Hmmm? I wonder why people chose to leave off this part of Michael's interview

Moore have to say about this bit of manipulation?

A: that post doesn't advance anything close to a "Foxified agenda opposing Obama"
and
2: a post on a message board is hardly the "mass media"

The MSM had been trying to trash Nader, and Moore. They were never able to hang anything on them, and for the most part, at least until 1986, we had a "relatively" fair media, with the Fairness Doctrine in place. I think one reason Moore took root, is the fact all media completely abandoned any liberal thought, and became this group of one, pushing right-wing thought.

In 2000, with Nader running, and the media in a fix, needing someone to blame the fiasco in Florida with, Moore and Nader were front and center. They finally had their left-wing blame-game point. Gore won of course, were we to tally up all the votes cast, all the votes that would have been cast had they not been purged from the rolls well before they ever showed up to vote. Remember they had cops all over the place knowing people would show up in their polling places, and be turned down, not be on the "list" anymore.

So the MSM did it they threw Moore and Nader to the wolves, and blamed them, instead of Jeb Bush and Kathy Harris. Remember, until 9/11 people were so suspicious of Bush that his approval ratings were 29%.

But it worked. Nader and Moore were the new pariahs, demonized forever with liberals.

What it shows me is that for a large segment of Democrats, they can be duped up just like Republicans, by the fake television left. We are subjects of a narrow band of propaganda well toward the right side of the ideological spectrum. As far as economics,there really is no liberal media.

My guess is, most of you agree issue by issue, with all the things Moore believes, yet you demonize him.

As far as I know, I've never expressed an opinion about him.

He and another former supporter, Bill Maher, joined in getting on their knees on Maher's show to beg Nader not to run in 2004. "Bill Maher: Back for More"

They weren't alone. The vast majority of Nader's voters from 2000 chose not to repeat that mistake in 2004. For people in the public eye, though, admitting error is harder than it is for us hoi polloi.

They all focus on the negative.

so we can do this to each other

MM said something bad about Obama so now MM is under the bus!

which is really very frightening and the reason our forefathers set us up as a republic instead of democracy. They were afraid of the same thing.

Memes make it all better.

Something bad like still hiding it was Bush that withdrew troops from Iraq because there was no immunity for troops and no President would ever have combat troops without immunity?

Something bad like screaming about a faulty website rollout, then falling silent as the law became a success?

I could go on and on and on, but that is obvious.

Sorry to burn your straw man so quickly.

The OP mentions nothing about the MSM, actually, just "people".

Some DU types can do that.

Meanwhile bush gets away with murder and some DU types are aghast that anyone complains.

MM is a journalist who writes about what's happening and who's doing it. According to you, if someone writes or says anything bad about Obama they are bad and under the bus with them is good by you?

No, that's not how journalism works in a country with free speech, or on DU where there is no one perfect. Now, some DU types do seem think that they, by gawd, they are perfect and so they become the perfect under the bus throwers?

President Bush and Iraq Prime Minister Maliki Sign the Strategic Framework Agreement and Security Agreement
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081214-2.html

We're also signing a Security Agreement, sometimes called a Status of Forces Agreement. The agreement provides American troops and Defense Department officials with authorizations and protections to continue supporting Iraq's democracy once the U.N. mandate expires at the end of this year. This agreement respects the sovereignty and the authority of Iraq's democracy. The agreement lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq -- a withdrawal that is possible because of the success of the surge.
...

Immunity for troops was Iraq deal breaker
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/immunity-for-troops-was-iraq-deal-breaker/

President Obama pulled the plug Friday on negotiations that would have kept American troops in Iraq past the end of this year. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin reports the president's demand for immunity for U.S. troops stationed there was the deal breaker.

...

Update 10/25/11: Iraq refuses to extend U.S. military diplomatic immunity after WikiLeaks exposed crimes
http://www.chelseamanning.org/press/update-102511-iraq-refuses-to-extend-u-s-military-diplomatic-immunity-after-war-crimes-exposed-through-wikileaks-cable

What did Wikileaks reveal? A reported American airstrike that murdered civilians and children, was not in fact an airstrike, but rather the actions of on the ground troops. Because of this Wikileaks revelation, the Iraq government has refused to renew American soldier’s diplomatic immunity, and as a result the U.S. will “withdraw almost all its troops from Iraq by the end of the year”.

anything significant

I get the frustration. It's getting harder and harder to make Obama look as good as he once did.

I'd personally like to see him be more like Jimmy Carter.

gathering the torches and pitchforks.

Sometimes I think it's just an excuse to say 'fuck'.

Unforgivable!

DU told me so.

Was that a more acceptable comment towards us than what Moore said about Obama? And Obama had appointed him his chief of staff! Why don't the same people that get upset about the so-called "racist name calling" of Obama by Moore get MORE upset (pardon the pun!) towards current Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel for his comments then, and subsequent screwing of Chicago teacher's unions and public schools there too?

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/

Selective personality destruction in my book!

but reacting to this part:




So again I will say it. Fuck Michael Moore.

I liked his movies. I think he's right on some things.....but that shit?

And people are running around claiming that Obamacare is an accomplishment. If Obamacare is still the standard for accessing healthcare 100 years from now, then the U.S. will still suck.

why you're ignoring that. I took them in their entirety and I commented on that one part.

Guess then if Moore had said of Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren (Hypothetical presidents) she'll only be remember as the first president that had to wear a bra. Or had boobs...guess that'd be cool too? Entirety and all....

many good things.

Hold the criticism close to your heart and never ever ever let it go.

I think a any similar criticism of Clinton or Warren, a simple 'woman' would suffice. I'm at a loss as to why you felt compelled to sexualize them.

"Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren (would only) be remembered as the first president that had to wear a bra."

Hey! This is easy!

Is pointing out that it's especially significant accomplishment for a person of color to get elected POTUS in the context of a very racist (and misogynist) culture?

from my point of view, I'd say it was a highly significant accomplishment.

the subject of the debate on Moore's comments.

based on political ideology, philosophy and so forth.. it is not at all evidence of racism.

It could be accurately stated that you and Moore vastly disagree on the merits (or lacking in merit) of Obama's polices that he's advanced either from the bully pulpit or from executive orders etc.

It could also be said that Moore's comment was not exactly well thought out to say the least, regardless of the merit of the issues of concern.

For example, I'm a woman and have longed for decades to see a Woman elected as Potus.. but I will never ever vote for HRC because of her policies that are now well known to be deeply rooted in Neo-Con policy and ideology. And for those reasons, I especially don't want her to be known as the first Woman to take that office.

If that happens, I will be one of those to say, she will be known and remembered as the first Woman to take that office, but that will be the end of the list of what I would choose to cite as "accomplishments" .. other than to cite predictably negative achievements from a Leftist point of view.

Your issue to me seems to be anti-Leftist point of view, those of us who are opposed to Neo-Con policies, Foreign and Domestic. Painting your differences with Moore's political pov as Racism, is an inaccurate analysis, imo.

Had Moore limited his comments to policy differences and criticism of such I would not have taken offense at his comments although I might not agree with him. He chose, instead, to insert race into his commentary and did so in an offensive and, to me, a racist manner.

You are entitled to define who you think is left or not based on your subjective beliefs, you speak for yourself only as do I. I find the all or nothing attitude of those who see themselves as 'progressives' to be anything but progressive. Progress is incremental, progressive means progressing in increments.

I'm not sure where the "all or nothing" comes into play here.. setting that piece of confusion aside for a moment, I think there is a general misconception of the point I tried to articulate, and gave example. I doubt seriously you would consider me or any other woman as a misogynist if I make the same analogy to Hillary Clinton should she take that same office.

I think Moore made the mistake of assuming that just because Obama is Black, therefore he would make/push/support the kinds of socio-economic policy changes which would have greatly improved the socio-economic conditions for the African American community writ large.

Just like too many women assume that because Hillary Clinton is a Woman that she would likewise do the same for Women.

It isn't anymore racist for Moore to have made that assumption than it is misogynistic for women to make similar assumptions regarding Hillary Clinton based on gender. Just grossly naive.

In either case, naivete does not require misogyny or racism, nor is it necessarily indicative of either.

not gender, they ARE different issues. I agree most vociferously we greatly disagree. I found Moore's fixation on President Obama's race and his comments were racist in content, you do not see that, so be it.

If by acknowledging the monumental accomplishment of getting elected as POTUS in the context of our long standing racists socio-political system is itself a racists act, following that logic, choosing him over all the other Dems in the primaries in preference to Obama was a racist act, in that many of us voted for him because we wanted to see an African American in that office at long last.

It might have been naive. It might have been unfair to lay the burden of "hope for change" on his shoulders, but that was why we voted for him regardless of how naive and politically stupid that might have been.

The same logic applies wrt to HRC. I'm not fixated on getting her elected in 2016. But I am dismayed that so many Dems are, and particularly Women who are the making the same type of blind assumptions that we made wrt to Obama. I'm sorry the analogy is lost on you .

"render the term Racism effectively meaningless". Hyperbole often negates any point one might be trying to make. To get back to Moore's comments, had he stated the accomplishment achieved by President Obama being elected as the first black President and not stated it would be his ONLY accomplishment, you and I would not be having this debate. It was not I who inferred voters voted for President Obama because he is black, it was Moore hence the belief his comments were racist in context, imo.

It is clear we see things differently and will not change each others perspective so there is little reason to continue on talking past each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Segretti&printable=yes

They have more money for these operations and more influence on the left and right than they did back then. Democrats fall for it every time.They're doing the same thing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110215862

At a time when we ALL need to be united and shoulder-to-shoulder against the common enemy on the so-called "right", no less. It's so disconcerting when it appears some of us seem to be confused as to who the real adversary is.

And let's all stop and imagine where we'd be under a "president" romney and vice president ryan. Would you be happy THEN???????? How 'bout THOSE Supreme Court nominees then, 'eh?

I'm not waiting around for "Mr. or Ms. Right" for the White House. If you hold out for perfect and don't take a chance on the merely good, you'll be waiting FOREVER. There IS NO "PERFECT," folks! Get used to it.

It reminds me of this movie called "The Competition" - starring Richard Dreyfuss, Amy Irving, and Lee Remick. I think it's a 1980 release. Dreyfuss and Irving played young piano prodigies involved in a major international concert-pianists' competition. Lee Remick was Irving's piano teacher and mentor. There's the inevitable romance and the inevitable complications, and (SPOILER ALERT) Amy Irving wins, throwing her love affair with Dreyfuss into disarray, and there's a scene showing her moping about it all, in a side room outside of a big party and reception for the winner (her) and the first runner-up (him). Lee Remick approaches her to try to help her snap out of it and go join the party. At one point she tells her unhappy young protege (paraphrasing here): "It's going to take Nature another 100 years to evolve the kind of man YOU have in mind. Until then, GET OUT THERE AND DANCE WITH WHAT THERE IS!"

Brothers and Sisters, There IS NO PERFECT. I guarantee you, even Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren would eventually fall short with some of these folks. GUARANTEED. It's just always SO much more important to be all about the fault-finding and the criticizing and the nit-picking! For Pete's Sake, we already have an entire political enemy-party and powerful oppositional infrastructure in place to do that. Why are some of us so eager to help shore up the enemy and further THEIR agenda (of weakening and destroying our side) instead of shoring up and furthering OUR OWN???

He should know that words matter. If he didn't know what he was going to say in public, he should never have said a thing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

I get that.

But what does he expect Obama to be able to do, with this Republican House and ability to tie up the Senate?

I guess Obama could get money for Detroit. What do they need? $100 million? $300 million?

All he has to do then, if offer to cut $2 billion from Food Stamps and Obama might be able to get that $300 million for Detroit. That would be a 'compromise' Republicans might vote for.

Or, I suppose if he offered $2 billion a year in permanent tax cuts for rich people, like say cutting the tax rate for dividends down to just 10% instead of 15%. Another great 'compromise' - permanent tax cuts for rich people, combined with money for Detroit.

San Francisco Bay Area. I do think he gets nervous doing interviews but communicating and joking around with an audience, he's great. Even during the Q&A session.

....happened.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/07/25-facts-about-fall-of-detroit-that.html


Carry on.

make the point Obama would be known ONLY as the first BLACK President, a point that is, imo, racist in it'ss context. For that, he should be excoriated, imo.

What will bush be remembered for?

Really, what will Obama be remembered for?

Anything? MM is saying Obama has two years to really make a mark and he's hoping Obama makes a real progressive mark and leaves a great legacy, like any good Liberal hopes for.

So what will Obama be remembered for, in your book?

President Obama has accomplished an astonishing amount given the absolute hatred exhibited by the repubs in both the Senate and the House, imo. Did he wave a magic wand and cure all the ills, no, will he do that in the next two years, no. It is not an all or nothing world much as some might wish it to be so.

How about world peace?

Getting rid of nukes?

Making the world go solar?

Ending global warming?

Ending environmental destruction?

Are those unworthy goals? Those are things I remember Jimmy Carter trying to do.

Obama is not half the president as Jimmy was. Not yet.

I could have named many more but it would have been a wasted effort on my part as you would still have responded as you have. As to your list, well, there is an old saying, 'if wishes were horses then beggars would ride'. There is the ideal and then there is reality. One always works for the ideal but knows one works toward that incrementally, it is NOT done in one fell swoop. All or nothing results in nothing, always.

You expect one person to accomplish those? That will take a massive global effort. World peace?

... instead of giving in up front and not negotiating for public option or single payer in the health care bill, and he himself pushing the TPP behind closed doors as if that is the "change" we have wanted (NOT! which is probably why he wants fast track authority and not have even congress people be able to talk about what's in the bill that corporate leaders have helped put together).

Even though we've gone the free trade route, Ross Perot IS known for trying to fight against it, even if he was a corporate head himself and even if he did lose an election as a third party candidate, where he in fact might have even helped get Clinton elected.

I don't expect Obama to force and succeed in getting congress to do the right things with this congress we have now, but I DO expect him to try and also put them on the spot so we can replace the corporate bunch with a new generation of pols working more for the people. Then, even if he isn't able to have a success like FDR had with changing the system, he can be known as the person that helped get the ball rolling in that direction. THAT is what I want and expect from him. And I think that is what Michael Moore, Cornell West and many others who have been disappointed have been expecting. America took the risk of breaking past traditions (racist or not), to vote in a black president. They really had hopes that this would help make a difference in what we got in terms of actions that this president would take to change things for the better.

If Obama (or even subsequently Hillary Clinton if she gets elected) both still follow the same corporatist rules that keep moving our country away from democracy to corporate fascist oligarchy, whether or not they are at the core of driving that effort or not, it will be that much harder to elect another person of color or different gender in the future, if people think that it doesn't really make a difference... If they set a good prototype, it will encourage us voting for minorities and women in the future, which many of us WANT, even if those of us who criticize Obama are being dismissed as being "racist" in an oversimplified way.

NO POTUS has the power to go against the powerful forces driving the machinery destroying our world. Key word in your J.Carter example, trying. Never happened. Fantasy. Those things you mentioned. Fantasy. Good fantasy, but fantasy nonetheless.

He brought peace to Israel, for a while.

He put himself on the line for alternative energies. And got chopped down.

He brought human rights to the forefront of world politics. And Russia had a revolution from that.

I think Obama, like most of us activists, see comments like yours *all fantasies* and say, well, fuck, if even the most minor of democrats call our goals *fantasies* then what's the use?

They sure haven't bought into making progress, instead they say it is not possible.

Can't blame Obama for covering himself. What's the use? All great ideas, according the masses, are just fantasies.

And here we are.

Killing an old man who was operationally kaput? Who offered up no resistance? Yay! Assassination! Obamacare? Hello candidate Obama. Where is our public option?

Lily Ledbedder Act but is criticized for not pushing for other legislation. Either his pushing, believing, working for legislation is effective and worth credit or it is not. You can't have it both ways.

managed by the federal government, would people have celebrated it as an accomplishment?

If Ted Kennedy had lived, then CT. Independent Joe Lieberman's position against the public option wouldn't have mattered. But because Kennedy died, Lieberman's vote was the deciding vote against the public option. He refused to vote yes on any ACA that included one, and we couldn't overcome the Repub filibuster without his help.

Everyone here recognizes the obstacles in his way. But that won't transform into something he will be remember for. Will he be remembered for "really trying hard but had major political obstacles"?
Will he be remembered for getting bin Laden? I'd be ok with that, but I really doubt it. Will he be remember for Lily Ledbedder or the other things you include in "to name just a very few things." I doubt it. Will he be remembered for Obamacare? Since it's just a step to single payer, then it's apt to be forgotten when we get single payer.

He will definitely be remember as being the first black president.

So what specifically do you think he will be remembered for?

time in the past, he will be remembered for the Bin Laden removal, he will be remembered for the ACA as it IS a key move toward universal/single payer healthcare. He will also be remembered for being the first black President.

You may doubt, doubt doesn't equate to not possible or even unlikely. You may not remember him for the accomplishments he has achieved, others will.

dragged him kicking and screaming out of his "God is in the mix" mindset. I credit Michelle Obama and his kids for shifting his thinking, because before that, he was still fighting against gay people.

of this issue. To quote John Dunne, " No man is an island, entire of itself", his family, Michelle and his children, are integral, imo, to who he is and what he becomes. To give him no credit is, imo, unfair.

and also for presiding over the trashing of the economy that led to the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Obama will be remembered for saving the country from financial disaster and getting a universal health insurance bill passed.

and campaigned against many of Bush's excesses.

Instead Obama chose to go small. There is no signature moment of his admin. A public option re health insurance would have been a signature moment. Repealing don't ask don't tell with a stroke of a pen, would have been a signature moment (like Truman did when he banned discrimination on the basis of color in the armed forces).

Kennedy is remembered for what he coulda mighta been but he's not remembered for actual accomplishments. That he was a coulda mighta kind of person actually led MLK to consider rescinding his policy of not endorsing candidates and endorsing Nixon because Nixon actually reached out to him to discuss specific civil rights goals.

Kennedy today is still described as the first Catholic President. Back then, it was a big fucking deal because idiots were sure he would take direction from the Vatican.

His legacy is very thin. First Catholic President. Failed Bay of Pigs. Assassinated.

views during the campaign in 2008, imo. He was clearly moderately left not far left. Add to that the complete obstruction by the repubs in both the House and the Senate for positions the far left would applaud and you have the results you have. His legacy will be rich not thin, imo.

supported by 60-70% of the population.

Getting approval from congress before bomb the crap out of people? Another campaign issue that garnered support and, as President, he apparently feels is a quaint Constitutional requirement as did George.

the issue was Michael Moore and his interview. Let's stick to that shall we. Moore stated President Obama will be known in history ONLY as the first black President and nothing else. I and other take issue with that.

I've been seeking an answer to question I pose in post #57 :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5526325

I'm interested in your response for clarity.. thanks in advance.

did you expect him to go small? Is that what you expected of Obama?

In many cases his shortcomings have been caused by racism and conservative hatred. In a good many thought, they have been from his timidity and unsureness. He capitulated before battle began and he thought he could make friends with those who hated him long after it should have been apparent that he couldn't play the role of "great consolidator".

Many of us thought he would be a fighter and a staunch supporter of progressive causes rather than a supplicant to corporate support and neo-con ideologies like his banking and education policies. Many of us thought he would repudiate the bush lies and cheney murders. If you voted for him thinking he would try to privatize education, protect wall street crooks, and deflect all blame for the financial and world relations messes from bushco, then you are much more conservative in your politics and/or your faith in Obama's abilities than I.

center left candidate. To put on him the idealist wishes of the far left and then criticize him for not accomplishing your wishes is your problem, imo, not his.

Is that the best you think the man can do? Do you have no other aspirations for him than to be a continuer of middle of the road, right of liberal polices borrowed from a right-of-Clinton, left-of-bush playbook?

That is what you wanted in a president when you elected Obama? Then how do you disagree with Moore other than MM said he still hoped that Obama might create a real legacy for himself. You seem to think he has nothing but mediocre skills and goals.

Over 200 hours of volunteer work. Precinct candidate. Lots of hours in living rooms promising people that this guy was our chance. Problem was that most of those I convinced were teachers. Turns out I was lying. This guy not only stuck with bush's horrible education policy, he doubled down on it. His choice to lead the Ed dept. was a basketball buddy that is currently doing his best to privatize all public schools by testing kids to death and by driving any decent teacher from the classroom. Either Obama has no fucking idea what his buddy is doing (which would make him a crap president) or (even worse) he agrees with arne's desire to bring about ronald reagan's dream for American school children.

How about you. Did you campaign for a continuation of the bush war on education, for a continuation of bush secret surveillance, for more wars to protect oil profits, for letting treasonous criminals like cheney go free, for putting in treasury leaders who protected their wall street firms from being hurt by the wreck they caused? You said you heard the secret messages from Obama that he was going to do these things. So. Is that what you hoped for.

twice.

Again, all or nothing attitudes do nothing to facilitate progress, it delays it. I find your perspective to be of the all or nothing perspective.

I am Canadian therefore I could not vote for President Obama, I would have done so in a heartbeat, twice, were I able to vote for him.

You are not here. You do not know what a crock the current administration has made of the Democratic party. Please let me know how you see unions busting, privatization of public schools, perpetual war, civilian surveillance, covering up for treason, and supporting the ultra-rich over the people. It is easy to sit back and play like you are an American, but if you had a candidate running on this record, would you support those actions? Instead of carping, with no knowledge about the issues, on liberals, why don't you tell my if you support a pro-reagan centrist agenda for yourself?

Ygritte had the right of it: "You know nothing, John Snow". Obama was meant to forestall the winter, and he only helped bring it on.

I find it quite disrespectful and dismissive. Were you to comment on something happening outside of the US I would not respond with "You aren't there" You don't know ...", one can know and understand what is happening without being in the center of the action. I would respect your view, I might disagree with it but would not treat it with disrespect and dismiss it as you have done in your post.

that you don't do any of the things you say. You were very dismissive of liberal voters in the US in your post to which I originally replied. You were disrespectful toward those of us trying to steer the ship of the Democratic party away from the rocks of neo-conservativism.

You do not know what is happening because of a center right leaning president. If you do know, then you need to answer my questions about issues and how you feel about them. Your support for whatever Obama does without any conviction to support those actions is dismissive because it is simple idolatry, simple star power worship.

So. Do you support privatizing public schools? Do you support suppressing the treason of dick cheney? Do you support continuing the war in Iraq? (If so do you support Canada sending troops to fight ISIS on the ground?) Do you support bailouts for Wall Street super rich at the cost of jobs and security for the middle class? Do you support unwarranted surveillance of private citizens phone, email, and browsing?

See. These are issues. Now I can get behind the idea that Obama is cuter than hell. But you took issue with me not being blindly supportive of his infatuation with neo-con goals. Tell me your position on the issues and then you and I can "respect" each other's views. Right now, you don't seem to have any. I'm sorry if that seems dismissive, but I simply can't respect what I don't know.

And I find it disrespectful for you to tell Americans how they should vote. i wouldn't tell you how to vote in Canada without any knowledge of the issues.

I do say who I would vote for and, if asked, say why I would do so. You would be hard-pressed to find a post of mine telling someone how to vote.

Despite your condescending tone, I will answer your questions.

Do I support private schools. No. The drive toward the privatization of education is based on having a select few well-educated elite while ensuring the majority of the populace are uninformed, poorly educated and ill-equipped to foment change. It is a wish to go back to the Gilded Age, imo. Public schools educate all, private schools serve only the few.

Do I support the suppressing the treason of Dick Cheney. What suppression? The actions of Cheney and Bush are well known to the public, they are not suppressed, imo. If your point is the lack of action taken against them by the Attorney General of the U.S., Erik Holder for taking the US into the war in Iraq based on lies, I would like to know what express action you believe could be taken within the legal bounds of the law. What Bush, Cheney, Rice et al did was beyond despicable and they are responsible, by their decisions, for the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Without their actions, we wouldn't be debating the latest ISIS question.

As to action/lack of action to be taken against ISIS, I don't know what is the best thing to do. To do nothing is an option but if the goal of ISIS is to provoke the Western powers, especially the US into a ground war, doing nothing won't deter them they will simply change their tactics. To do as the warmongers McCain and Graham demand and have a redo of the Bush/Cheney Iraq war is to ensure failure yet again.
I am beyond frustrated and angry the countries most at risk by ISIS ie Saudi Arabia, etc, refuse to act against ISIS because they count on the West to do their work for them and is why part of me says do nothing, remove all Americans, Canadians, British, etc, including the diplomatic staff and leave it to the Middle East countries to deal with ISIS. To do that is to abandon all of the Middle East to ISIS who will not be satisfied with a 'caliphate' established in Iraq and Syria, they will expand to gain greater and greater territory. At what point would it be, if ever, in the West's interest to intervene if not now, ever? I have only questions and no concrete answer to give you as to what I think should be done. This goes for all the Western countries, including Canada.

I do not support bailouts for Wall Street, I believe criminal charges should have been and still be laid against the CEOs and key administrators of the Wall Street corporations for their illegal acts. Fining them does nothing to deter them from doing what they did again.

I don't support unwarranted surveillance, I do know it has been done for decades, the only thing that has changed is the technology being used to do it now.

Your comment, "See. These are issues. Now I can get behind the idea that Obama is cuter than hell. But you took issue with me not being blindly supportive of his infatuation with neo-con goals" is beyond insulting and if false in every way. I believe when someone reverts to insults it indicates they are unsure of their own arguments and seek to shift the discussion from the issues to personalities because it is their comfort zone.

I have responded to your condescending and insulting post with substantive responses to your questions. If you are going to respond to this post, I ask that you do so with respect and substance and leave out the insults.

do you blindly support the very things you just stated that you not support? If you rail against liberals for chastising Obama for doing these things, then why do you then say that you don't support them. That is the rise to the concept of you being worth dismissal.

You have a very passive-agressive arguing style where you claim that those who disagree with you are being condescending and insulting when they use the same tone and style that you do to argue your point. You were quite off-putting with your suggestion that anyone as smart as you would have known all along that Obama wasn't a liberal. But it became clear why you would say such a thing since you were not in the country during the election. You did not take part in the precinct primaries. You did not read the campaign material put out by the Obama campaign as guides to the volunteers. You did not hear the promises and declarations of union support, of ending wars, of stopping surveillance, of getting main street working ahead of wall street.

I found your avoidance of my questions and the issues to be very insulting. Now you have stated your position on these issues, but you still do not provide information about how you reconcile your support of Obama doing these things in reality while not supporting them in principle.

Your premise that Obama would be remembered for many great things is wrong. The few, half-hearted attempts were late in coming or hampered by a lack of urgency on his part. He was dragged into belatedly supporting LGBT issues. The US population as a whole was way ahead of him on that. He crippled "the affordable care act" by making behind the scenes deals with pharma before negotiations were even begun. (This after loud exhortations during the election about how his administration would be the most transparent in history.) This administration has been a slow, but wide, step to the right. People who live in the US have to deal with the outcomes of that step.

(Just a note. I guess I could have been clearer about the crimes that were being suppressed. I apologize if you didn't know about cheney's treason because you live in another country. He had name of spies published. His treasonous behavior in the Valerie Plame affair caused the deaths of several middle east secret operatives. As soon as he was in office and was pressed on this issue, Obama's position was to "look forward, not into the past". It would have done our country good to have someone like cheney held accountable.)

as such, I have no interest in responding to your insulting diatribes any further.

You cannot stop writing insulting posts while complaining that you are being insulted.

You clearly don't know what is going on in America, but feel like you can weigh in with authority. You remind me of so many who vaulted to the republican party under reagan. They did not agree with anything he did. They supported equal rights, gun control, civil rights, a woman's right to choose. But like you all those principles fell to the side when confronted with what they saw as a "winner", a charismatic actor who read lines.

Now you choose to bow out of the conversation rather than describe how you justify blind faith in the Obama administration while stating so forcefully that you don't agree with fundamental elements of his actions.

So you duck out, unable to justify your attack on liberals in the US, unable to do the right thing which would be to apologize and ask for enlightenment. You watch a few news shows in Canada and suppose you can lecture lifelong liberal Democrats in the US about what is happening in their own country. That is insulting. That is hubris of the first order.

I watch television too. I wouldn't presume to tell a Canadian that I knew more about his country and his country's politics than he did. I would ask for examples. I would ask for links to places where I could learn.

But not you. You insult me and every thinking Democrat and then whine that you have had your feeling hurt. Don't come here with that supercilious attitude backed with very little insight and expect not to be challenged. Ducking our may be your only hope.

... hearing this ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT 'point'. All WE EVER WANTED from Obama was for him to do what he said he was going to do or at least make a credible attempt to do so.

I can dig up the speeches for you, his own words, but I'm busy. Was he 'far left'? No. Was he TALKING LIKE a solid progressive, YES. And he has not remotely lived up to that talk, PERIOD END OF STORY RIGHT THERE IN HIS OWN WORDS for anyone who wants to look them up.

He also started the Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress, the latter of which gained him immense popularity in Latin America.

He also issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination in the sale or lease of housing that was financed by federally guaranteed loans or owned by the federal government.

....but excoriated is a very powerful word. Question. Do you believe that Michael Moore is a racist?

It's a yes, or no question.


Your thoughts?

is he a candidate for membership in Stormfront, no, but he exhibited racist tendencies in this latest interview, imo.

But burned to the stake? Written off? Blasted all day?

He doubles down on a specious attack that Roger Ailes would be proud of, and now those criticizing MM ( some AA) are a mob?

NO ONE made this about race but Michael Moore. AND the criticism itself is absolute bull!

And to Blacks such as my self, it fits what we perceive to be a pattern.

Besides I thought Bill Clinton was the First Black President. What will history remember WJC for??

Michael Moore is pushing Rush Limbaugh's Magic Negro logic and THATS the voice of reason on Democratic Underground?

What was I thinking?!?!

Because of Clinton's inclusiveness? No, Obama was inclusive to some cabinet posts… But, it was pure Wall Street and Bush era industrialists that could not have been more Chicago School of Business Milton Freeman style he though would make us "move forward". In the end, it only moved those mega industries forward… LIKE the GM's and not the general populous.

So, Clinton wins there, but only for being inclusive in a number of ways. WJC was born a white man. It's too bad that he'll be known as a white man who had oral sex from an intern in the WH, because I'm sure he wasn't the first of many white men.

Someone wanting clean air was accused of wanting polluted water. Or someone wanting to save the whales was accused of not caring about the forests.

Herding cats.

Who complain that he said BOs only remembered accomplishment will be the color of his skin?

Of course, Moore is the real victim of hate!

Cad Bane's 'Hate MM, he's a racist and so is anyone who defends him' thread, and the 28 people who recced it, but it got deleted and he got banned for it.

The issue is not 'people complaining'. The issue is people going into frothing fits of vitriol at MM, and anyone who doesn't simply agree with them that MM actually was saying 'Obama has done nothing worth remembering'. Despite the transcripts that clearly show MM saying, in the exact same interview, that Obama has done plenty of good things. Moore's statement was more a statement on Americans' grasp of history (or lack thereof).

Now I think he's wrong - actually labeling the PPACA 'Obamacare' will likely allow people to remember him for that, no matter how shallow their grasp of American history will be in 100 years.

Of course, Moore is the real victim of hate!

And it will fly over the heads of the supporters of this OP as does everything else.

Wall Street banks will remember him, BP will remember him, Insurance companies will remember him, PhRMA will remember him, and so on.

This is the first current MM thread I've said anything....because it was hard to believe that was the MM I've seen.

Didn't want to just jump on the "I'm so hip and informed, I'm up on all the latest dirt" bandwagon.

It's more like, "I look for dirt, doesn't matter if it's dishonest; it makes me hip."

Or something.

It has been said before, we spend so much time arguing against one another that even a fool, even George Bush, can rush in and take 49% of the vote.

Under the bus he goes, whatever means necessary is the modus operandi with "them".

"his differences" and what a "great achievement" being "first black president" was. I remember thinking to myself such talk seemed shallow, certainly there is more to this man than race. But I don't recall any uproar over it.

This ruckus has less to do with race and more to do with Moore's stated disappointment with Obama.

Always up for exposing racists for what they are, and Michael Moore is a vile racist.

do have even one example of MM being a racist?

He's a scary scary man.

show that a pattern of racism has been established by Michael Moore.

Thanks.

Explain in language comprehensible to all, precisely why Michael Moore is a racist. Not the bullshit seen in these pages a week ago. Every last one of those worthless fucks were lying. Not a single one of the motherfuckers could even begin to outline their reasons for accusing Moore of racism.

So let's hear what you have to say, big man. And yes, this is a challenge, because I'm dead confident that you're wrong. Bring what you've got or shut the fuck up.

the bus if they don't goose step in perfect rows to the march of partisan purity.

Nixon, Reagan, Reagan, Bush the First. Twice. It's a fact. She voted for the most viciously anti gay and anti choice candidates imaginable at the time when they were out to see all gay people dead, when some in that Party were calling for relocation camps for gay people, she was in that Party. I have seen you post positively about her. It is always interesting to see double and triple standards openly employed.
Vote for Republicans for the bulk of your life? That's great! Vote for a Green once? Off to hell with you!
How does that even work?

like drone assassinations, indefinite detention, and domestic spying.

I'm a constitutional purist.

I'd say the majority of Obama's supporters rely on their emotional connection to the leader figure to provide their policy guidance. As with most things political in American (or elsewhere, for that matter) critical thinking skills are rarely present or utilized by the electorate. This is why blatantly false political advertising WORKS, which is why campaign funding for advertising is so important.

Issues like this Michael Moore kerfluffle are useful bellwethers for determining who should go on the ignore list. I have no interest in discussing politics with personality cultists.

has been left out, and the impression that Obama has done nothing significant suits their storyline quite well

would find what MM said condescending, but I believe and I think Pres O believes that MM is not racist.

And some others who express a kind of personal adoration for the President that's more like fandom that political activism.

The first group jumps all over people like Moore when they perceive an opening, even if the opening requires taking things out of context and willfully ignoring information that doesn't jibe with their bullshit. The second group just reflexively lashes out an anyone who questions the greatness of the current President.

find what he said objectionable

claiming he is a racist on the basis of the remark - especially when heard in its entire context - is ludicrous.

It takes the blame off congress, and is kinda racist.

Many of them hate Michael Moore for his anti-establishment documentaries. Just laugh!!!

for the first African American president -claim and apologize. Faint praise is not taking it back.

The new talking points have gone out and must be spread, truth be damned.

And have the full context get in the way of flamebait threads and another chance to reduce the number of acceptable viewpoints? Oh no...

"I'm not saying something, but here's something."

Funny that Moore could not remember any one of those "good things" in his soothsaying prognostication. That is, of course, the point. That it's lost on many here is a mere refinement.

As I am. I think MM did tremendous work with Sicko and really helped push the movement to solve the horrible conditions levied on Americans by insurance corporations. Which in turn Obama latched onto and promised more than he was willing to fight for.
Instead of allowing the peoples voice in the matter, only the insurance corporations were allowed to speak.
None of this was by accident. It was, in essence, the very least that could be done while still being able to say, we did something.

As for the shrill voices proclaiming his villainy. I find they are the same voices decrying anything said or done by those on the "radical left". Never missing an opportunity to drag down progressive voices while promoting corporate line toeing voices to the heavens.

Ask someone under 35 to tell you something about JFK, and see what they say. Unless they're a history buff, they will probably say he was assassinated.

People don't learn very much about world leaders in US public schools anymore. 100 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't even know President Obama was the first black President. Though if the term "Obamacare" sticks, people may know who he is.

banging Marilyn Monroe.

I may ask around at my work place.

Propaganda 701

That's it.

And that's about the only thing that happens in the clip. Incidentally Moore demonstrates a rather feeble grasp of civics.

I doubt many people watched it, and they won't. They've been told that MM is racist because he said that Obama was the first black President, and that's all they know, or care about.

Nobody's perfect. Liberals grew up in our racist/sexist American culture just like everyone else, so mistakes happen. But what's troubling is that instead of acknowledging that MM's comment was f*cked up, people are digging in to defend him. It's not OK, even if you're a Moore fan or an Obama-hater.

By the way, I watched the clip and didn't see where he said Obama's done many good things. What time marker was that? It must have been very quick, more like an afterthought. However, he made sure to emphasize his point about Obama' race.