Is President Barack Obama a Progressive?
04 Jun 2010, 10:20 pm
Jacoby wrote:
Not to nitpick but progressives opposed to war? All the American presidents who have been described as progressive have been pretty pro-war iirc.
The point is that the "progressive" voters of 2005-2008 were uniformly against the Iraq war, and would be even less sympathetic of a candidate of they voted for it in Congress.
Jacoby
Veteran
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash
04 Jun 2010, 10:24 pm
Hector wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
Not to nitpick but progressives opposed to war? All the American presidents who have been described as progressive have been pretty pro-war iirc.
The point is that the "progressive" voters of 2005-2008 were uniformly against the Iraq war, and would be even less sympathetic of a candidate of they voted for it in Congress.
But is that because it's "Bush's war" or was it on principle? I don't think there against nation building is what I'm trying to say.
04 Jun 2010, 10:44 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Have you ever noticed that when a Democrat is in office, such as Clinton or Obama, that the media will provide good publicity for the dude and go easy on mistakes, yet for Republican presidents and candidates they will amplify any flaw that they can possibly dig up so as to attempt character assassination?
I think this is just your biased perspective from the right. Liberals also have the perception that Republicans get away with stuff Democrats would be lynched for.
Case in point for mutual delusions of persecution: the current controversy around Israel and the convoy. Go check out some left-wing and right-wing sources on that. It is hard to imagine that the two are living in the same universe. They have completely opposite perceptions about what the general response to Israel has been, with the left believing that Israel can (literally or metaphorically) get away with murder while the US and the media back them unconditionally, while the right thinks Israel has been deserted by America and slandered by the media.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
04 Jun 2010, 10:47 pm
Hector wrote:
On principle. The American left-wing of today is pretty dovish.
Not really; plenty of lefties are in favor of Obama's proposed surge in Afghanistan. I mean, you could very well say that America's left-wing is less militaristic than the right, but since Bush left office they've basically stopped making a fuss over Iraq and appropriately adjusted their stances to match Obama's policy of escalation in Afghanistan.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
04 Jun 2010, 11:00 pm
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Have you ever noticed that when a Democrat is in office, such as Clinton or Obama, that the media will provide good publicity for the dude and go easy on mistakes, yet for Republican presidents and candidates they will amplify any flaw that they can possibly dig up so as to attempt character assassination?
I think this is just your biased perspective from the right. Liberals also have the perception that Republicans get away with stuff Democrats would be lynched for.
Case in point for mutual delusions of persecution: the current controversy around Israel and the convoy. Go check out some left-wing and right-wing sources on that. It is hard to imagine that the two are living in the same universe. They have completely opposite perceptions about what the general response to Israel has been, with the left believing that Israel can (literally or metaphorically) get away with murder while the US and the media back them unconditionally, while the right thinks Israel has been deserted by America and slandered by the media.
Not completely just my biased stupid perception. However, I have seen how people made fun of Bush's speech and even wrote comic books about "Bushisms" right after election, and yet these same people called Bill Clinton "eloquent" yet he was even more of a hick than Bush could even be accused of being! And now with Obama, who was free from liberal media persecution up until early this year. Last year he was free of the customary insults hurled at conservative politicians from the get go. A whole year. Now they are just starting to realize what an incompetent imbecile the person they praised last year is, but that's only because he's making a special effort to show off his incompetency!
04 Jun 2010, 11:08 pm
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Have you ever noticed that when a Democrat is in office, such as Clinton or Obama, that the media will provide good publicity for the dude and go easy on mistakes, yet for Republican presidents and candidates they will amplify any flaw that they can possibly dig up so as to attempt character assassination?
I think this is just your biased perspective from the right. Liberals also have the perception that Republicans get away with stuff Democrats would be lynched for.
Case in point for mutual delusions of persecution: the current controversy around Israel and the convoy. Go check out some left-wing and right-wing sources on that. It is hard to imagine that the two are living in the same universe. They have completely opposite perceptions about what the general response to Israel has been, with the left believing that Israel can (literally or metaphorically) get away with murder while the US and the media back them unconditionally, while the right thinks Israel has been deserted by America and slandered by the media.
Not completely just my biased stupid perception. However, I have seen how people made fun of Bush's speech and even wrote comic books about "Bushisms" right after election, and yet these same people called Bill Clinton "eloquent" yet he was even more of a hick than Bush could even be accused of being! And now with Obama, who was free from liberal media persecution up until early this year. Last year he was free of the customary insults hurled at conservative politicians from the get go. A whole year. Now they are just starting to realize what an incompetent imbecile the person they praised last year is, but that's only because he's making a special effort to show off his incompetency!
The main difference between the "hickness" of Bush and Clinton being that Bush did not just accent words, he mispronounced them (not that phonology should be a big deal, but journalists do notice it). Furthermore, Bush was a poor student (Kerry was also, but he didn't have Bush's phonological stumbles to remind everyone of it and he actually fought in Vietnam, so people didn't notice it too much) yet Clinton was an actual Rhodes Scholar.
So, in one case you have an entitled, generational wealther with an exaggerated Texas accent who lived much of his life in the Northeast and on the other hand you have an actual Arkansas born working class man who became a Rhodes Scholar. Who is more of "hick"? Well, in terms of the stereotype of "hick = idiot", then George W. Bush without a doubt.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3612
04 Jun 2010, 11:12 pm
The media has claimed Obama is an elitist, scurtinized his pastor, began criticizing his wars long before they critcized Dubya's in a similar phase of his presidency, insinuated that he's a "Black Nationalist", insinuated that their is some ACORN driven conspiracy, and relentlessly attacked his use of the "teleprompter".
They've also reported on lies about his wife saying "wh***y" remarks.
Yeah, they're being real soft on him.
04 Jun 2010, 11:23 pm
Orwell wrote:
Hector wrote:
On principle. The American left-wing of today is pretty dovish.
Not really; plenty of lefties are in favor of Obama's proposed surge in Afghanistan. I mean, you could very well say that America's left-wing is less militaristic than the right, but since Bush left office they've basically stopped making a fuss over Iraq and appropriately adjusted their stances to match Obama's policy of escalation in Afghanistan.
Michael Moore - opposes Afghan escalation.
Key leftwing magazine The Nation opposes the escalation.
Keith Olbermann - "Declare victory and GET OUT".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/0 ... 75047.html
Quote:
Last night MSNBC's Keith Olbermann offered a "Special Comment" on President Obama's forthcoming decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending tens of thousands of more troops into the country. Olbermann called on Obama to "declare victory and get out."
Rachel Maddow - to quote libertarian antiwar site "Leerockwell":
Quote:
Rachel Maddow Bashes O-bomb-a’s Afghanistan War Escalation
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/a ... 44175.html
... and, of course, the fact that the only people who opposed starting the War in Afghanistan were Democrats (Kunich against extending the operation beyond bombing the Al-Qaeda training camps and Barbara Lee being against all the war).
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
04 Jun 2010, 11:29 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
The media has claimed Obama is an elitist, scurtinized his pastor, began criticizing his wars long before they critcized Dubya's in a similar phase of his presidency, insinuated that he's a "Black Nationalist", insinuated that their is some ACORN driven conspiracy, and relentlessly attacked his use of the "teleprompter".
They've also reported on lies about his wife saying "wh***y" remarks.
Yeah, they're being real soft on him.
They've also reported on lies about his wife saying "wh***y" remarks.
Yeah, they're being real soft on him.
CNN is doing this? :gasp: Or do you mean ABC? NBC? Egad!
05 Jun 2010, 12:00 am
Jacoby wrote:
Not to nitpick but progressives opposed to war? All the American presidents who have been described as progressive have been pretty pro-war iirc.
But yea, I agree with the description of Obama as a corporate welfare statist.
But yea, I agree with the description of Obama as a corporate welfare statist.
If you're talking about the Progressives of the early twentieth century, I'd consider those to be ancestral at best to contemporary progressives, who are an outgrowth of the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s and the earlier civil-rights movement.
05 Jun 2010, 12:04 am
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
However, I have seen how people made fun of Bush's speech and even wrote comic books about "Bushisms" right after election, and yet these same people called Bill Clinton "eloquent" yet he was even more of a hick than Bush could even be accused of being!
From what I've heard of their respective speech, Clinton is certainly more fluent in the English language. You would have to be deaf not to realize that. George W. Bush was not a particularly intelligent person.
I will, however, say that I recently happened upon some old clips of Bush (from his days as governor of Texas) and he did seem reasonably articulate then. I'm not sure why he seemed to lose all coherency on taking the White House, or if perhaps we just noticed it more since he was more prominent.
Quote:
And now with Obama, who was free from liberal media persecution up until early this year. Last year he was free of the customary insults hurled at conservative politicians from the get go. A whole year. Now they are just starting to realize what an incompetent imbecile the person they praised last year is, but that's only because he's making a special effort to show off his incompetency!
Really? Look, I don't like Obama. But look at what the polls say people think of him, and tell me if you think the world has been going "soft" on him. 38% of Republicans think Obama is like Hitler. A majority think he's Muslim and a socialist. There are all sorts of outlandish, overblown attacks on him flying around out there, including in the media.
_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
05 Jun 2010, 12:10 am
NeantHumain wrote:
If you're talking about the Progressives of the early twentieth century, I'd consider those to be ancestral at best to contemporary progressives, who are an outgrowth of the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s and the earlier civil-rights movement.
Those people fried their heads. Or they were linked to communist causes.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
05 Jun 2010, 12:32 am
John_Browning wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
If you're talking about the Progressives of the early twentieth century, I'd consider those to be ancestral at best to contemporary progressives, who are an outgrowth of the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s and the earlier civil-rights movement.
Those people fried their heads. Or they were linked to communist causes.
Many one the drug-free yet politically radical New Left was in favour of Democratic Socialism, which isn't Communism and is what Sir Eric Arthur Blair supported.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
05 Jun 2010, 1:30 am
Master_Pedant wrote:
Many one the drug-free yet politically radical New Left was in favour of Democratic Socialism, which isn't Communism and is what Sir Eric Arthur Blair supported.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."
-Margaret Thatcher
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
05 Jun 2010, 5:31 am
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Really? Look, I don't like Obama. But look at what the polls say people think of him, and tell me if you think the world has been going "soft" on him. 38% of Republicans think Obama is like Hitler. A majority think he's Muslim and a socialist. There are all sorts of outlandish, overblown attacks on him flying around out there, including in the media.
Obama is at least as incompetent as his predecessor. Having a degree from Harvard and being on Harvard Law Review does not really change matters.
ruveyn
