Can we please cut the crap that Obama is Bush?

[berni_mccoy]

I'm hearing this far too often for what should be a relatively informed group. This is especially true with respect to the military. If Bush's policies were being maintained...

1. We'd not be reducing troops in Iraq as we currently are
2. We'd most likely have attacked Iran already or at a minimum, escalated the situation with them or between them and Israel
3. We'd most likely be *out* of Afghanistan (see Robb's excellent post as to why: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7842007 )
4. We sure as hell wouldn't have heard Bush talk about repealing DADT in his SOTU or had a commission follow-up to begin the process of removing it (let alone hear an Admiral say it should be repealed)
5. Dan Choi would not have been reinstated
6. We'd still be torturing people

[babylonsister]

1. Rec'd with thanks. Reality just stinks for some people who are

invested in bringing Obama down. What they're doing here is beyond me.

[NJmaverick]

14. + Infinity

:applause:

[SidDithers]

52. Another +1...

well said.

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

81. +1000 more.

:puke:

[lunatica]

2. The All or Nothing Black/White thinking is stinking thinking

I agree. If President Obama acts let him act on his own terms. Bush was a temporary perversion of a magnitude that can't be understood yet. Some time needs to pass so we can see the results of his selection.

[Captain Hilts]

18. Too many people here see things all right or all wrong. It's not that simple. nt

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FBaggins]

4. Hyperbole is a valid rhetorical device.

I think that people are saying that when they voted for change... they expected more than tweaking around the margins.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Would Probably Be Better If They Said "Bush-Lite"

But your point is spot on.

[LoZoccolo]

70. You can try it if you want and see what it gets you. n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asdjrocky]

6. When he stops the wars,

closes Gitmo, repeals DADT, maybe then.

The list is too long to complete here.

[muffin1]

19. +a brazillion

PSST...I think we've been found out! As secret repugs, we joined DU for the fun of it. We gleefully added to the bush bashing so as not to be outed as trolls. Damn we were good! Finally, we have our REAL target - a Democratic President - now we'll show our true selves.


:wtf:

We loudmouths are here to see democratic principles upheld. Standing up for the little guy. REAL health care reform - with a public option.
Repealing of DADT now. Ending dismissals through DADT - a year ago would have been nice. Not escalating the war in Afghanistan. Closing Gitmo. Prosecuting war criminals from the last administration. Not getting the vapors anytime a repug threatens filibuster - make them fucking filibuster everything.

BTW, these are the same principles that everyone here seemed to want BEFORE the election. Now I guess they're not all that important?


As another DUer said so succinctly the other day, "A teaspoon of arsenic may be better than a tablespoon of arsenic, but I'm not swallowing either". I concur wholeheartedly.

[asdjrocky]

22. Indeed.

The plan is working like a well oiled machine. I even spent a year working for the Edwards campaign and 10 months on the Obama campaign as part of my brilliant ruse.

Little did they know.

Yes indeed, what the fuck.

[laughingliberal]

40. +1 nt

[lamp_shade]

7. Sometimes I just shake my head and whisper "sweet jesus".

[nevergiveup]

8. Do not worry about it.

Saying Obama is another Bush is silly and anyone with half a brain knows it. There will always be the defeatists. They are looking for attention. When they are attacked it gives them reinforcement for their nay-saying. Just ignore them.

[dixiegrrrrl]

51. So, rendition continues under Obama

The highly controversial anti-terror practice of rendition will continue under Barack Obama, it has emerged.
Despite ordering the closure of Guantanamo and an end to harsh interrogation techniques, the new president has failed to call an end to secret abductions and questioning.

In his first few days in office, Mr Obama was lauded for rejecting policies of the George W Bush era, but it has emerged the CIA still has the authority to carry out renditions in which suspects are picked up and often sent to a third country for questioning.
The practice caused outrage at the EU, after it was revealed the CIA had used secret prisons in Romania and Poland and airports such as Prestwick in Scotland to conduct up to 1,200 rendition flights. The European Parliament called renditions "an illegal instrument used by the United States".

According to a detailed reading of the executive orders signed by Mr Obama on Jan 22, renditions have not been outlawed, with the new administration deciding it needs to retain some devices in Mr Bush's anti-terror arsenal amid continued threats to US national security.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4425135/Barack-Obama-to-allow-anti-terror-rendition-to-continue.html

[HughBeaumont]

10. We would be in "Greater Depression: Bigger, Longer, Uncut".

People may not see the difference now, and it's cold comfort for those who are still unemployed. But putting the brakes on the tax cutting and other conservative solutions that a Republican would stupidly pull off is a start. The next step is more regulation and restoring Clinton-level taxation.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Although We Also Might Be Taking To The Streets Now

Obama has lulled many into thinking he's working for us, this has diffused much energy.

[Uzybone]

15. internet bloggers and their likes taking to the streets?

Hilarious.

[dionysus]

29. they'll never go past weeping on their keyboards.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Although We Also Might Be Taking To The Streets Now

Obama has lulled many into thinking he's working for us, this has diffused much energy.

[tularetom]

13. That's ridiculous but I wish he was Obama

I still like and respect the guy, and I'd vote for him again if the election was today, but I wish he was the Obama I voted for, the one who I thought was going to push through economic reforms, reduce trade imbalance, get us out of Iraq, prosecute war criminals, and restore America's image around the world. Perhaps my expectations were unrealistic.

As many people have said, I voted for FDR but it appears we elected Bill Clinton.

Nothing will ever erase the stain of Bush from this country's history but I expected a bit more effort from President Obama.

Cautious centrism will not solve this country's problems.

[lamp_shade]

33. Oboy... another "he's not the Obama I voted for".

[muffin1]

37. No shit.

What kind of idiot would want the person they voted for to show up after the election?:eyes:

[laughingliberal]

43. Voters are so unreasonable. nt

[QC]

89. They got to see the president with his shirt off. Isn't that enough for them?

I just don't understand these people!

[laughingliberal]

107. +1 nt

[Captain Hilts]

16. Yes, it's stupid and doesn't take conversations anywhere they should go. nt

[freddie mertz]

17. It's obviously a rhetorical trope.

That said, it seems that on education policy, at least as represented by his support of the mass teacher firings, the current admin may in fact be as bad, if not worse, than Bush.

[laughingliberal]

44. +1 nt

[Bluenorthwest]

20. The sewing of hyperbole leads to the reaping of hyperbole

Bernie, this OP is a great example of how you make for trouble. Two of your points are gay equality issues, and the fact is the President says he is against our equality because of his religion. So come up with something else. The man says my family is not really a family. We pay more and get less in return than our heterosexual peers, and Obama says he thinks that is just fine, because heterosexuals are in his words 'sanctified by God'. His surrogates have said that gay people are cursed by God. Same people work for Exodus International, which helped with the Uganda death law.
Co opt something else. DADT has not been repealed. Volunteers are still being discharged on a daily basis. According to #5, Dan Choi that is. Lt Choi does not count his status as victory under those circumstances, and he is both correct and honorable in that sentiment.
The 'reform' of health insurance further enshrines the discriminatory dogmas into our laws. Makes things not better, but just more confusing and confounding. We are, in short, getting tired of putting up with it, and are ready to start planning to leave this nation. Just to get a fair deal, and equal rights. Back to where my Da came from, to get away from oppressive bigotry and double standards for minorities the majority does not like for religious reasons.
Shout Choi all you wish, the Lt is of course fully capable of speaking for himself, and is not in need of some straight man to use him as agenda wall paper.
Next time, I will return to the hyperbole you adore so much. This time you were calmly told how it is. You might not see how offensive your words are. Up there in the front of the bus, with full rights and full impunity. You might need to listen to gain wisdom.

[shotten99]

21. 7. NO HCR PERIOD.

Good lord. Comparing Obama to Bush is silly.

[Captain Hilts]

24. Right. Calling Obama "Bush lite" should be ground for deletion and locking. nt

[QC]

41. Dismissing equal rights as a "pony" should be an instant tombstone,

but I don't see it happening.

[Captain Hilts]

42. Agree. nt

[laughingliberal]

45. +1000 nt

[bettyellen]

128. yep!

[pecwae]

141. Just don't blink too many times.

It might happen once. Then again, blink all you like; it'll never happen.

[Bobbie Jo]

138. Absolutely! nt

[bigtree]

23. some objectionable Bush policies were continued under this administration

. . . along with the cretins who thought them up and implemented them. On some issues, this administration is 'just like Bush'. You've made some defensible points (not that I don't believe there's room to disagree), but if you care deeply enough about an issue to advocate for it through successive administrations and terms and you find there's been no change in policy or direction, it makes sense to highlight the similarities between administration efforts.

I don't think Bush would be pulling out of Iraq, despite the SOFA.

But, I don't believe that Robb made a convincing case that Bush would have been through with Afghanistan. So much of what Bush did with our military was about posture and intimidation. I don't think he would have abandoned Afghanistan as a useful wedge and jumping-off point in the region for whatever militarism he could conjure and manage.

I don't believe this administration has been forthcoming about the torture we allow (or encourage by not resisting) other countries who are allies in our terror war to commit against prisoners and suspects we help catch who are kept outside of our nation and custody in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

To be certain, there is a difference between principals and parties, but the argument you are using has been employed by defenders to brush aside legitimate criticisms of instances where there has been none of the promised change from the last bunch in power. Just asserting that President Obama 'isn't Bush' doesn't automatically render his policy or his presidency acceptable. We are in a period of governance, not a campaign or a popularity contest. There are plenty of promises left for this president to keep.

If he wants to achieve a position apart from the failure, ineptitude, neglect, arrogance, and indifference of the Bush regime - he doesn't have to lift a finger. But, that shouldn't be the standard we hold him to (better than Bush (shit). We should expect much more from this Democratic president.

[liberal_at_heart]

91. +1

[NYC_SKP]

25. K & R nt

[dionysus]

26. it's all they have. they cling to it like a security blanket.

[CBR]

28. It is total garbage. nt

[kentuck]

30. Their goal is to make Obama a worse president than Dubya...

and they are well on their way.

[babylonsister]

32. No they're not, not if you don't buy the swill they're trying to sell. nt

[joeybee12]

31. As long as many of you stop referring to the Bush-Clinton years as

if those were the same. Deal?

[dionysus]

36. only a fool would equate those. we got plenty of fools here i guess

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Peacetrain]

35. Ignorant is what it is.. Plain and simple Ignorant

[zipplewrath]

38. Might wanna check some history

1. We'd not be reducing troops in Iraq as we currently are

Um, the current agreement under which Obama is operating was negotiated by Bush. It established the date for the withdrawl of forces.

2. We'd most likely have attacked Iran already or at a minimum, escalated the situation with them or between them and Israel

Dubious. Bush had pretty much abandoned the Cheney approach for the Rice version. Cheney was angry they still hadn't done it when they left office. The real concern was that the military was over stretched and had no real capacity to engage Iran. The situation with Israel has worsened in many ways and we now have less influence with them than before.

3. We'd most likely be *out* of Afghanistan (see Robb's excellent post as to why: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... )

I'm dubious of that, but I have to laugh because there is some case to be made here.

4. We sure as hell wouldn't have heard Bush talk about repealing DADT in his SOTU or had a commission follow-up to begin the process of removing it (let alone hear an Admiral say it should be repealed)

I suspect you're right. I do think that one way or another there was going to be some modification here. There were already stories coming out of the army about and UNwillingness to pursue cases. Needing warm bodies will do that to an organization.

5. Dan Choi would not have been reinstated

Well, Dan Choi would have never outed himself to begin with. It has to be pointed out Dan Choi did just fine under Bush. It was because he wanted to force Obama that he did much of what he chose to do.

6. We'd still be torturing people

No, torture had stopped years before Obama came into office. They withdrew the Yoo memos as well. Basically, the folks doing the torture, and their bosses, were never convinced that they would be protected from posectution. So they stopped, and they destroyed much of the evidence. Obama came in an reassured them that he would protect them. So next time......

[laughingliberal]

47. There you go, posting inconvenient facts. nt

[grahamhgreen]

39. 6. We STILL ARE torturing people. link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/aug/26/obama-rendition-cia-prisons-us


"Obama's rendition shame

It appeared the US president had stopped the use of CIA prisons, but a closer look reveals the canker at his state's heart remains
..........

Sounds good, but a closer examination reveals that the canker at the heart of the state has not been excised. Obama's people have also indicated that rendition – the forcible transfer of individuals to the custody of third-party states – will continue to be used by the US on terror suspects. Therefore, this new FBI unit could send people to regimes such as Morocco, Egypt and Syria and conduct interrogations on people being detained indefinitely by these old partners in the secret detention game.

If the prisoners are being held by captors who routinely engage in torture, the US agents themselves will have no need to engage in coercive techniques themselves – ipso facto, the torture is simply outsourced. "


Not only that - but he is shielding the torturers from prosecution!!!!!!!!

[berni_mccoy]

46. More cherry-picking bullshit. You left out some important parts of the article:

linked by the Op-Ed garbage you referenced:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?_r=2

...
“The emphasis will be on ensuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees would be sent to countries known to conduct abusive interrogations.

Rendition began to be used regularly under President Bill Clinton and its use expanded rapidly under President Bush after the terrorist attacks in September 2001. American intelligence agencies often appeared to send detainees to other countries to avoid the legal complications of bringing them to the United States.

Some human rights advocates said they thought the Obama administration was maintaining the rendition program out of fear that its elimination would force the government to accept additional detainees on American soil and threaten Mr. Obama’s pledge to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by January.
...
Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch said the new interrogation policy represented a significant step toward more humane treatment, though he expressed dismay that administration officials failed to impose stricter limits on rendition.

But he praised the Obama administration’s overall approach to difficult counterterrorism issues, saying the government had adopted “some of the most transparent rules against abuse of any democratic country.”

[grahamhgreen]

116. You left out his failure to prosecute for torturing innocent people.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arcadian]

49. 50,000 troops left in place is a reduction in troops?

You are delusional.

[berni_mccoy]

50. Down from a peak of 198,000? Yes, absolutely.

Sounds like you are the one who is delusional.

[arcadian]

62. Naa, BM, you are.

50,000 troops is still a an enormous occupation. Illegal occupation I should add.

[berni_mccoy]

90. You don't really know your history do you? We still have 50,000 troops in Germany

But after WWII, we had over 150,000 troops in the Allied Occupied Germany, part of a total occupying force of over 500,000 allied troops.
In Japan we had 350,000 troops occupying the country
We still have 37,000 troops in South Korea.

50,000 in Iraq is enormous? Without any context. With context, not so much. Again, you are delusional.

[arcadian]

98. You aren't helping your argument by pointing out America's other imperialistic endeavors.

Good point, though, why are we in Germany and Japan? Answer: an empire never relinquishes ground taken.

[berni_mccoy]

99. You aren't helping your argument that Obama = Bush by saying America's occupations

are the result of it being an empire. You're also not really helping your credibility in general as a sane and reasonable person.

[arcadian]

101. Do you know how many foreign countries have US military bases?

Do you? Why? America is an empire. Most historians are completely on my side, most rational people as wel, the only people I know who deny that America is an empire are those on the right.

[berni_mccoy]

105. Your original point is conceded. Thanks.

[arcadian]

108. Are these little games that you are playing in your head?

[berni_mccoy]

106. Your original point is conceded. Thanks.

[arcadian]

109. Are these little games that you are playing in your head?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

100. Do you know what "reduction" means?

:eyes:

[arcadian]

110. "reduction" to 50,000?

please. :eyes:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

111. 198,000 to 50,000 is a reduction.

I know you can't stand Obama, but that's no excuse to fail basic English.

[arcadian]

112. Don't presume to know me.

Obama promised to bring the troops home from Iraq. How is leaving 50,000 trrops in Iraq, "bringing the troops home"? But some on this board are willing to work with lies and deceptions to bolster their touchy-feely world view and or to tow the Democratic party line. It's no different than freepers during the Bush years, "the President can do no wrong".

[Starbucks Anarchist]

115. He said the 50,000 would be withdrawn by late 2011 with the others withdrawn by August 2010.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/27/obama.troops/index.html

So either you don't keep up with the news or you're just being disingenuous.

Obama made a date-driven promise and you're apparently criticizing him for being too specific instead of snapping his fingers and doing what you imagined he said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. Go ahead. What's stopping you?

[upi402]

54. when he acts like a Democrat, sure. n/t

[Feron]

118. Bingo!! nt

[amborin]

55. We're STILL at WAR in Iraq:

U.S. and Iraqi artillerymen fire American 105 mm howitzers during live-fire training on Al Asad Air Base, Iraq, Feb. 21, 2010. Photo via the US Army taken by Spc. Michael J. MacLeod.

[berni_mccoy]

57. Um, who are we at war with? And nice photo of a TRAINING exercise btw.

We're training the Iraqi military to deal with insurgents so we can *leave*, which, btw is going to happen under Obama's watch.

[amborin]

59. TheNation: Obama talking GOP talking points:

"If you want to know where conservatives in Congress get all their ridiculous talking points about how dysfunctional the federal government is, how incapable the public sector is when it comes to doing anything right and, above all, how worthless federal employees are, we've tracked down the source.

It's not Rush Limbaugh.

It's not Michael Steele.

It's Barack Obama.

The president, who was once an ardent advocate for repairing are broken health care system by developing a single-payer "Medicare for All" program, now rejects the wisdom he expressed before moving to Washington.

As recently as 2003, Obama told an AFL-CIO gathering in Illinois: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that's what (another speaker) is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out -- single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan."

Yet, after excluding single-payer advocates from his health care summit, the president explicitly rejected the option when he delivered a March 3 speech pressing for final action to enact some sort of health care reform.

Just as his speech dismissed "Party of No" Republicans who want to "loosen regulations on the insurance companies," Obama took a swipe at the real reformers with whom he once stood in solidarity.

"On one end of the spectrum, there are some who have suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with government-run health care," the president declared. "Though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic."

The president is wrong about what is practical or realistic.

Those "other countries" he mentions are industrialized democracies that budget analysts and physicians have long argued that, by expanding access to care while cutting costs, a "Medicare for All" plan would improve the competitive position of U.S. industries in global markets.

But the president is even more wrong to dismiss a single-payer response as unworkable because of some supposed flaw in the DNA of the public employees who would implement real reform.

"I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America," declared Obama.

So the president is equating career civil servants – like the folks who organize the military's health care, services for veterans, the existing Medicare and Medicaid programs, the Indian Health ....."

[muffin1]

60. +1,000,000

:thumbsup:

[berni_mccoy]

61. Thanks for the op-ed garbage that has no basis in reality.

But keep trying.

[bigtree]

64. the op-ed thing looks like a new talking point for you

. . . sort of absurd to dismiss 'op-eds' as if credible folks can't make informed judgments in writing them.

I often wonder, as I read your own screeds against those you disagree with on this board, how you expect your own (opinionated) views to be regarded; considering your open contempt for the opinions of so many others who post here.

[amborin]

66. +10000

[berni_mccoy]

73. No, just op-eds that make outlandish claims and cherry-pick data to make their case

For example, that claims Obama is writing the GOP talking points, and takes one phrase out of context from what he said. When given the entire paragraph that he spoke:

On one end of the spectrum, there are some who've suggested scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government-run health care system. And though many other countries have such a system, in America it would be neither practical nor realistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most Republicans in Congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry -- whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. The argument is, is that that will somehow lower costs. I disagree with that approach. I'm concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and deny care.

So I don't believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it's time to give the American people more control over their health care and their health insurance. I don't believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors and nurses and physician assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what's best for their patients.

It's fine to disagree if a Single-payer for all would be practical. I definitely think it's not realistic because of the politics. However, it's a far cry from writing the GOPs talking points.

The op-ed referenced only focused on one phrase. And that's something the right-wing normally does.

[tekisui]

114. If you can't find it on whitehouse.gov, it didn't happen!

[QC]

133. Even that site is suspect.

Better stick to old campaign press releases.

[donco6]

94. It has quotes, times, dates, places.

It can't be "garbage." Maybe spend a minute refuting it, rather than dismissing it out of hand.

[berni_mccoy]

95. See my response #76.

[amborin]

68. huge $$$$ billion dollar embassy and bases in Iraq!

[redqueen]

56. Wow... unrec'd to zero.

I guess a lot of people here really do think he's just like Bush... or even worse.

Just... wow.

[berni_mccoy]

58. It's sad what a few people were able to do to this place.

[muffin1]

67. I guess I'm one of the *few* you mention.

It's not my fault. I missed the memo saying we should all pretend we're happy about escalated war, rendition, helping the insurance companies, rolling over for republican principles, and denying equal rights to all citizens.

Link?

[arcadian]

65. Yeah, what's worse?

Somebody who you know is a liar and thief on the surface who proceeds to rob you or somebody who is a liar and thief and pretends to be your friend and then proceeds to rob you?

[redqueen]

69. I used to hear that 'logic' all the time...

from my ex... a former Republican. Thankfully, he came around.

[arcadian]

71. Come on redqueen aren't we a little passed "you're a freeper"

That is so tired. So you are sick of hearing that "logic" yet you adhere to bern's wild speculation and irrationality? "We'd most likely have attacked...", "We'd most likely be...", "We sure as hell wouldn't..."

Seriously, when the bar you are using is the Bush Administration, you have already lost you're argument.

[redqueen]

72. I didn't say "you're a freeper" did I?

I said that's where I heard that "logic" used before, and it's true.

It's idiotic, IMO, to say that because we expect better from a Dem, that it makes a Dem actually worse than a republican when they disappoint us... but YMMV obviously.


And as far as using the bush admin as a bar goes... IMO it doesn't even matter. In this two-party system we get two options. We can moan endlessly about it or we can deal with it. Our choice.

[arcadian]

75. It's actually a one party corporate system

With two wings which keeps ratcheting themselves further to the right. That's where the Bush=Obama meme come from. And it's fact.

[redqueen]

76. Yes, so why bother voting at all right?

Let's just all stay home, or vote green, and that way we can put the GOP in charge again, and things will get better.

[DevonRex]

77. That's how third parties try to get support, by claiming Dems and Reps are the same

party so vote Green or Socialist or whatever their particular flavor is.

[arcadian]

80. Isn't more democracy good?

Third party = more democracy. Wow, seeing somebody so anti-democratic is really abhorrent.

[DevonRex]

83. If we had a parliamentary system I'd be all for third, fourth, fifth parties even.

The reality is that we don't. Facing reality and living in the real world is not anti-democratic. It's simply the result of having a logical mind.

[inna]

127. +1

[redqueen]

82. It drives me bananas.

How is that Eeyore crap supposed to help? Is it supposed to motivate people to try to improve things? It seems to me only to make people think there's no point in bothering with politics at all. I've heard that crap from sooooooo many apathetic hipsters it's not even funny. They consider anyone who cares about politics at all to be a sucker, cause they're all the same, maaaaan :eyes:

[DevonRex]

85. And that's what makes me suspicious of their intent.

They say to vote down Democratic proposals because they aren't perfect; therefore, there IS no progress at all. They tell people to vote third party or not to vote at all; therefore, Republicans win.

So where's the progress that they CLAIM they want to happen?

[redqueen]

87. If it actually got us any closer to a parliamentary system that'd be one thing.

I'd be very much in favor of that.

[DevonRex]

92. As would I for the most part.

However, we can't assume that there would always be a Democratic Party/Green Party or Democratic Party/Socialist party coalition.

We could wind up with a Republican/Teabagger or a Republican/Libertarian coalition, too. And those would be disastrous.

[arcadian]

84. Ohhhh the GOP boogie man!

Run away!!! Run away! Hate ta tell ya. They are gonna get back in power again, more likely sooner rather than later, it's the nature of the two party illusion. But go ahead and think in a nation of 300+ million that your widdle vote and by extension your widdle voice counts for something. :rofl:

[redqueen]

88. Good to know your opinion of voting.

Nice wording, there, too. Thanks for doing your part to improve the quality of discussion around here.

:thumbsup:

[arcadian]

93. Right back atchya

You could start by getting that chip off your shoulder. Yup I didn't vote for Obama. the system is entirely corrupt, I won't participate in the circus spectacle. I participate in politics on my own terms.

[inna]

136. One way to see it is a single Corporate Capitalist party with two wings -

one (D) is horrible, another (R) is catastrophic.

[Doctor_J]

63. If you will cut the crap that Obama is a liberal

and we are still torturing people.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hekate]

78. 82 posts and I'm the "first Rec." Berni--why take away the joy of being an *hole for so many DUers?

Goodness gracious me, but a lot of our DUers do enjoy their "valid rhetorical" flourishes. The fact that tearing down a Dem pres just because it amuses them to do so divides us, spreads Repub talking points and outright lies, confuses the masses, and accomplishes nothing that they *claim* to want to accomplish -- why none of that matters so long as they get to amuse themselves by the way they express hatred for the best president we've had in over 20 years.

:sarcasm:

Hekate

[upi402]

96. i wish it were just pettiness

if truth is also known as "valid rhetorical" flourishes... then yeah.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/ <-- have you seen this, then look at Obama's cabinet picks and posts. and what has happened.
it's VERY important, please please please get up to speed. it's more than just pettiness. far more. i wish it were just pettiness but we're almost toast here and he continues BushCo's gutting of the middle class and enabling/rewarding the crooks who did this.

[AllentownJake]

79. That is silly

Barack Obama is a skinny guy from Illinois and George W. Bush is an average looking man from CT/TX

Oh you mean policy wise....yeah...they aren't the same but they seem to be remarkably similar.

[leftstreet]

86. Oh, duh! Now I see how the new Rec/UnRec changes work

uh...thanks

[Dappleganger]

97. In agreement with the OP.

[azmouse]

102. How soon they forget how horrible the 8 years of boosh were.

I almost feel sorry for them.

[earth mom]

103. Obviously-You can't handle the truth. nt

[omega minimo]

104. Okay, Hitler

:evilgrin:

[tekisui]

113. He isn't bush, thankfully. He is his own man and has taken some bad positions.

Whether or not gitmo closes, Obama has held that he has the right to indefinite or preemptive detention, with no guarantee of habeas to the the detainee.

Obama has expanded the war into Pakistan with reckless drone attacks that kill high proportions of innocent civilians.

Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, with troops and contractors. Record numbers of contractors are making record profits on his order.

Obama has supported the power grabs and rigged elections of Karzai.

Obama has refused to pursue those who ordered and carried out torture.

Obama has extended the Patriot Act, as well as make some parts permanent.

He isn't bush. But, he doesn't have to be as bad a bush to be very wrong on foreign policy. I agree that it is stupid to equate him with bush, because we get distracted on these types of stupid arguments. I would much prefer for critical looks be taken on Obama's policies as they are his. We don't need to compare his actions with bush. But, judge them on their own.

[EFerrari]

117. Are we reducing troops in Iraq or just renaming them?

Hillary is looking for new sanctions against Iran.

You're guess about Afghanistan is wrong. Too much $$$ to be made.

DADT is still the law although the Pentagon is doing yet another study.

We still are abusing prisoners at black sites.

Maybe you should take this up with Obama and not with his observers.

[MadHound]

119. Sure, as soon as he stops acting like Bush n/t

[Number23]

120. Rec'd. Thanks for this. I don't believe that people honestly feel that way

It's their way of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. They don't feel they have any other way to draw attention to themselves and they are obviously desperate to do so.

[LWolf]

121. As long as we can acknowledge that he is a reincarnation of Ronald Reagan,

whose presidency he so admires.

[Vidar]

122. No, he's not Bush, but he's sure trying to be.

[HughMoran]

123. You got at least 69 unrecs to this post

:rofl: So many DUers are infantile - how can you not laugh? :rofl:

[inna]

126. At least 75. Interesting.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

134. Considering over 2000 people have read this thread, there could be well over 1000 unrecs.

[bigtree]

129. It always amazes me when folks who express contempt for the majority of DUers

. . . insist on posting here everyday.

So, folks who register their disagreements here with views you share are 'infantile'? Please explain to me why you believe your views should be received here with any more consideration than you are willing to offer?

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bobbie Jo]

139. Right. More vocal and vigilant? Obviously.

Majority? Not by a long shot.

[Geek_Girl]

124. He's not as bad as bush

He's still fairly new at this maybe he'll get better. I don't think that Tarp was the terrible disaster that I initially thought it would be. Banks are begging to pay off their tarp loans. The economy is showing signs of stabilization and we haven't invaded another country in awhile so that's a good thing.

Maybe somehow he'll be able to reign in the neo-cons/neo-dems and cut military spending and balance the budget and we can get back to pre-2001 clinton years.

I don't expect any great progressive policies like fdr but if he can roll us back to preBush disaster. He would have accomplished allot.

[Jack Sprat]

125. Obama is bush junior

and just like bush, Cheney runs him. Whenever Cheney reprimands him on Sundays, Obama soon complies with Cheney directives. He doesn't have the nerve to stand up to Emanuel, muchless Cheney. Obama has come around to neocon adaptation. He has succumbed to their desires with Emanuel's influence. We will continue to allow Bin Laden to defeat us economically. He wanted a war and the neocons gave him the war he wanted. Nothing changed on election day 2008. The neocons just shifted their weight to the winning side.

[3324SS]

130. Obama is not as Bad as Bush

But not much better either.

I only voted for Obama because the other choice was McCain.

If a REAL Progressive Runs against Obama in 12, they will get my full support.

But as of now, Obama is not longer of any use to me.

[Lothrop]

131. It doesn't matter- Put the comparison aside

Of course they are not the same. But what does that matter if the policy outcomes are of little difference.

Obama's eloquence just makes the empire more eerie than before. The backdrop to the drone is eloquence now, which has replaced the cowboy boot and twang. Yet, the lives erased by the drone are just as forever lost. Over the din of applause over Obama's sophisticated nuances, the dead cry out just as much as they would had Cheney ordered the strike. Obama just serves as a disconnect, a symbol of our national schizophrenia.

Bottom line: we're on a runaway train

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

140. Cliches that got old a week after Obama took office:

"Same as the old boss"
"Where's the hope and change?"

Jesus, at least think if an original way to diminish what Obama is doing! I'm all for criticizing Obama when he doesn't do enough, but I get so fucking tired of the dishonest attempts to pretend the progress being made is no different than what happened under Bush. People would have a lot more credibility if they recognized the good things being done when they attack Obama for not doing more. Ted Rall and his "Hitler III" bullshit comes to mind.