Caddy, I think that your hedge must have been broken a long time ago and too many serpents have been loosed and smitten thee on the brain.
I know that blank look well. I have some fundies in my family (the few that I still communicate with - or at least TRY to communicate with) and they exhibit that same look if/when I dare to engage in logical discourse with them on subjects like the economy and politics in general. It goes without saying that they are ultra-conservative. I told them a long time ago that I am an atheist and, to my amazement, they did not sever their ties with me. But needless to say, we never discuss religion whenever we meet.
There are many conservatives who keep their TVs on Faux News 24/7. If they vary their news-gathering at all, it's only to listen to Limbaugh or some other ultra-right-wing talking head on the radio. They have been fed ultra-conservative propaganda for so long, they are brainwashed with it and that is reality to them.
Most Christians think that John 3:16 is the very foundation of their beliefs. But it is all a sham. God, in his omniscience, did not sacrifice anything in "giving his only begotten son." He knew perfectly well how it all would turn out in the end - that he would get him back after a mere 3 days of death (which he knew wasn't really death, at least not for Jesus). Jesus is supposedly with his Old Man up in the sky right now, sitting on their dual thrones and waiting for Judgment Day to come around, probably biding their time watching Faux News, TBN, and the 700 Club. So where was the sacrifice and thus the expression of sacrificial "love" that God supposedly feels for humankind? John 3:16 is a joke.
Let's wait and see what All has to say on the subject, Ki. I'm sure that he/she is going to provide for us a perfectly legitimate explanation why it's different with Obama. Republicans/conservatives are always so clear-headed and rational, you know. There must be something that we libs are missing, blinded as we are by our ideology and unfettered as Republicans are by theirs. Also, we libs suffer from the "mental defect" of liberalism (or so I've been told by many a conservative), so we obviously don't see things as clearly as they.
You want something to refute, All? Refute what Pam Sohn said here: "What has already happened 39 times through the actions of nearly a dozen presidents was perfectly OK with Americans -- until this president did it. The action is virtually the same. What is not the same is what Americans have been told over and over by mouthy tea party and conservative upstarts: This president is 'lawless' and his action 'unconstitutional.'"
Refute that. Please. Explain to us how Obama's actions are lawless and unconstitutional but those other presidents who used executive orders for precisely the same thing were all acting within the bounds of the Constitution. And the fact that he changed his mind from 8 years ago doesn't count. Presidents are allowed to change their minds, especially over an 8-year period dating back to their pre-president days. Or, do you conservatives somehow think that changing one's mind - at least when a Democrat or..gasp!... worse yet; Obama does it - is "unconstitutional" and "lawless," too?
Remember when Obama was first elected president? Remember one of the first things he vowed not to do? Even though there was a truckload of evidence to have indicted Bush for war crimes and for lying to the American people and fabricating reasons to go to war, he said that there were too many other serious problems confronting the nation and he didn't want to start off his presidency by dwelling on the past but rather focusing entirely on the work at hand. Personally I think that was a big mistake but I'll at least give him credit for wanting to take the high road. And when Bush was still in office, there was even plenty of evidence then to have impeached him for lying to and deceiving the American people, but did the Democrats spend all of their time trying to get him impeached or bringing a lawsuit against him? Hell No. And talk about somebody who SHOULD have been impeached!
But Republicans today have no clue how to really govern and do anything constructive, so they focus all of their energy and attention on finding ways to try to destroy the other party and their leader. They have spent the ENTIRETY of Obama's presidency trying to take him down and they have completely ignored every serious problem confronting this nation. There is one reason and one reason only for the congressional gridlock that has existed these past 6 years and it is spelled G-O-P.
And now, what are the "sins" that Obama is guilty of, for which these f#cking Republicans want to tar and feather him and run him out of town on a rail? Well, he had the audacity to pass a bill that provided insurance to over 10 million Americans who couldn't get it. And then he had the audacity to grant amnesty to 5 million immigrants whose only "crime" was their desire to flee an impoverished country where they would have lived forever in squalor and come to a country where they might have a chance to improve their lot in life. Yeah...the man is pure evil alright. You Republicans/conservatives are the evil ones. Your stupidity and your ass-backward thinking are outmatched only by your malice, your greed, and your insufferable sense of self-importance.
"NO ONE THAT WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT IN THIS COUNTRY CAN CUT ALL TIES TO WALL STREET. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN." - ibshame
Unfortunately you are probably correct, ibshame. But somehow, somewhere along the line we are going to have to stop believing that, just like we are going to have to stop voting for the lesser of two evils in our presidential candidates. We keep spiraling downward in this cesspool of conservatism and corporate fascism and saying things like you just said. But no politician that I know of is even talking about campaign finance reform and it is the ONE thing that we need above all else if we are to ever to get out from under the heavy crushing thumb of Wall St. and big business.
When FDR was first elected he was not nearly the unabashed liberal that he was to become. He certainly had strong liberal tendencies anyway, but the majority of the country was so overwhelmingly in favor of socialist reforms that he was forced to become even more progressive than he already was. If we want a truly populist/progressive leader, more and more people are going to have to demand that one step up and proudly proclaim themselves as a progressive. Most Democrats today act as if they are afraid to even be labeled a liberal.
"These are the actions of the leader of the free world struggling to find a humane solution to a national disgrace against the most arrogant, greedy, subversive, blatantly racist, gaggle of xenophobes on the face of Earth who, sadly, preyed upon the ignorance, prejudice and emotion of a subset of the electorate while undermining the integrity of our electoral process to gain power. America in disgrace with neo-fascists on parade." - librul
Damn, librul, you hit the nail all the way in with one whack of the hammer. Well said!
Limric, your post is right on. I give Obama credit for two things primarily: (1)his ability to get the ACA passed in spite of such fierce and unanimous opposition from Republicans; and (2)this latest executive action on immigration reform. Whether he did it to distract or not, I don't know, but it was the right thing to do nonetheless. As for the ACA (Obamacare) it was a mere Band-Aid on a gushing artery but it was a step in the right direction, at least.
But Obama is very much a corporate lackey and he seems to be shameless about it. Other than to push for an increase in the minimum wage he has done nothing that shows true support for the average working person, and his appointments - every one of them - have been former financial big-wigs, with strong, personal ties to Wall St. and the banks, who have every reason to keep regulation to a minimum. Obama is very much the neo-liberal (sell-out) and seems to idolize Clinton, who drank too much of the Kool-Aid of Reaganomics.And I'm certain that Hillary, if elected, will be a clone of her husband as far as economic policy is concerned.
Fairmon, you need to do some serious research on MLK. I did not just make that stuff up about him. He was an admitted liberal activist with some very serious socialist leanings. Just like cherry-picking Christians try to mold Christ into the sort of hero/savior that suits their individual ideology, be it conservative, liberal, or libertarian, you conservatives and libertarians cherry pick from Dr. King's activism to make it appear that he embraced your ideology as well. But he was about as far removed from libertarianism or conservatism as anybody could possibly be. Practically every conservative of his day despised Dr. King, and conservatives today are even more rabidly conservative than they were back then, if that's possible. And yet, most conservatives today all speak in such reverent tones about him, as if he were one of their own. It's funny and disgusting at the same time.
As for democratic socialism, it is admittedly a rather ambiguous term but a legitimate one nonetheless. The fact that you have no knowledge of it only shows how out of touch you are. It is a term that has been in use for decades. Most Western European countries have been living under a form of democratic socialism since the end of WW2. It is a form of government in which a democratic political system co-exists with a socialist or socialist leaning economic system, with capitalism existing as well but with strict regulations in place that safeguard the people and the environment. Socialist democratic countries have the good sense to realize that neither full-blown socialism nor unbridled capitalism is the answer but rather a compromise between the two. Most conservatives in America worship unbridled capitalism and individual greed as the Holy Grail and they renounce any aspect of socialism or collectivism as evil. They are mental midgets who cannot seem to wrap their heads around the notion that certain aspects of socialism and capitalism can actually co-exist and work for the benefit of the most number of people.