Enough with the Strawman arguments against those who protest Obama's policies and appointments

[debbierlus]

Let's stop with the following strawman arguments about why those of us who are justifiably angered by specific POLICIES & APPOINTMENTS -

He has only been in office a short time. Give him a chance.

I have not read one post on this entire board that indicates anyone expects him to fix anything quickly. Not one. Yet, there was a top rated post about this subject on the front of the board, today, as if this is a valid argument to those who are upset with specific policy decisions. This is a convenient means of dismissal of anyone who has a logical & legitimate concern about Obama's actions. It is a strawman argument worthy of a Bushbot.

The economy is in freefall and nearly every top economist agrees that this trash for cash buyout for zombie banks will not work, but it will lead to rampant inflation and possible to total loss of value to the dollar. There have been post after post after post - most thoughtful, logical, concise, and objective that eloquently back up arguments against Obama's economic policy plan. People are upset with the policy itself, and the implications for the future, NOT about the fact that Obama has not fixed the problem RIGHT NOW. We are concerned that the policy will not work, and we are very concerned his economic policies will make things worse.

Next up...

We need to stand united to fix things.

Let me say that I am the first person to advocated for uniting together, but it might be a good idea to know what the hell we are uniting around. You want to unite around single payer health care, an end to corporate monopoly, true green energy (not clean coal, I gasp every time I see one of their propaganda ads of liberal site, but I digress)...I will stand with you any day of the week. You want me to unite with Bush worthy pro-corporate policies because Obama proposes them, no deal.

And, that doesn't make those of us with this opinion, PUMAs or trolls. It doesn't mean we 'love' hating Obama and wish him to fail. Frankly, I have had it up to my ears with these childish, ridiculous, and, most importantly, INACCURATE insults to those who validly question Obama's policies and appointments. This is classic kill the messenger. People are going a long way to justify unjustifiable actions when it concerns Obama - justifying things that, if, George W Bush had proposed or implemented would have caused open rebellion on this board.

And, that is the thing that I find the most disturbing. This type of behavior is disturbingly reminiscent of those who blindly supported Bush during the past eight years.

[NJmaverick]

1. I find this old post of yours very telling

debbierlus (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-19-08 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
19. I don't like either of them. GO EDWARDS

There is still a completely viable choice in this race. You don't need to back one of these two.

I guess the only thing I will be doing, if they get the nom is holding my nose and voting.

[FrenchieCat]

6. "Go John Hedge Fund Edwards!"

As it was already known at the time that he had earned 1/2 million working part time for a Hedge Fund studying "poverty"!

[Two Americas]

12. give it up

The primaries are long since over. There is no crime in having supported a candidate other than Obama at some point, and shame on you for trying to insinuate that there is.


...

[FrenchieCat]

15. If someone is going to be anti-capitalist to this extent,

I'd assume they wouldn't be supporting the Hedge Fund working, 20,000 sq. ft house owning, 45 million net worth candidate. But of course, it wasn't about what he did, just about what he said (not even what he had said 4 years earlier).

Please, poster has been hatin' on this President for a long time. He has no chance with her no matter what. And you're in almost the same boat....although you try harder each and everyday not to give it away.

[JDPriestly]

91. Edwards earned his money as a plaintiff's attorney representing ordinary victims of

big corporations. With regard to the economy, Obama seems to care more about the corporate interests on Wall Street than ordinary folks who are being hurt by those corporations.

I'm with Obama on a lot of issues, but I do not like his choice of economic team. It's inexcusable. As a matter of fact, one of the bad results of Obama's economic bail-out of the big banks is that the hedge fund and other fund managers and bank managers will not have to face as many lawsuits of irate investors.

So, Obama's economic policy is covering up terrible wrongs by some of the most powerful people in the country? And where are the Obama administration's prosecutions of torture and of wiretapping? I supported Edwards because he was a Democrat. I'm beginning to wonder about Obama.

[niceypoo]

93. "Step away from the primary..."

...and grow up.

[JDPriestly]

89. Obama is now working for the hedge funds. At least Edwards was

up front about his affiliations. Where is the evidence that Edwards would have appointed Geithner and Summers to head his economic team? Appointing guys like Geithner and Summers, now that is what I call working for the banks. Obama needs to appoint a different economic team.

Edwards had the support of the top economists including the younger Galbraith. Obama's economic policies favor the wealthy far too much -- not quite as bad as Bush -- but not a working man's economic policy.

[girl gone mad]

8. Dragging out stuff from the primaries is a really cheap, pathetic tactic.

I wouldn't expect any better from you, however.

[NJmaverick]

19. I like your screen name.

[Skittles]

31. the post is perfectly reasonable

your response stinks

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Two Americas]

10. no crime there

There is no crime in having supported a different candidate - that is what the primaries are for. The vast majority of people here supported a different candidate at some point.

Shame on you for insinuating that this makes a person a traitor or renders their opinion invalid.


...

[dsc]

13. that is the MO of more than a few Obama supporters here

I am still referred to as a Hillary supporter despite the fact she was my third to last choice, my last choice being Dennis and my second to last being Obama. I moved from Richardson to Edwards to Hillary. But to hear many Obama supporters describe it I worshipped Hillary from day 1.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. A certain strain of fragile-egoed personality cultists seem to assume others are similarly afflicted

This proto-empathy tells more about the personality issues of the commissars of lockstep obedience than it does about many of their prey.

For some, High School and its need to be on the winning side is long past, and policies actually mean something. The twisting and dodging to rewrite the past, justify the present and deny some of the rather apparent future is more important to those whose egos are on the line for being "right" with their choice, and they presume others are like them. Some are. The need to humiliate opponents bespeaks a weakness of character. It's also contagious: this post is essentially a broad slur of the less-than-pleasant sort, but hey, at least I KNOW I suck to a certain degree; the beaming acolytes of certainty might score a point or two by admitting some failings now and then themselves.

Those of us who were very vocal in the support of a single candidate get habitually singled out. Somehow we should be humiliated by this hideous blunder we've made, and the deriders tend to not be able to see that the heart of the problem may be policies and character issues of President Obama, not the oft-hurled bitterness of the defeated.

These pleasant and constructive members of our little community also seem to be among the least willing to see ANY failing on his part, so it seems that this mindset needs resounding and unqualified victory with captives and salted lands to shore up their tenuous sense of self-worth.

Such is life.

Plenty of constructive conversations happen here, and those shouldn't be missed just due to the irritation of the few.

[Hawkowl]

62. Eloquently put.

Well done.

[NJmaverick]

21. When someone doesn't like our President, I think it tends to cloud their judgment

at least that is what I have observed on many occasions.


You can save your shame, you may need it.

[Two Americas]

33. that makes no sense

How is that relevant to anything?

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Flying Dream Blues]

59. Oh, NJM, I like your style. What you said! nt

[LooseWilly]

88. So you disregard anything said by anyone who's ever been critical of Obama

... out of hand?

Just out of curiosity, does your judgement also lead you to believe the opposite: That when someone does like our president, that it tends to clear their judgement?

Or do you just like the judgements of those who like our president better than you like the judgements of those who have been critical?

[Forkboy]

113. Couldn't liking someone also cloud one's judgment?

[Reterr]

52. How quaintly McCarthyesque.eom

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Every Man A King]

67. This is the stupidest post i have ever read on DU.

[LWolf]

2. And, of course,

so far the only response you've gotten is someone digging up the primary wars to point out that you weren't a big fan of Obama then, either.

Of course, neither was most of DU before the field was narrowed down to 2 by only 2 caucuses and 2 primaries:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3649440

If the agenda is to oppose people who aren't thrilled with Obama, and you can't do so on the issues, just keep digging, I guess. :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

3. Of course there is a difference between prefering someone else

and "not liking". But don't let the facts get in the way.:eyes:

[LWolf]

23. Don't let coherence or any kind of point get in YOUR way.

I'm still trying to figure out what "preferring someone else" has to do with people so determined to "defend" Obama from those who aren't happy with him that, rather than address issues, when they have nothing else (and they don't HAVE the issues,) they dig up old primary posts.

[NJmaverick]

24. Sorry to burst your bubble, but pointing out the glaring flaws in your statements

is hardly incoherent. That is unless one is unwilling or unable to listen to reason.

[LWolf]

69. .

:rofl:

I haven't offered you a statement of mine. I simply quoted part of the OP, which I did not write, to answer a question you asked.

Which is why your responses are nonsensical.

The point, which you obviously missed, is that you asked a question crafted to cherry-pick the information and ideas offered in the OP. I tossed the other pertinent part back to you, and the only response you could come up with was personal attack. Of me, not the message, which wasn't even mine.

[saltpoint]

4. Scold us! Don't stop!

We're awfully bad people!

[leftstreet]

5. IT'S ONLY A 4 YEAR ADMINISTRATION!!111!!

:hi:

[Faryn Balyncd]

7. K & R

[ProSense]

11. "This type of behavior is disturbingly reminiscent of those who blindly supported Bush" Strawman

Obama's "oligarchic coup d'etat"? How long does he have to prove himself?

[Two Americas]

14. it is

Many of the opinions we see expressed here recently are "disturbingly reminiscent of those who blindly supported Bush."

An observation is not a "straw man." A straw man is a mis-characterization of someone else's opinion.



...

[ProSense]

16. "A straw man is a mis-characterization of someone else's opinion." So

your opinion (strawman) is an observation, but everyone else's opinion is a mischaracterization, therefore a strawman?


Hmmmm?

[Two Americas]

34. of course not

Read it again.

What the other member said may well have been wrong, but it isn't a straw man.

[saltpoint]

22. Your 6th grade English teacher, were he or she still alive, would send the

draft of your post back to you for revision.

And properly so.

[Two Americas]

37. whatever that means

If you have an argument, make it.

[saltpoint]

38. LOL. You are always veering into these one-minded corners, TA.

The Minotaur himself probably couldn't find you half the time.

[Two Americas]

46. too cryptic for me

I have no idea what you are talking about. You do seem to be talking about the messenger rather than the message. Do you have a response to what I posted?

Nice to "meet" you by the way.


...

[saltpoint]

47. You're a gas.

Clarity is not an apparent long suit, but you are a gas nevertheless.

[NJmaverick]

25. You don't seem to know what a strawman is

a strawman is to mischaracterize and create a new position of an opponent, so you can knock down this false (strawman) position.

[Two Americas]

36. here ya go

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[FrenchieCat]

17. Ooh....Goody! All the Obama haters all in one thread!

How lucky are we?

Happy Easter to y'all.
Sorry about the President coming up smelling like roses on this last situation.
I know for sure y'all sorry about that. :rofl:

[Hawkowl]

63. Idiocy

Can you distinguish opposition to a policy versus hatred towards an individual? Are you just fronting? Don't you think it would be wrong to agree with everything Obama did and said? Why would you need a brain if you did? Do you?

[berni_mccoy]

64. the OP is a consistent Obama hater.

[Hawkowl]

66. Nonsense

I've followed her posts for years, she is consistent in her views. She has consistently raised reasonable objections to President Obama's policies and positions, not to him personally.

[berni_mccoy]

71. HAHAHAAHAHA

[Dr.Phool]

80. Evidently, non worship is hatred.

[QC]

70. She is an enemy of the people. n/t

[sniffa]

95. You and some others have become really obnoxious.

[Forkboy]

114. Understatement of the year on that one.

I used to respect Frenchie a lot, even though we disagreed on some things. Seeing her morph into this has been very disappointing, even more so because I'm quite sure she can't see it.

[Danger Mouse]

18. There's little chance of DU 'standing united' anytime soon.

[Common Sense Party]

83. Soon? Ever.

This place is about as united as Humpty Dumpty, post-wall fall.

[Starry Messenger]

20. Some people don't want to stop.

I was always an Obama supporter and I've been called some pretty sick names for daring to disagree with some things. It's not going to stop unless certain behaviors are reined in fairly.

The words 'hope' and 'change' should inspire people to listen and see to the future. Not look to the past and beat people around the head with.

[ProSense]

26. You are right, some people don't know when to stop.

I opposed Hillary's appointment as SOS. Obama appointed her and she was confirmed by the Senate. Imagine if I were still opposing her and calling for her to be fired.

Disagreeing with Obama's policies is one thing, but after he has expressed confidence in Geithner and people know he has no intention of replacing him, why not stick to criticizing policy? The calls for him to be fired and claims that he is a criminal are ludicrous. In fact, some seem to be using that as a basis for their criticisms: Geithner had a hand in it so the policy sucks.

He was confirmed to the position by 60 Senators:

YEAs ---60
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagan (D-NC)
Hatch (R-UT)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)

Maybe they're all complicit.

[Starry Messenger]

29. I think the calls to have Obama fired are pretty silly too.

I must have an ironclad ignore list because I hardly ever see those. I still see the behavior I am describing more often. I just think, now that it is April that getting on people for who they supported in the primary is kind of silly. I mean, my clear choice was always Obama, but they were all Democrats. :shrug: I'm open to ideas and will clearly admit I know little about economics. I think it would be more fun to read about if some posters weren't calling for each others heads every 5 minutes. That's all I'm saying.

I appreciate that you don't do that. :)

[ProSense]

35. Exactly:

I think it would be more fun to read about if some posters weren't calling for each others heads every 5 minutes.

It would also be great if the economist who are critical of the policy refrained from this as well. Stick to the facts instead of approaching policy criticism from the standpoint that the Obama admnistration is the enemy (liars, disingenuous, clueless, criminal).

[Starry Messenger]

39. I guess all we can do is alert and pray to Skinner.

Hell, sometimes it even works. :D But I'm speaking more about interpersonal conduct between posters. I was just using myself as an example since calling out is against the rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

30. A lot of that list is the same on the vote to give bush the power to invade Iraq.

Just sayin' .....

By the way, I'm more okay that lots of others about Geithner being there.

The issue on this board is not policy. The issue is the asshole fucking cheerleaders who act just like asshole fucking freepers.

[ProSense]

32. What about the others?

Just sayin'

The issue is the asshole fucking cheerleaders who act just like asshole fucking freepers.

It's really hard to tell the assholes.

[Stinky The Clown]

49. No its not

[Number23]

51. "The issue on this board is not policy."

Then what in God's name is the problem??

Obama won by bringing together the largest coalition of Americans from all walks of life and political beliefs in modern history. Liberals, conservatives, and independent alike. Even though I would personally characterize him as "center-left" he won support from many Americans of ALL political stripes.

And yet many here on DU absolutely INSIST that the only way this man can be supported and be able to serve the multi-faceted coalition that voted him in to power is to ignore them all and push him FURTHER to the left. And what's really fascinating about many of these same people is that when Obama does enact a policy that is a noticeable step to the left, they STILL give him no credit. But yet, when he takes a step that some here could construe as a step to the right, they can't howl loud and hard enough.

So if his policies are not the problem, what is??? I cannot WAIT to hear the answer because I truly do not understand what is going on with this place!

[Stinky The Clown]

53. What part of .......

..... "asshole fucking cheerleaders" is unclear to you?

There's not an Obama policy that cannot be debated rationally and fairly, no matter where one finds oneself along the spectrum for any given policy.

Not so much with the foaming at the mouth cheerleaders who take any hint of criticism of Obama as some sort of attempt to have him impeached. It is no different than what the freepers have been doing for years.

Same for the endless fawning posts .... but those are easy .... just click past them and leave them for the rah rah crowd to get all gaga over. The world is such that "bandwidth" is no longer a worry.

[Number23]

55. Love how your criticism is confined only to those who have his back

I love the man and what he's trying to do, but I ain't never been a cheerleader. And having said that, I still think it's interesting that your comment only relates to "fawners" and "cheerleaders" and doesn't say jack about the people who literally break into a sweat looking for anything to criticize him over.

But as Prosense said, it's getting hard to distinguish all of the different assholes around here...

[Stinky The Clown]

57. I'll give you that ... and to be fair, they probably ought to be lumped in there, too.

I probably left them out because they're losing the volume wars.

See, here's the thing ... for me and me alone ......

I was mostly successful in staying out of the primary wars this cycle because I had no favorite at all. My guy never even declared, foolishly endorsed a future loser, and then fell off everyone's radar. I was gunna vote for the party nominee, no matter who it was, but without a lot of enthusiasm.

Toward the end, I got a little more fired up and eventually came out for Obama before he had a lock. Not much before ..... but before.

I was very happy when he won.

I was totally disgusted by the "fuck you" attitude of his more vocal cheerleaders toward not only the repubicans (I had the same attitude toward them, to be honest), but toward their fellow Democrats. Much as they try to convince others and themselves that they're not fans in a cult of personality, that's exactly how they act. And we all know about ducks and walking and talking.

Kinda like freepers and bushbots.

I guess I forgot to mention the polar opposites in my post because ... well ..... they only get traction with the cheerleaders. I know who the people who take every chance to criticize for the sake of criticizing and I mostly ignore their posts. A few I agree with on the issues. I also agree with some of the cheerleaders on some issues. But mostly, the cheerleaders are currently ascendant so they get the attention.

You can (and may well) try to impute more to my position than I stated, but you would be wrong.

It really is that simple.

By the way, and to be **perfectly** clear, not by a long shot do I see all pro Obama people in this light. I mean, **I'm** pro-Obama. I am talking about a small but mind-numbingly loud chorus of dependable assholes.

And they probably think I'm an asshole.

Synchronicity is a beautiful thing.

Peace, dude or dudette.

[kid a]

27. what is the point of this post? are you complaining about name-calling (and, where are you?)

Just state your fucking criticism of Obama, discuss it with those who want to discuss it with you, and ignore those who don't.

You had to start an entire post to complain about half of DU?

This is just a stupid post bordering on flame bait.

You know what you get here...don't like it, move on. Don't start idiotic posts complaining about name calling then run hide.

[HughMoran]

42. Well stated

She posts threads that she knows will induce ire in many people here, then starts a tread assailing those who might have found said threads irksome. Talk about trying to control all aspects of the conversation here. Debbie has a huge ego.

[NanceGreggs]

28. Well, being as you are obviously talking about my OP ...

... I thought I'd weigh-in here.

My OP was specifically directed at those who post the and when is Obama going to DO something about (their issue here) threads.

If you are NOT one of those people, then my OP wasn't directed at you, was it?

"... as if this is a valid argument to those who are upset with specific policy decisions." No, it's not a valid argument against those upset with his policies - it is an argument against something completely different. But don't let that stop you from insisting that they are one and the same.

As for Obama's economic policies, whether they will work out successfully and in the BEST interests of the citizenry is still an unknown factor. It's WAY too soon to tell - but that shouldn't stop anyone from declaring them a disaster before-the-fact, should it? Because that's just "constructive criticism", right?

"nearly every top economist agrees that this trash for cash buyout for zombie banks will not work ..."

As a court reporter who specializes in pharmaceutical cases, I can tell you for a fact that both sides of a case invariably call expert testimony to shore up their side of the argument - experts who are equally educated, credentialed, and well-respected in their field.

And yet (hold onto your hat now) they will present completely opposing views, with stats, studies, reports, and peer-reviewed publications to back up their respective positions.

So in the end, the judge (not unlike the president) has to decide whose testimony, or presentation of the facts and the likely outcome flowing therefrom, is the most compelling and logical.

The real shame in all of this is that we elected a man who's trying to do what he thinks is best in terms of dealing with this economic disaster, when there are so many people posting on websites who know exactly what needs to be done - and couldn't possibly be wrong.

Perhaps Obama should just defer to their better judgment, and be done with it.

[Teaser]

41. NANCE= win. OP = fail

.

[saltpoint]

43. Seconded.

One of the worst OPs on DU in recent memory.

[apr09]

72. Fail with 32 recommendations?

I beg to differ.

[Bobbie Jo]

78. Okay....FAIL X 32.

:eyes:

[Spazito]

44. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[firedupdem]

45. Nance, You Rock Girl! n/t

[HughMoran]

48. (the president) has to decide whose testimony, or presentation of the facts and the likely outcome

Yes he does, and if we assume that he hasn't considered what experts like Krugman have published, then we are idiots.

[LooseWilly]

99. I agree... but I'm curious to know what about Geithner's plan seemed more compelling.

... than Krugman's suggested plan.

From what I've read/heard, I personally think Krugman's plan seems more logical and compelling.

Any chance of anyone suggesting why Krugman's plan isn't the more compelling? Every time I browse an economic thread to see if someone has some spark of insight to share, instead I find piles of people insisting that Obama knows best... and that it's traitorous to suggest otherwise.
Until my doubts are cogently addressed though, I'l continue to harbor said doubts. Unfortunately, that also means that I'll harbor a secret (not so secret anymore) suspicion that it is possible that Obama heard what sounded like a reasonable idea from Geithner and crew... and that he may've moved too far already along that course to be willing to consider alternate plans. That is to say, that politics may be trumping sound fiscal policy.
I don't mean to say that political realities are not also a very real issue to be dealt with... but I'd rather not have to think that they were the final determining factor in the economic policies that this administration is choosing to implement.

So, any takers to try to explain the merits of Geithner's plan?

[Imperialism Inc.]

60. I'm very interested in these stats, studies, reports and peer-reviewed publications

that show that buy-the-bad-assets approach works. Is there something other than the example of Japan in the 90's? I certainly hope so because the results of that were not so great.

[Dr.Phool]

81. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy.

Why do you hate America?

:rofl:

[NanceGreggs]

86. I think it was NOT getting that pony ...

... that put me over the edge.

:rofl:

[Teaser]

40. ENOUGH WITH OTHER POSTS!

Please only read mine. thanks.

[saltpoint]

50. Do-Do. That's not a fragment from a late 50s pop chorus. It's a

euphemism for bullshit.

This is one of the worst OPs I've ever seen on this site.

Without naming the person whose thread she is attacking, the OP calls the topic out and pretends she has a legitimate complaint.

Such do-do. Such steaming do-do, piled to the very sky.

I would suggest that if the OP cannot manage material in other DU threads that she pack her petulance up in a lunch box and hit the road. If she insists that she can manage it I would hope she would be less deceitful in calling out others on this board, especially others who are a hell of a lot more talented and insightful than she is.

There is also a broader consideration involving the current president, namely that he won the election last November. Honest.

What a huge disappointment that must have been to the OP.

[progressoid]

54. NAZI!!1

k/r :thumbsup:

[saltpoint]

56. The OP appears to have ducked out.

And hey -- the party tray is missing.

[muryan]

61. Every top economist?

Hardly. When people find an economist that disagrees with the current treasury plan they parade that opinion here. I've yet to see a post from one of the many economists who agree with the plan. It's not Strawman when the only difference between posters here and at freerepublic is the tag line. So many people are fucking eager beaver to trash anything this man does it is pathetic.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[cali]

75. tough shit. Your incessant whining is tedious and your false arguments

unconvincing.

[katandmoon]

76. K&R

[xchrom]

77. RECOMMEND

[grahamhgreen]

79. Obama wants us to force him to be more progressive, IMHO.

[Dr.Phool]

82. I thought we did that when we elected him?

[jsamuel]

87. He only went to the left on a very few issues during the primaries.

However, those quickly went by the wayside during the general and even more so since he was sworn in. Health care was the #1 issue during the primaries. It is now only a small blip on Obama's radar. Even then, there is no public option in his plan, which the major candidates had in their plans during the primaries.

[mkultra]

84. Yes, lets call for an end to dissent against those who dissent

makes perfect sense.

[debbierlus]

85. Fine, guys. If you approve our treasury being stolen by corporations

Through Obama's trash for cash plan...

If you think the expansion of unconstitutional wiretapping is hunky-dorey because the President has a D after his name

If you are cool with single payer activists having to beg to get a couple of representatives a seat at the table while the health care leeches show up in droves to write our health care policy

And, the expansion of the Afghan war is fine with you...

Well, you have your man.

Flame me all you want. Thou does protest too much.

[pmorlan1]

90. Excellent Post

Sadly, I was too late to recommend it but do so here.

[april]

92. But he is using all of the same policys and people ..like wire tapping etc

[JimGinPA]

94. Same Anti-Obama Complainers - Different Day

I really don't give a shit about the "vocal minority" here.

[grahamhgreen]

97. Not anti-Obama. We are pro-constitution, anti-wire tap/torture, Pro people, Anti- Corrupt Banksters

Pro Health-Care, anti insurance giants, pro peace, anti-war/war profiteering/war-for-money.

Are You?

And if so, can you help us talk Obama into promoting our positions?

[JimGinPA]

102. Save Your Holier-Than-Thou Bullshit...

The same few groups of posters retread this kind of barely veiled venom here daily. I'm so over the "he's not perfect" arguments.

[Luminous Animal]

104. Jeesh...

I remember oodles of posts here condemning Bush's unconstitutional usurpation of executive power. Now, in response to "state's secrets" and "sovereign immunity" we hear a chorus of, "Obama must know something we don't know", or, "I trust Obama".

Two things,

1) Even if Obama knows something we don't know, that does not put that knowledge outside of the reach of judicial review. Co-equal branches of government, you know.

2) If we grant Obama the right to make the affirmative defense that the Bush admin did, then, logically, we will also have to acknowledge that Bush, knowing things that we don't know, was right and all those here on DU who protested his "imperial presidency" were wrong.

[grahamhgreen]

106. U hav no game

[JimGinPA]

107. Don't U Have Some Teabag Party Planning To Get To?

:hi:

[grahamhgreen]

110. Like I said... Single payer not for profit health care, an end to the Bush wars, No Bailout

for billionaires, end torture, end rendition, close Gitmo, stop all digital surveillance, an end to poverty, an end to homelessness, free education through PHD, arrest those who have broken the law in pursuit of the Bush agenda.

Do you agree?

[JimGinPA]

111. You're Welcome To Keep Kicking This Trash Thread Forever If It Suits You

That appears to be your only purpose here.

[grahamhgreen]

112. I actually want to convince you to get excited about the possibility of lobbying Obama to be one of

or truly great presidents like FDR!

He can be that!

[Luminous Animal]

96. Anyone remember Bush hater?

It didn't matter how many times I told my Republican relatives that I didn't hate Bush - hell I don't even know the man - and that, rather, I was vehemently opposed to much of his Admin's policy, they're first defense was to accuse me of being "Bush hater". What kind of simple minded argument is that?

I have friends in most English speaking democracies around the world and they are flabbergasted over the loyalty to party over policy.

[QC]

98. Do you remember "Bush Derangement Syndrome"?

Now, honest to God, I have seen people on here accusing others of suffering from "Obama Derangement Syndrome."

[Luminous Animal]

100. Indeed!

As a letter writer on Glenn Greenwald's site said so eloquently today in a letter to Obama...

"Please do not make the mistake of believing that our commitment to you is stronger than our commitment to our values. We were for civil liberties and social justice before we were for you. Do not make us choose between our ideals or you, because, in your most recent actions we do not see the ideals you told us that you would champion."

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/13/obama/permalink/1bd198e58a716ac60f57d6c445c47565.html

[QC]

101. Poutrage! She must not have gotten her pony!

:sarcasm:

[JimGinPA]

103. If the shoe fits...

[earth mom]

105. There is no hope & change. Connect the dots people.

Here's the evidence:

Continued fraudulent Bank/Wall Street bailout at taxpayer expense.

Continued Faith Based Office in violation of the Constitution.

Escalated War in the Middle East aka Genocide because that war is based on a LIE.

Nonexistent Health Care for everyone.

Health Care that continues to involve bloodsucking insurance companies who royally rip off consumers and kill people for the sake of profit.

Destruction of the few remaining Union jobs in the auto industry.

And last but not least:

Free Pass for * & Cheney. No prosecution for torture or illegal wiretapping among all their other crimes!



Mission Accomplished: * and Cheney and Obama and Corporate America!

[grahamhgreen]

108. Never give up.

[kid a]

109. earth to mom...