Support NeoGAF

[Smiles and Cries]

why is lefty always getting himself banned?

what is the big news today?

 

[maximum360]

why is lefty always getting himself banned?

He falls for the bait every time.

 

[Tamanon]

The good news is that Lefty getting banned is generally the sign of a resounding Obama victory.

 

[reilo]

why is lefty always getting himself banned?

what is the big news today?

Needs to lay off the ad-hominem attacks.

 

[maximum360]

The good news is that Lefty getting banned is generally the sign of a resounding Obama victory.

I guess that's a positive spin on it. :lol

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Obama rally in PA drew 22k, pretty impressive

:lol

 

[Frank the Great]

countdown on nbc

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Someone Tivo/Youtube it. please

 

[Triumph]

APF doesn't have the right to whine, but like I said before I respect anybody who really takes the time to detail their positions over and over again against the rabid majority, which I count myself among this time.

The entire discourse could stand to be raised a few notches around here, Obama supporters are quick to launch insults I notice and APF/CoolTrick/etc are quick to launch their flurry of attacks against those who support Obama as "messiah worshipers." We could all do without this shit.

So I don't mind it. These threads would be boring without them. On the other hand, let's stay AWAY from ad hominem attacks and insults... eventually they'll get you banned

I don't think it's fair to equate APF with CoolTrick. That's unfair to APF and too generous to CoolTrick.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't think it's fair to equate APF with CoolTrick. That's unfair to APF and too generous to CoolTrick.

The difference is that only Obama fans throw around insults in these threads. I've never insulted anyone, neither has APF or even quest. I respect the opinions of people like HarSon even if I disagree, because usually we can have a respectful, intelligent conversation.

 

[APF]

Well, to get this off of the topic of the personal:

[...]

So what's his plan? I consulted The Audacity of Hope, his political book, and found it full of rhetoric such as "what's needed is a broad majority of Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill -- who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal" and "we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings," etc., etc. But how will he actually bring about this political transformation as president? He warns that it won't be easy. He says it will require "tough choices" and "courage." OK, but WHAT'S THE PLAN? "This isn't to say I know exactly how to do it," he writes. "I don't." Oh. I'm not sure if this is disarming modesty or outrageous chutzpah.

I don't think Obama is cynical, although he may be naive. I think he believes that once in a while a new kind of politician, with a new kind of mandate from a new kind of electorate, can set a new tone and direction. He's right, up to a point. Ronald Reagan showed in 1981 what a strong mandate from a changed electorate could accomplish, though only for a year or so.

But there's also a kind of pandering in what Obama is doing. A few years ago, a pair of political scientists, John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, looked at evidence from surveys and focus groups and drew some fairly startling conclusions. Most Americans, they found, think there are easy, straightforward solutions out there that everyone would agree on if only biased special interests and self-serving politicians would get out of the way. They want to be governed by ENSIDs: empathetic non-self-interested decision makers.

This is pure fantasy, of course. But indulging it is Obama's stock-in-trade. In today's Washington, the only way to get sustainable bipartisanship -- bipartisanship over a period of years, not weeks -- is with divided government, which Obama and a Democratic Congress obviously can't provide. True, Hillary Rodham Clinton can't provide that either. He might be better than she at working across party lines (although in the Senate she has been quite good at it, arguably better than he -- and John McCain has been best of all). But to promise "a new kind of politics" borders on chicanery.

[...]

Full article at: http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm (he's the "Caring for your Introvert" guy). Like the last article, it's a good read even if you are an Obama supporter.


Edit: oh I've definitely insulted people, but have tried to tone it down since I was banned for responding to insults with insults.

 

[Triumph]

The difference is that only Obama fans throw around insults in these threads. I've never insulted anyone, neither has APF or even quest. I respect the opinions of people like HarSon even if I disagree, because usually we can have a respectful, intelligent conversation.

Well, this is just where you and I will have to agree to disagree. Like I said the other day, if it quacks like an idiot, walks like an idiot and talks like an idiot, then I don't see why I shouldn't call it an idiot.

IMO, APF isn't an idiot but he is a gadfly of sorts. Sometimes it's a good thing, sometimes not. CoolTrick is just a troll, and yes, an idiot.

 

[siamesedreamer]

In today's Washington, the only way to get sustainable bipartisanship -- bipartisanship over a period of years, not weeks -- is with divided government, which Obama and a Democratic Congress obviously can't provide.

Exactly what I've been saying for a while now.

 

[Hootie]

Jesus, Countdown with Keith Olbermann is on right now? *fap fap fap*

 

[CoolTrick]

IT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT TO SAY IT. Don't you understand that? Just because she has a history of being dishonest it does not make it okay for her to continue to be dishonest. Is that so hard for you to grasp?

I'm not arguing about it being right. It isn't right.

But it's politics. The Bosnia story is nothing really out of the ordinary in politics. Obama embellishes frequently as does Hillary.

Idealogically, knowing that, it's about whether you prefer to know your enemies or not. I prefer knowing what Hillary's about, including her faults.

The masses by and large pretending he doesn't do the same shit as Hillary bothers me more.

The thing is, as the superior candidate, he was able to overcome his shortcomings - he was not given a free pass.

Unfortunately, people are going to see what they want to see. This is one of those arguments. However, the only thing we have to measure free passes by the media DOES show that Obama IS given much more of a pass than Hillary.

 

[CoolTrick]

CoolTrick is just a troll

This is the assholishness that I can't stand.

So I'm a troll because I'm vocal about my opinion that isn't agreed with by the majority here?

Fuck that sheer elitist thinking that is so prevalent around here.

 

[scorcho]

The difference is that only Obama fans throw around insults in these threads. I've never insulted anyone, neither has APF or even quest. I respect the opinions of people like HarSon even if I disagree, because usually we can have a respectful, intelligent conversation.

quest doesn't need to insult anyone - the sheer inanity of most of his posts is insulting to our fine educational system.

Exactly what I've been saying for a while now.

you've been making this argument for a while now, but i don't recall you ever complaining when Republicans controlled all the levers of the government.

nor do i think i'll ever see you do that.

 

[Tamanon]

I'm not arguing about it being right. It isn't right.

But it's politics. The Bosnia story is nothing really out of the ordinary in politics. Obama embellishes frequently as does Hillary.

Idealogically, knowing that, it's about whether you prefer to know your enemies or not. I prefer knowing what Hillary's about, including her faults.

The masses by and large pretending he doesn't do the same shit as Hillary bothers me more.



Unfortunately, people are going to see what they want to see. This is one of those arguments. However, the only thing we have to measure free passes by the media DOES show that Obama IS given much more of a pass than Hillary.

Yeah, Obama's free pass is going really well on FOX

 

[scorcho]

This is the assholishness that I can't stand.

So I'm a troll because I'm vocal about my opinion that isn't agreed with by the majority here?

Fuck that sheer elitist thinking that is so prevalent around here.

that and your claim that Obama is a subversive Muslim sympathizer because of his lineage.

 

[CoolTrick]

eah, Obama's free pass is going really well on FOX

But at the same time, you have MSNBC on the other end, which is just so blatantly shameless I can't watch it.

CNN is definitely more pro Clinton but it's still infinitely more objective than MSNBC (or Fox).

 

[Shirokun]

His friend Jeff ****ing, 18, is a senior

Not to throw us off topic, but what is this guy's name? He must have got in a shit-load of trouble as a kid.

Returning to the topic.....GO OBAMA!

 

[reilo]

I'm not arguing about it being right. It isn't right.

But it's politics. The Bosnia story is nothing really out of the ordinary in politics. Obama embellishes frequently as does Hillary.

Idealogically, knowing that, it's about whether you prefer to know your enemies or not. I prefer knowing what Hillary's about, including her faults.

The masses by and large pretending he doesn't do the same shit as Hillary bothers me more.

...and this is why Obama's campaign is ringing in favor with so many people... They are tired of those politics.

And again with that "he does the same shit as Hillary." Obama's couple fuck-ups don't even come close to Hillary's. Not even close. But you are free to that disillusionment I suppose.

Unfortunately, people are going to see what they want to see. This is one of those arguments. However, the only thing we have to measure free passes by the media DOES show that Obama IS given much more of a pass than Hillary.

Yup. You sure see something else than most of the populace.

 

[Amir0x]

Guys can't we rise above insulting these dudes and just respond or ignore the points they're trying to make? Thanks

 

[CoolTrick]

...and this is why Obama's campaign is ringing in favor with so many people... They are tired of those politics.

You may not think Obama's slipups are on Hillary's level, but you forget that Hillary has practically earned her right to being able to withstand some of them. It's like how she was treated as the "incumbant" in this race. Fair? No, but due to circumstance that's how it plays out, what with her being around for so long.

And as far as your quote, they might be tired of those politics, but what about when there's contradiction after contradiction after contradiction? What do you think about Obama, then?

For example, bipartisan and unity not only is not something Obama can realistically provide, not only is it by and large not overly neccesary because the House and Senate will become even more Democratic this year, but Hillary Clinton actually has an established record of working with the GOP. Even with people who were enemies of her husband. (Example, Lindsey Graham, who helped impeach her husband -- Repub, Senator, SC).

 

[Tamanon]

You may not think Obama's slipups are on Hillary's level, but you forget that Hillary has practically earned her right to being able to withstand some of them. It's like how she was treated as the "incumbant" in this race. Fair? No, but due to circumstance that's how it plays out, what with her being around for so long.

And as far as your quote, they might be tired of those politics, but what about when there's contradiction after contradiction after contradiction? What do you think about Obama, then?

For example, bipartisan and unity not only is not something Obama can realistically provide, not only is it by and large not overly neccesary because the House and Senate will become even more Democratic this year, but Hillary Clinton actually has an established record of working with the GOP. Even with people who were enemies of her husband. (Example, Lindsey Graham, who helped impeach her husband -- Repub, Senator, SC).

So basically, it's better to have no hope whatsoever, just cynicism and not risk your heart being broken.

AKA The GAF Girl thread method of politics.

 

[scorcho]

i've also learned that the longer you've been in politics (or has a husband that has been in politics), the more right you have to lie, dissemble and exaggerate - you know, because you can withstand it and stuff.

 

[Hitokage]

So basically, it's better to have no hope whatsoever, just cynicism and not risk your heart being broken.

Well, maybe I shouldn't have rooted for Davidson after all.

 

[Cheebs]

But at the same time, you have MSNBC on the other end, which is just so blatantly shameless I can't watch it.

CNN is definitely more pro Clinton but it's still infinitely more objective than MSNBC (or Fox).

Yet MSNBC gets poor ratings compared to Fox and CNN so I don't see how he is riding easy.

 

[Amir0x]

So basically, it's better to have no hope whatsoever, just cynicism and not risk your heart being broken.

AKA The GAF Girl thread method of politics.

:lol

 

[reilo]

You may not think Obama's slipups are on Hillary's level, but you forget that Hillary has practically earned her right to being able to withstand some of them. It's like how she was treated as the "incumbant" in this race. Fair? No, but due to circumstance that's how it plays out, what with her being around for so long.

Earned?! EARNED?!

EARNED?!?!

No, she has not earned SHIT. This entitlement that the Clinton camp is throwing out claiming that the presidency is Hillary's right to claim is mindboggling. This is not a monarchy.

And as far as your quote, they might be tired of those politics, but what about when there's contradiction after contradiction after contradiction? What do you think about Obama, then?

For example, bipartisan and unity not only is not something Obama can realistically provide, not only is it by and large not overly neccesary because the House and Senate will become even more Democratic this year, but Hillary Clinton actually has an established record of working with the GOP. Even with people who were enemies of her husband. (Example, Lindsey Graham, who helped impeach her husband -- Repub, Senator, SC).

So, because the odds are stacked against Obama to realistically provide a bipartisan unity, he should not even try? He should just sit back and do nothing? Oh, okay. That's cool. I will vote for Hillary then, because Obama obviously has no chance of accomplishing the goals he has set out! Hillary makes no claim to try and change the way Washington is run, that makes her all the better candidate.

But here is the real contradiction: Ask Bill Richardson what it's like not to side with the Clintons. Ask Nancy Pelosi. Ask Howard Dean.

Hillary, if she is the nominee, would destroy her own PARTY. How in the world is she supposed to unite the entire congress from the other side of the aisle when she cannot even unite her own party?

 

[CoolTrick]

So basically, it's better to have no hope whatsoever, just cynicism and not risk your heart being broken.

But this isn't about being optimistic and hopeful. Obama's claim for bipartisan politics is so utterly naive that simple logic disproves it.

-He's further to the left than Hillary Clinton. True bipartisanship in Washington comes about when you're in the middle on your stances. Obama's even further left policies are not going to bring about bipartisanship.

-Bipartisanship is just a talking point. It's not going to be, on the whole, overly neccesary what with the Democrats increasing their lead in the House and Senate.

-Simple logic: On issues you feel most strongly about, which you want an administration that'd be willing to give you some headway, but some to the opposite way? No! You'd want them to share your stance! Hence, partisanship never will go away. Obama's claim is just a Kum-Bae-Ya talking point.

 

[Tamanon]

But this isn't about being optimistic and hopeful. Obama's claim for bipartisan politics is so utterly naive that simple logic disproves it.

-He's further to the left than Hillary Clinton. True bipartisanship in Washington comes about when you're in the middle on your stances. Obama's even further left policies are not going to bring about bipartisanship.

-Bipartisanship is just a talking point. It's not going to be, on the whole, overly neccesary what with the Democrats increasing their lead in the House and Senate.

-Simple logic: On issues you feel most strongly about, which you want an administration that'd be willing to give you some headway, but some to the opposite way? No! You'd want them to share your stance! Hence, partisanship never will go away. Obama's claim is just a Kum-Bae-Ya talking point.

So...he's not going to encourage bipartisanship, because it doesn't exist, and never will, and thus we shouldn't even try. Got it

 

[Tamanon]

LOL Macaca. LOL Alan Keyes Show.

 

[CoolTrick]

Tamanon, what does Obama plan to do to encourage bipartisanship?

 

[Hitokage]

Obama makes a distinction between pragmatism and simply splitting the difference.

 

[Particle Physicist]

The difference is that only Obama fans throw around insults in these threads. I've never insulted anyone, neither has APF or even quest. I respect the opinions of people like HarSon even if I disagree, because usually we can have a respectful, intelligent conversation.

i find the obamaniacs, obamapologists, and messiah comments insulting.. personally. they are basically equating me and my opinions as nothing more than the ravings of some delusional lunatic.. and they are constantly thrown around.. more so than the insults that lefty was banned for. how can you expect to have a respectful, intelligent conversation, when the opinions of all pro-obama people on here are dismissed so readily?

 

[Cheebs]

But this isn't about being optimistic and hopeful. Obama's claim for bipartisan politics is so utterly naive that simple logic disproves it.

-He's further to the left than Hillary Clinton. True bipartisanship in Washington comes about when you're in the middle on your stances. Obama's even further left policies are not going to bring about bipartisanship.

They said Reagan was too conservative, too right wing to unite the country and get his agenda through a democratic congress.

But they were wrong. Why not for Obama as well?

 

[Tamanon]

Tamanon, what does Obama plan to do to encourage bipartisanship?

The fact that he's actually stated he's open to listening to the other side....and the open door policy of hammering out the healthcare plan would help there.

But again, what you're basically arguing is that he can't do it, nobody can do it, thus we shouldn't ever try. A very Unamerican thought

 

[Hitokage]

They said Reagan was too conservative, too right wing to unite the country and get his agenda through a democratic congress.

Reagan had enough popular support to push what he wanted through.

 

[TDG]

So...he's not going to encourage bipartisanship, because it doesn't exist, and never will, and thus we shouldn't even try. Got it

But if it did exist, CoolTrick reminds you that Hillary would be good at it:

But Hillary Clinton actually has an established record of working with the GOP. Even with people who were enemies of her husband. (Example, Lindsey Graham, who helped impeach her husband -- Repub, Senator, SC).

 

[reilo]

Reagan had enough popular support to push what he wanted through.

And Obama doesn't?

He's winning states with more votes than the next 3 republicans combined. Of course, this does not mean it will play out like that in the generals, but to say Obama won't have the popular support from everything that we have seen so far is a bit shortsighted.

 

[Tamanon]

And Obama doesn't?

He's winning states with more votes than the next 3 republicans combined. Of course, this does not mean it will play out like that in the generals, but to say Obama won't have the popular support from everything that we have seen so far is a bit shortsighted.

I think that was Hitokage's point. It's Fragamemnon that's the Hillary fan

 

[Hitokage]

And Obama doesn't?

I was elaborating, not drawing a contrast.

 

[reilo]

I think that was Hitokage's point. It's Fragamemnon that's the Hillary fan

I was elaborating, not drawing a contrast.

I guess we are all in agreement then.

 

[CoolTrick]

But if it did exist, CoolTrick reminds you that Hillary would be good at it:

Well that's not per se what I meant. If you have a Dem president, a Dem Senate, and a Dem house, you'll by and large be able to get stuff through.

That won't hold true for EVERYTHING, though, and if you do need the support of a few Republicans, Hillary has shown that she's able to do that.

So what would Obama bring to the table on this issue?

 

[Tamanon]

Well that's not per se what I meant. If you have a Dem president, a Dem Senate, and a Dem house, you'll by and large be able to get stuff through.

That won't hold true for EVERYTHING, though, and if you do need the support of a few Republicans, Hillary has shown that she's able to do that.

So what would Obama bring to the table on this issue?

The Dem president part?

 

[reilo]

Well that's not per se what I meant. If you have a Dem president, a Dem Senate, and a Dem house, you'll by and large be able to get stuff through.

That won't hold true for EVERYTHING, though, and if you do need the support of a few Republicans, Hillary has shown that she's able to do that.

So what would Obama bring to the table on this issue?

If Hillary is the president, she won't even have the support of her own party. The republican support will be moot.

 

[mashoutposse]

Well, to get this off of the topic of the personal:

"...So what's his plan? I consulted The Audacity of Hope, his political book, and found it full of rhetoric such as "what's needed is a broad majority of Americans -- Democrats, Republicans, and independents of goodwill -- who are re-engaged in the project of national renewal" and "we need a new kind of politics, one that can excavate and build upon those shared understandings," etc., etc. But how will he actually bring about this political transformation as president? He warns that it won't be easy. He says it will require "tough choices" and "courage." OK, but WHAT'S THE PLAN?"


Full article at: http://nationaljournal.com/rauch.htm (he's the "Caring for your Introvert" guy). Like the last article, it's a good read even if you are an Obama supporter.

What's the plan? With his skyward poll numbers, torrid fundraising, and broad support from both insiders and outsiders, I think we're seeing "the plan" unfold right before our very eyes.

That article doesn't make sense for March 2008. March 2007, maybe. Anyone who has paid attention to the campaign has watched the principles laid out in his book manifest into very real actions. Follow the money: He is almost entirely funded by ordinary people, which means he is in the very extraordinary position of possibly being elected sans the encumbrances that come with selling your soul to lobbyists and PACs and other insiders.

What does this mean? It means that, although they share numerous policy positions, Obama is in a far better position than Clinton to actually institute all of their good ideas in as close to undiluted form as possible. And that's before one considers the Obama-influenced resurgence in interest amongst the general populace.

 

[CoolTrick]

The Dem president part?

I didn't realize Hillary would shift to Libertarian if she won the presidency.

 

[reilo]

I didn't realize Hillary would shift to Libertarian if she won the presidency.

Like I said twice already...

The Clinton's have dug themselves in deep shit and pissed off all the big-heads of the dem party: The Pelosis, the Deans, the Richardsons, the Kennedys, and I reckon even the Gores. John Edwards and John Kerry sure as hell aren't Hillary fans.

If you don't see that, then I don't know what to tell you. The Clinton camp has been very vindictive to everyone that opposes them - democrat, republican, or independent. She won't even have the support among her own party if she becomes the president.