealth curve "looks wrong," knock yourself out, within the democratic process - but don't try to blow smoke up my arse and give me some tortured explanation of how that's "Libertarian."

My apologies for the misattribution. Not quite sure how that came about, but I should have caught it.

As for the rest, I suppose that is fair enough. Personally, I think there is about as much overlap between Liberal and Libertarian as there is with Conservative and Libertarian. I won’t go arguing that my Progressivism is the same as Libertarianism, even if there is overlap; and anyone who does is either confused, attempting to manipulate, or otherwise mislead.

Perhaps I took it wrong, as I thought there may have been a mindset wherein anything less than absolute purity on all issues is required to have any sort of alliance. It’s an odd mentality from my perspective and I’m inclined to poke at it given the chance to see how that rationality is supposed to work out.

The problem, as often as not, I figure, is one that people may find Libertarianism to be a bit ambiguous in its definition. I imagine the Liberal sort is more geared to the Liberty From All mindset whereas the Conservative is more of a Liberty From Government sort; and, once you have a definition that open, you’re going to get a lot of very curious (read: convoluted) explanations on stances. At least, that’s my guess for the moment; I haven’t really put much thought into how the roots of Libertarianism differ between those who approach it from the Right and those who come to it from the Left.

Also, always, always be wary of cackling giraffes.