Page 1 of 6 [ 81 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

10 May 2012, 6:19 am

Dox47 wrote:
Finally, someone comes up with the perfect metaphor to describe my major problem with Obama, and with the people who continue to blindly support him, even if his graphic is awful. You just can't trust what the man says, his actions tell a different story every single time.
Dox, the one time I wasted time trying to discuss this with you seriously, I royally kicked your ass, and you never really admitted it.

The difference between my views and yours is 500 pages of legislation and official testimony before Congress that I have read and studied, and you haven't.

You know very well that my views on Obama are perfectly lucid and extremely well-researched, like most of my opinions. I am very thorough.

Besides, I'm the only liberal you know who is willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt.

Why? Because the idea that politicians are all a bunch of evil b-tards is overblown in this country to the point of being stupid. The idea that "politicians are all so evil! They are all selfish and crooked!" is overblown to the point that they look more like cartoon villains than actual people.

I can almost see that with Gingrich, but he's still a flesh-and-blood human being, even if not an especially likable one sometimes.

I can definitely see it with a handful of people who aren't really in the political limelight very often.

And I have proven that the "scandals" that Obama's opponents keep cooking up DO NOT REALLY HOLD WATER.

And I have proven the point that I am not just some Obama fanboy, but I'm more optimistic about human nature in general. Again, I am the ONLY LIBERAL HERE WHO ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MITT ROMNEY IS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RACE. and not some green-eyed monster or something. And, as usual, I am right.

So watch who you're calling "blind," bud.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

10 May 2012, 6:52 am

^

William, you know I refuse to engage with you when you're attacking me personally, and this is no exception. Now if you'd like to refute some of the points raised in the quoted article about promises Obama had made and broken, I'd be happy to engage with you in a civil manner on that, but I'm not going to put the effort into responding just to get called names by you, -again. You're projecting already, presuming I'm speaking to you personally, attacking points I haven't made, assuming I care about your (or anyone's) opinion of Romney, etc, so I don't see this going well from the start.

Prove me wrong, take one of the bullet points from the quoted article and concisely refute it.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

10 May 2012, 8:18 am

It's not my fault that every other liberal here is a pathetic wimp, Dox.

To Lie #1: OBAMA NEVER PROMISED TO LEGALIZE WEED. EVER. In fact, he promised in 2008 to escalate the drug war in general.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5147.html

Quote:
I believe that successfully keeping drugs off of America?s streets requires a comprehensive approach that transcends the boundaries between local, state, and federal law enforcement. As president, I will take several steps to bolster efforts to reduce alcohol and drug abuse in communities throughout America.

First, I believe that the fight to combat drug abuse requires the close cooperation of international allies like Mexico and Canada. I have worked to secure federal funding for inter-jurisdictional task forces in Illinois, and I have supported the State Department in enlisting the international community to fight the vast network of drug cartels that find clients here in the United States. As president, I will expand such initiatives to all corners of the drug enforcement apparatus.

Second, I will ensure that states have the resources to support existing drug courts, which have been proven successful in dealing with non-violent offenders. These courts offer a mix of treatment and sanctions, in lieu of traditional incarceration.
Currently, the Department of Justice makes grants available to state and local governments to establish drug courts. I will replicate these efforts within the federal criminal justice system by signing a law that would authorize federal magistrates to
preside over drug courts and federal probation officers to oversee the offenders? compliance with drug treatment programs.

Third, I will continue to fight against meth abuse, and to strengthen meth enforcement. In the U.S. Senate, I cosponsored the Combat Meth Act of 2005, major parts of which became law in 2006. The bill puts federal funds into the fight against
methamphetamine, provides assistance to children affected by meth abuse, and places restrictions on the sale of the ingredients used to make the drug. I also cosponsored and fought for a Justice Department amendment to increase funding for enforcement programs, and support taking on the Mexican cartels that are supplying the chemicals to make methamphetamines.

Fourth, I will support afterschool programs. These programs keep kids safe and away from bad influences, and help build safer and stronger communities. I believe we need to increase federal support for after-school programs with proven records of success at helping children avoid crime and drugs.

Finally, I will promote healthy communities and work to strengthen our public health and prevention systems. I will promote healthy environments, which would include restricted advertising for tobacco and alcohol to children and wellness and educational campaigns. I will increase funding to expand community based preventive interventions to help Americans make better choices to improve their health.


To Lie #2: Obama said in 2008 that he was going to get us out of Iraq and pursue the war against al Qaeda, WHICH HE HAS BEEN DOING.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/po ... wanted=all

Quote:
As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy – one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.


To Lie #3: Barack Obama promised to strengthen whistleblower protection laws, which he has done.

http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php ... Itemid=207

Quote:
The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) will save American lives by protecting the millions of American workers who grow, process, store and deliver our food. Those workers now have modern whistleblower protections when they raise concerns about the safety of our food.

It is important for working people to know that all legal claims have time limits. The time limit under FMSA to file a written complaint with OSHA is 180 days. For raising concerns about toxic chemicals, though, the time limit is still 30 days. Whistleblowers usually get better results when they work with an attorney experienced in employment discrimination law.

The FMSA fills an important loophole left by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in 2008. CPSIA does not cover food or medical devices. FMSA is the first law to provide whistleblower protections for workers covered by regulations of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While tainted food kills about 5,000 Americans a year, medications may kill as many as 100,000 Americans every year. Yet Congress has not extended whistleblower coverage to workers who raise concerns about violations of the FDA's pharmaceutical regulations.

It is time to end the patchwork protection of whistleblowers and pass a law that protects all workers when they raise concerns about health, safety, fraud, illegality, and dangers to the environment.


To Lie #4: Anwar al-Aulaqi was NOT JUST A TERRORIST, but he was the GODFATHER or Yemen's al-Qaeda faction.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html

Quote:
U.S. officials have given Anwar al-Aulaqi a newly elevated designation on the day of his death by drone strike, describing him as “chief of external operations” for al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.

The new title, cited by officials at the White House and the CIA, reflects Aulaqi’s evolution from Muslim cleric to alleged terrorist plotter, as well as a desire by American officials to persuade the public that the extraordinary killing of a U.S. citizen overseas was warranted.

U.S. officials also disclosed what they said were new details about Aulaqi’s operational role, saying that he personally had instructed a would-be suicide bomber who boarded a Detroit-bound plane in 2009 to detonate his device over American airspace to maximize casualties.


To Lie #5: Obama has taken considerable political risk to protect even illegal immigrants.

http://www.zimbio.com/Illegal+immigrati ... tive+order

Quote:
Director Morton says that Obama Administration policy directs border patrol agents not to enforce immigration laws: When ICE favorably exercises prosecutorial discretion, it essentially decides not to assert the full scope of the enforcement authority available to the agency. You read that right. According to the Obama administration favorable enforcement means NOT enforcing the law! According to one of the first press reports to break this important story, the new Obama policy is cut and dried: federal immigration officials do not have to deport illegal aliens if they are enrolled in any type of education program, if their family members have volunteered for U.S. military service, or even if they are pregnant or nursing. ALSO: Just recently Obama?s Department of Justice (DOJ) blocked Arizona from enforcing its voter ID law. Arizona is one if not the biggest portal of illegal immigration in the nation with half a million illegal aliens coming through the sate annually. Arizona’s Attorney General Tom Horne recently stated that he believed that blocking of the law facilitated massive voter fraud by illegal aliens. Attorney General Tom Horne accused the Obama administration Tuesday of trying to thwart Arizona’s voter-ID laws in a bid to get more illegal immigrants to the polls presumably to cast ballots for the president and Democrats. Horne acknowledged that a brief filed by the Department of Justice in a case to be heard next month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals centers around the agency’s argument that Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship to register is pre-empted by federal law. But Horne, a Republican, told Capitol Media Services he sees something more sinister, ……The 2012 presidential elections. First we have amnesty passed by executive order then we have President Obama’s DOJ blocking voter ID in Arizona. What could possibly be the president’s motive? This story has the potential to bring the Obama Administration to its knees. The momentum can be on our side and just e-mailing it to others can create a critical mass. Don’t assume you have no power. You do! MORE: Who needs Congressional authority when you can govern by executive fiat? A new enforcement memo handed down by the director of U.S. Immigration and Customs


And the conservatives are still whining about it.

To Lie #6: Obama never EVER promised to pack up and leave Iraq. Ever.

Quote:
In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.


To Lie #7: Barack Obama WAS BEING HELD OVER A BARREL by your Republican friends, when he signed the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, and vetoing it would have destroyed our ability to keep the military running. Stop portraying it as if the worst parts of it were Obama's ideas. Your party is responsible for the most horrible aspects of that bill, not any Democrat. The worst aspects of that bill were put in there by YOUR people, not mine. I say this knowing that you will continue spouting the same lies anyway. BESIDES, HE ISSUED A SIGNING STATEMENT SAYING THAT HE WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE PARTS THAT YOU ARE TAKING ISSUE WITH.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... -bill.html

Quote:
The White House had threatened to veto the bill, until Congress made a number of last-minute changes. In a signing statement, Obama insisted that the “administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.


To Lie #8: Obama NEVER EVER made a promise not to issue signing statements. In fact, he was blasted for this in 2008 because McCain ACTUALLY HAD promised to never issue signing statements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01995.html

Quote:
"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."


To Lie #10: Obama never made any promise not to invoke "state secrets." He said that it was "over-broad." In fact, he was slammed for this back in 2009. He might have criticized the way Bush's people used it, but THAT'S BECAUSE BUSH'S PARTY WAS RUNNING AGAINST HIS PARTY IN THE BLOODY ELECTIONS.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/0 ... overbroad/

Quote:
OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We’re in for a week, and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can’t litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.

And we’re interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.


Prediction: Dox is still not going to admit that he was wrong on any of these points, even though I solidly blew every single one of his claims clear out of the freaking water. He will not concede a single one of them. No, sir! Not Dox! Hell will freeze over solid enough to support my massive ego before Dox ever admits he was wrong.

However, as usual, I am awesome. Instead of waiting for what would be jaw-dropping if it ever happened, which would be a sign that Dox47 cares whether he is in touch with reality or not, I will just bask in the glow of my own extraordinary coolness, and I think I'll take a vacation. Lake Waccamaw, here I come!



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

10 May 2012, 12:08 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
Again, I am the ONLY LIBERAL HERE WHO ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT MITT ROMNEY IS A MEMBER OF THE HUMAN RACE. and not some green-eyed monster or something.


Ahem.

Hyperbole is not your friend, so you might want to put some distance between you.


_________________
--James


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

10 May 2012, 12:17 pm

WilliamWDelaney wrote:
To Lie #7: Barack Obama WAS BEING HELD OVER A BARREL by your Republican friends, when he signed the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, and vetoing it would have destroyed our ability to keep the military running. Stop portraying it as if the worst parts of it were Obama's ideas. Your party is responsible for the most horrible aspects of that bill, not any Democrat. The worst aspects of that bill were put in there by YOUR people, not mine. I say this knowing that you will continue spouting the same lies anyway. BESIDES, HE ISSUED A SIGNING STATEMENT SAYING THAT HE WOULD NOT ENFORCE THE PARTS THAT YOU ARE TAKING ISSUE WITH.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/201 ... -bill.html

Quote:
The White House had threatened to veto the bill, until Congress made a number of last-minute changes. In a signing statement, Obama insisted that the “administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.


Well, despite his current infatuation with attacking Obama and Democrats, Dox never considered the Republican party "his" party. I mean, lets face it, all the issues he's bringing up are ones that would have no different outcome if a Republican got in office, and he's even admitted that a McCain / Romney presidency might-have-been / could-be even worse than Obama in terms of civil liberties.

That said, I don't see the logic in abandoning the Democrats completely as Dox suggests and letting the Republican economic platform take over all branches of government. If course that would be a plus in his mind, hence the reason he's trying to get liberals to abandon the Democrats. His reasoning, if he can get liberals to stop voting for Democrats, he's supporting the libertarian economic platform without having to deal with the guilty conscience of actually voting for a Republican.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

10 May 2012, 3:30 pm

marshall wrote:
Well, despite his current infatuation with attacking Obama and Democrats, Dox never considered the Republican party "his" party. I mean, lets face it, all the issues he's bringing up are ones that would have no different outcome if a Republican got in office, and he's even admitted that a McCain / Romney presidency might-have-been / could-be even worse than Obama in terms of civil liberties.

That said, I don't see the logic in abandoning the Democrats completely as Dox suggests and letting the Republican economic platform take over all branches of government. If course that would be a plus in his mind, hence the reason he's trying to get liberals to abandon the Democrats. His reasoning, if he can get liberals to stop voting for Democrats, he's supporting the libertarian economic platform without having to deal with the guilty conscience of actually voting for a Republican.

On the other hand (from a liberal/left perspective, as much as I hate using those two words together) a future where the Democrats are the progressive element looks pretty bleak. As horrible as the Republicans might be, might it not be better to have them in power for awhile as another party grows to replace the Democrats than to have an indefinite future of two nearly indistinguishable parties?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

10 May 2012, 3:52 pm

marshall wrote:
That said, I don't see the logic in abandoning the Democrats completely as Dox suggests and letting the Republican economic platform take over all branches of government. If course that would be a plus in his mind, hence the reason he's trying to get liberals to abandon the Democrats. His reasoning, if he can get liberals to stop voting for Democrats, he's supporting the libertarian economic platform without having to deal with the guilty conscience of actually voting for a Republican.


Please don't put words in my mouth and ideas in my head Marshall, I DO vote Republican, just like I DO vote Democrat and independent without feeling any guilt about any of it, I just don't have any illusions about what I'm voting for in any case. If I wanted Romney to win I'd campaign for him, same goes for the Republican party generally; I'm under no illusion that I'm doing anything but talking for my own enjoyment here.

I most recently made it perfectly clear in this post that what I want to see is fragmentation in both parties, and in that post made it explicitly clear that I'm willing to cede power to the Democrats for some time if it means rebooting the Republicans or seeing a viable 3rd party arise from the ashes of their moderate wing.

What I DO want the liberals/progressives to do is grow some f*cking balls when it comes to holding their candidates accountable for what they do not just what they say when they need some quick cash or votes. Look again at that linked story about end of Dick Lugar, and how Freedomworks reacted to his trying to pander to them.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

10 May 2012, 4:25 pm

I'll admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong Delaney, not just because you (especially you) said so.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

10 May 2012, 6:17 pm

I would not be voting for Obama if I was voting in the state of Washington. The thing is I live in Michigan now.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

10 May 2012, 8:40 pm

marshall wrote:
I would not be voting for Obama if I was voting in the state of Washington. The thing is I live in Michigan now.

Why Washington? Is it traditionally a blue state?



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

11 May 2012, 1:54 am

marshall wrote:
I would not be voting for Obama if I was voting in the state of Washington. The thing is I live in Michigan now.


That heartens me to hear. It's not Obama that I hate, I mean he might break his promises, but with Romney it's him keeping them I'd be worried about. What I hate is the blind obedience, the rationalizing away of failings, the endless demonizing of the other side, always the lesser of two evils, etc.
I'm going after Obama a lot because the right is seemingly more aware of what Romney is, the least worst, than the left is of Obama's true nature. I'm also a bit ticked because I really had hoped he might be different in 2008, so I'm taking some of his failings, especially on the civil liberties fronts, personally. Not personally enough to vote GOP though, I'm voting Gary Johnson and hoping for a meteorite to hit a debate stage or something.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

11 May 2012, 1:56 am

AstroGeek wrote:
Why Washington? Is it traditionally a blue state?


It usually goes that way nationally, though in the local elections it's the usual islands of blue floating in a sea of red.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

11 May 2012, 3:13 am

This is what kills me about "arguing" with you William, you "refute" arguments that haven't been made, act obnoxious, claim victory and leave.

Case in point:

The assertion:

Quote:
Obama tricked the cannabis community into thinking his Justice Department would go easy on medical marijuana in states where it is legal, broke his promise, then misled voters about his options.


Your response:
WilliamWDelaney wrote:
To Lie #1: OBAMA NEVER PROMISED TO LEGALIZE WEED. EVER. In fact, he promised in 2008 to escalate the drug war in general.

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5147.html


Where did anyone state that Obama promised to legalize weed? I didn't say that, the article I was quoting didn't say it, the article cited by the article I was quoting didn't say it... If you'd bothered to read the original text, as you so often claim to do, you'd have found this link: http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/ ... ing-stone/
And this quote:
Quote:
Wenner] Let me ask you about the War on Drugs. You vowed in 2008, when you were running for election, that you would not “use Justice Department resources to try and circumvent state laws about medical marijuana.” Yet we just ran a story that shows your administration is launching more raids on medical pot than the Bush administration did. What’s up with that?

THAT is what is being talked about, not this nonexistent legalization promise that you apparently pulled out of your ass. The rest of the linked article is even more devastating, tearing apart the Obama deception bit by bit, if you're interested in reading that sort of thing.

I'm going to hit these piece by piece, but really William, this is what you call "debunking"? Are you sure you don't want to come back and edit some of these things and make sure you're even attacking the right points before I get further down the list?


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

11 May 2012, 4:56 am

I don't think Obama actually has as much power as we would like to imagine.

I wish he was more like JFK, a president who stuck to his guns.. I feel like Obama plays politics too much. I wish he would stick to his convictions. I don't think he is deliberately misleading the population, like some people would like to characterize him - as this evil master manipulator. I mean, come on, it's ridiculous. He is simply playing politics. And besides, the president doesn't have the ultimate say in everything. There is Congress and the House of Representatives.

I wish he would stop playing politics, and stop mincing his words, take more risks...he is not an evil mastermind though. To say so is absurd.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

11 May 2012, 5:04 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:
he is not an evil mastermind though. To say so is absurd.


Evil mastermind? No. Typical lying politician? Oh yes.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 May 2012, 2:08 pm

It's a fantastic, spot-on analogy. What boggles my mind on a continual basis is how much the right seems to believe that he's been enacting the liberal agenda day and night. I wish!