Obama and "Breaking Promises"

[Big Phil]

Since January, we've seen a plethora of right wing idiots falling over themselves to blame Obama for every little thing that goes wrong in society. Just recently, some douchebag accused him of a lack of transparency, and then a thread was created here on SDNET blindly following along with the douchebag. The major theme of threads of this type are 1) Obama is a fascist/socialist who will take away freedom (and guns), and 2) Obama is corrupt and/or evil because of some innocuous, irrelevant thing that is blown out of proportion.

At the same time, left wing idiots are screeching because Obama isn't fulfilling their masturbatory fantasies of an administration so far to the left it would have made Carter look like a combination of Buchanan, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush II. Their posts have a recurring theme of 1) Obama is Bush III or 2) Obama is a coward and a liar!

What both of these types of threads have in common is the near total lack of critical thought, blatant manipulation of the facts, and amazing logical contortions to draw a conclusion.

Now, I'm not asking the moderators to do anything about douchebags who make these sorts of posts; I'm simply declaring open season, in the form of mockery of stupid people, massive heapings of sarcasm or obscenity-laced flames, on idiots who post this sort of stupid shit about our current president with such blatant disregard for reality. For the record, Obama is neither a fascist communist, nor a right wing nutcase, and all of the douchebags who followed two years of campaigning without recognizing that, you're a bunch of preliterate idiots.

Anyone who wishes to join me in a campaign on this sort of stupidity is welcome to do so.


That is all, rant over. Please go back to arguing about racial slurs and how they are similar to fashion choice.

[Sea Skimmer]

People did all the same shit with Bush, who gives a fuck. Welcome to the reality of politics.

[Count Chocula]

I'm quite comfortable with arguing facts and motivations, without dipping into slander. Bush gave us plenty of grist for the mill, and so far, Obama's appointments (not necessarily the man himself) are doing the same. Why look for made-up shit when the reality is so juicy?

[General Zod]

Why look for made-up shit when the reality is so juicy?

I hear a lot of people have trouble telling the difference.

[Starglider]

The amount of extremism on this forum (at present) is really very mild and I don't think it needs any special moderator attention. If this was HPCA where literally 75% of the threads are 'look this mistake proves Obama is the devil right' we'd have a problem (though I'm not sure how moderation would solve that problem), but fortunately SDN is nothing like that.

[Darth Wong]

People did all the same shit with Bush, who gives a fuck. Welcome to the reality of politics.

This reminds me of another theme I've seen repeated many times: anything people do to Obama is equivalent to what was done with Bush. And this equivalence is established by ... what, exactly? As far as I can tell, it is established simply by assuming it.

[Rye]

I think Obama deserves criticism, especially WRT Binyam Mohammed and similar inherited Bush problems he doesn't deem as important to make a stand on as the economic crisis, but this was all easily predictable. I think there's going to be overcompensation when there's been a Bush in power and then suddenly an Obama comes in, in order to appear less partisan, even if he's genuinely doing a better job. For example, there's the Daily Show attempts that point out his Iraq speeches are pretty similar to Bush's. The board isn't as overly stupid as elsewhere, though, so I don't think it needs any specific attention over peer criticism.

[ray245]

I think Obama deserves criticism, especially WRT Binyam Mohammed and similar inherited Bush problems he doesn't deem as important to make a stand on as the economic crisis, but this was all easily predictable. I think there's going to be overcompensation when there's been a Bush in power and then suddenly an Obama comes in, in order to appear less partisan, even if he's genuinely doing a better job. For example, there's the Daily Show attempts that point out his Iraq speeches are pretty similar to Bush's. The board isn't as overly stupid as elsewhere, though, so I don't think it needs any specific attention over peer criticism.

However, doesn't he have to conform to the American public as a whole, his supporters who tends to be rather conservative (even one of his largest fanbase, the African American community is conservative as well) in order to win the next election?

After all, the ideology of the community here at SD.net is considered as extremely liberal to most Americans. So I think we should cut him some slack for not being a liberal president.

[General Zod]

I think Obama deserves criticism, especially WRT Binyam Mohammed and similar inherited Bush problems he doesn't deem as important to make a stand on as the economic crisis, but this was all easily predictable. I think there's going to be overcompensation when there's been a Bush in power and then suddenly an Obama comes in, in order to appear less partisan, even if he's genuinely doing a better job. For example, there's the Daily Show attempts that point out his Iraq speeches are pretty similar to Bush's. The board isn't as overly stupid as elsewhere, though, so I don't think it needs any specific attention over peer criticism.

I don't think anyone's suggesting specific attention. Just an open season on idiots who are decrying Obama as Bush 2.0 because they were stupid enough to fall for Republican propaganda about Obama being the most liberal candidate ever, and anything he does that's perceived as not liberal is somehow more of the same.

[Solauren]

I'm all for jumping on idiots that are not thinking things through and seeing through the distortions or not thinking.

After all, that's what we do.

(Primes rifle). So, open season?

[Sea Skimmer]

This reminds me of another theme I've seen repeated many times: anything people do to Obama is equivalent to what was done with Bush. And this equivalence is established by ... what, exactly? As far as I can tell, it is established simply by assuming it.

It’s established by living through it for campaigns and presidencies that now span the last ten years. The hysterical way the extremists of both sides try to portray the other as the spawn of Satan who can do no right while only their side has the path to truth and prosperity is exactly the fucking same. What the men actually do in office is totally irrelevant to any of this.

Obama just gets extra screwed because low and behold, thanks to the internet we have much better records of all the speeches he made and campaign promises then ever before. So its way easier to nitpick every last detail if one desires. He also sure didn’t help himself with making ‘change’ a campaign slogan that most people gobbled up to the exclusion of learning of any of his actual policy statements. Now thanks to that its perfectly rational to most people, whatever side they may be on to attribute any and all changes to him. Right now the changes are almost all negative.

[Starglider]

(misposted - please delete - sorry)

[Coyote]

What? Someone was elected to lead a nation of 300+ million utterly diverse people and he can't please all of them at once? Say it ain't so!

Folks need to chill. No President can completely see through 100% of all his campaign promises. A President can have the greatest ideas in the world but it all has to go through the filters of Congress & Senate, and the insistence of give & take means that things will be compromised, watered down, added, etc. And, from time to time, that means bowing to the "other side" and giving them some of what they want.

George Bush I outlawed the importation of semi-automatic rifles from overseas for civilian purchase; he publicly ended his NRA membership over it. Totally peed all over his own "base".

Bill Clinton? Same thing-- NAFTA and de-regulation? He did more de-regulation than any Republican President; he blew his "labor" base off completely for ideas that were typically seen as GOP.

I'm sure we can find all kinds of examples where Presidents went against their grain. Complaining about it is normal and no cause for alarm; hell, it's expected. If it pisses you off to see someone pissed off, deal with it on your own. There's no need to call the fire brigade. I guarantee you'll get tired looooonnng before the outrages run out.

[Big Phil]

Just to clarify, I have no problem with someone saying "Obama broke this promise... he's an ass!" I do have a problem with someone saying "Obama broke this promise... he's no different (politically) than George W. Bush." The former statement might be factual... the latter is frighteningly ignorant.

Similarly, I have no problem with someone saying "Obama promised to change X... he hasn't yet and he doesn't appear to have plans to... what an ass!" But someone saying "He hasn't changed X (yet)... he's a LIAR and a DESPOT!" is a moron.

[Bounty]

Hey, I can think of a few subjects I feel strongly about! Can I get an extra-special playground pass too? I know I can just tackle the issue by following the established rules, but it's much easier to rally support first so I can yell without having to strain my little brain.

What's the point of this thread again?

[Big Phil]

What's the point of this thread again?

Ahem...

Anyone who wishes to join me in a campaign on this sort of stupidity is welcome to do so.


That is all, rant over

Wouldn't want you to strain your little brain after all...

[Havok]

Or you could have posted your rant somewhere else. Man, if only we had a place where we could just... vent about stuff. Dude, that would be the best.

[Mr. Coffee]

Oh, look... Another highly informative and thought provoking completely useless thread in HoC. Who'd a thunk it, *I'm a smarmy asshole*.

[Coyote]

Hav and Coffee are my officially unofficial House of Commons Horsemen!

[Big Phil]

Or you could have posted your rant somewhere else. Man, if only we had a place where we could just... vent about stuff. Dude, that would be the best.

True, but since I'd like to occasionally be taken seriously, I'll leave Testing to you, Mr. Coffee, and Tubbs

[Ender]

So basically, Sanchez likes Obama, and can't stand any criticism of him, since looking at some of his other posts in N&P, he regards even valid criticism as what he has here labeled unacceptable.

Pretty sure that the point of a discussion board is to discuss things. Fuck along now.

[Mr. Coffee]

Or you could have posted your rant somewhere else. Man, if only we had a place where we could just... vent about stuff. Dude, that would be the best.

True, but since I'd like to occasionally be taken seriously, I'll leave Testing to you, Mr. Coffee, and Tubbs

He was talking about the Venting threads in HoS, wingnut.

[Lord Pounder]

Or you could have posted your rant somewhere else. Man, if only we had a place where we could just... vent about stuff. Dude, that would be the best.

True, but since I'd like to occasionally be taken seriously, I'll leave Testing to you, Mr. Coffee, and Tubbs

He was talking about the Venting threads in HoS, wingnut.

Dude he can't hear you all the way up on his high horse.