Whatever happened to the Obama sycophants?

[bigbadwolf]

In fact, Clinton started off almost as far left as Obama,...

Neither of these great statesmen were ever "left." Nixon was to the left of Clinton. People keep confusing "liberal" with "left." A good essay by Ron Jacobs at Counterpunch today explaining the difference.

 

[esllou]

A british fascist would be "the most liberal senator apart from Ted Kennedy", as Bush liked to say.

 

[ElQueso]

Neither of these great statesmen were ever "left." Nixon was to the left of Clinton. People keep confusing "liberal" with "left." A good essay by Ron Jacobs at Counterpunch today explaining the difference.

So when Obama tries to redistribute wealth at gunpoint (remember that most of the electorate did not want "his" health care plan and the government will enforce it, assuming it gets funded), attempting to create more just society (access to health care for all, mandated at a federal level, which by the way is not in the Constitution nor any Amendments, to my knowledge) by taxing those who are "rich" and giving subsidies to the poor to (attempt to) pay for it, you don't call that "Left"?

Clinton tried the same thing - and maybe you are right about Clinton not being "Left" to begin with, but rather very liberal like Obama purports to be. I believe Clinton really did have the best in mind for the country, as much as a politician can, anyway. It's why he backed off a government-run health care reform when he got too much pushback - well, that and the fact he probably saw it as political suicide.

Liberalism is one thing. I am a liberal - on some issues. I am very, very socially liberal, more so than just about anyone I have ever known personally.

But I'm very conservative fiscally. I believe that the government should be out of things as much as possible. I believe that most of our problems are actually caused by government interference, and rarely solved by such.

Obama is not a liberal, he is at least leftward leaning. Liberal? He doesn't really care about making things better for people (IMO), more like making a name for himself no matter the cost to the country.

As much as I despise how Bush managed the country and the war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq with lies, and almost completely ignoring the country itself, I believe he honestly believed he was trying to do better for the country, he just didn't know how. It doesn't excuse anything he did (or did not do), but I don't think Obama has an altruistic bone in his body.

 

[redrum]

If you consider that "thing" a real documentary, I have this great bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Now, about the director, Alex Jones - this from Wikipedia:

"Alex Jones is a radio talk show host from Texas. He is widely regarded to be a conspiracy theorist, for his belief that the American government is controlled by people that have sinister motives as part of a plot to create a "new world order" to enslave humanity.
Jones maintains several websites and has created numerous documentary movies, such as, "The Obama Deception".

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones

The guy is just another conspiracy peddler, smart enough to make a good living by scaring gullible people.

So, Redrum, please stay in your little conspiracy bubble, and I'll stay in my own bubble. Let's see which one bursts first. Have a good life...!

sara it sounds like you've already got your mind made up and are not even open to the possibility that things might be different from how you perceive them.

instead of examining the materials with an analytical eye, you choose to demonize the messenger rather than listen to the message.

do you always let the opinion of what is written in wikipedia make up your mind for you? why not watch the film and draw your own conclusions?

ok so maybe it's too conspiracy theory for you. i challenge you to watch another documentary called:

America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173

it was directed by aaron russo who produced such movies as "the rose" and "trading places". now you wouldn't call him another conspiracy peddler would you?

 

[bigbadwolf]

So when Obama tries to redistribute wealth at gunpoint (remember that most of the electorate did not want "his" health care plan and the government will enforce it, assuming it gets funded), attempting to create more just society (access to health care for all, mandated at a federal level, which by the way is not in the Constitution nor any Amendments, to my knowledge) by taxing those who are "rich" and giving subsidies to the poor to (attempt to) pay for it, you don't call that "Left"?

There has been a plethora of analysis showing how the main beneficiaries of the "reform" are the usual suspects -- insurance, HMOs, pharma. If you haven't seen them, I suppose I could post the links. There are a few very minor concessions to the public, which have been much-trumpeted. The legislation itself was mainly written by lobbyists behind closed doors. The trumpeted "public option" was used to placate the public, became smaller and smaller, and then finally disappeared and now we know that Obama had already cut a deal to not have the public option in the first place.

What's happening at gunpoint -- i.e., the coercion of the American state -- is that millions of Americans will be forced to buy substandard policies at inflated prices. This is "left?"

There is no "redistribution of wealth" except upwards. Only Tea Partiers and Rush Limbaugh are arguing Obama is a "socialist."

Clinton tried the same thing - and maybe you are right about Clinton not being "Left" to begin with, but rather very liberal like Obama purports to be. I believe Clinton really did have the best in mind for the country, as much as a politician can, anyway. It's why he backed off a government-run health care reform when he got too much pushback - well, that and the fact he probably saw it as political suicide.

I think you are writing tongue-in-cheek. Clinton's genius was to fool people into thinking he cared, that he was a populist -- while always tacking towards the corporate complex that really controls the country. He felt your pain -- but jeez, he just couldn't do anything about it. This was an intellectually gifted man, one of the most able politicians in a generation -- but without any scruples or moral fibre at all. Liberal? In the sense that liberals are cowards who can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

Liberalism is one thing. I am a liberal - on some issues. I am very, very socially liberal, more so than just about anyone I have ever known personally.

I'm not sure whether you have read the essay I linked in my previous post. Liberalism is essentially just striking fashionable poses. It's lipstick on the pig of American corporatism, imperialism, and militarism.

Obama is not a liberal, he is at least leftward leaning. Liberal? He doesn't really care about making things better for people (IMO), more like making a name for himself no matter the cost to the country.

I think as posters on this thread (and other threads) have made clear, Obama is a creature of the same corporate and financial forces that Bush was. This is not "leftward-leaning" -- unless leaning means spouting some vague worthless talk of "hope" and "change."

As much as I despise how Bush managed the country and the war in Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq with lies, and almost completely ignoring the country itself, I believe he honestly believed he was trying to do better for the country, he just didn't know how. It doesn't excuse anything he did (or did not do), but I don't think Obama has an altruistic bone in his body.

This takes the cake. Bush was altruistic? Bush did better for his constituency -- and made no bones about it. That's the easy thing about being a Republican -- you openly serve oligarchic corporate and financial interests. With Democrats it's more problematic. They also serve the same interests but the people they manage to con into voting for them want some equity, some justice, some real reform. So Democrat politicians have to "triangulate" -- one of Clinton's talents. Talk the talk but not walk the walk. Once in a blue moon throw a bone to the people.

 

[SaraSara]

sara it sounds like you've already got your mind made up and are not even open to the possibility that things might be different from how you perceive them.

instead of examining the materials with an analytical eye, you choose to demonize the messenger rather than listen to the message.

do you always let the opinion of what is written in wikipedia make up your mind for you? why not watch the film and draw your own conclusions?

First: I don't know whether my mind is already made up, but it looks like you have made up yours. Why else should you find films like this more credible than the rest of the media, unless you already believed there is a vast conspiracy afoot?

Second: About messengers and their messages: it is vitally important to check the source of "The Message". Many people are into their own paranoid delusions, and prone to distorting facts to have them fit into their own reality. So, in my view, the messenger is every bit as important as the message

Third: FYI, I did watch the film and found it so biased, such a hate-filled collection of cliches, that I got curious as to who the director was. Google brought up lots of rabid pro and con websites, Wikipedia's being the mildest among them. IMHO, Alex Jones seems about as deep and as principled as Rush Limbaugh. And just like Rush, I’d bet he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

Finally, in my opinion, Obama is doing a reasonably good job in a very bad situation, and I fervently hope he gets to finish his term. With fear-mongering films like Jones', some conspiracy nut might consider its patriotic duty to rid the country of such a menace.

 

[SaraSara]

[SIZE=-1]
I never expected anything different from the mocha messiah.
[/SIZE]

Name-calling like "mocha messiah" is what makes one fear for Obama's safety.

 

[redrum]

First: I don't know whether my mind is already made up, but it looks like you have made up yours. Why else should you find films like this more credible than the rest of the media, unless you already believed there is a vast conspiracy afoot?

so are you saying that you consider "the rest of the media" to be credible? if you think the mainstream press doesn't have an agenda then i also have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you. stop putting words into my mouth. nobody said anything about a vast conspiracy.

Second: About messengers and their messages: it is vitally important to check the source of "The Message". Many people are into their own paranoid delusions, and prone to distorting facts to have them fit into their own reality. So, in my view, the messenger is every bit as important as the message

i would say yes and no. there are those who would demonize others because of their message. thus, look at the message and the sources. don't pre judge the messenger. you're only censoring yourself.

Third: FYI, I did watch the film and found it so biased, such a hate-filled collection of cliches, that I got curious as to who the director was. Google brought up lots of rabid pro and con websites, Wikipedia's being the mildest among them. IMHO, Alex Jones seems about as deep and as principled as Rush Limbaugh. And just like Rush, I’d bet he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

based upon your description i can tell that you did NOT watch the film.

Finally, in my opinion, Obama is doing a reasonably good job in a very bad situation, and I fervently hope he gets to finish his term. With fear-mongering films like Jones', some conspiracy nut might consider its patriotic duty to rid the country of such a menace.

please stop with your own version of fear mongering by suggesting that some nut job is going to do harm to obama.

 

[redrum]

First: I don't know whether my mind is already made up, but it looks like you have made up yours. Why else should you find films like this more credible than the rest of the media, unless you already believed there is a vast conspiracy afoot?

Second: About messengers and their messages: it is vitally important to check the source of "The Message". Many people are into their own paranoid delusions, and prone to distorting facts to have them fit into their own reality. So, in my view, the messenger is every bit as important as the message

Third: FYI, I did watch the film and found it so biased, such a hate-filled collection of cliches, that I got curious as to who the director was. Google brought up lots of rabid pro and con websites, Wikipedia's being the mildest among them. IMHO, Alex Jones seems about as deep and as principled as Rush Limbaugh. And just like Rush, I’d bet he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

Finally, in my opinion, Obama is doing a reasonably good job in a very bad situation, and I fervently hope he gets to finish his term. With fear-mongering films like Jones', some conspiracy nut might consider its patriotic duty to rid the country of such a menace.

by the way, you failed to mention anything regarding the most important part of my last post, which was how are we expected to pay for the health care bill?

any thoughts?

 

[SaraSara]

by the way, you failed to mention anything regarding the most important part of my last post, which was how are we expected to pay for the health care bill?

By taxing individuals making more than US$ 200,000 a year. Wish I were lucky enough to be taxed, but unfortunately my income is below that.