Skip to main content

View Diary: On the false equivalence between "Obama rox" and "Obama sux" (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My takeaway? (17+ / 0-)

    -Obama rox sux.
    -And Obama sux doesn't really exist, because they aren't allowed to be.

    Am I missing something? And I feel like I should just maybe point out that electing more and better Democrats is, and will continue to be the purpose of this website, until Markos decides otherwise. Is he part of the neo-liberal system designed to keep us from breaking free?

    No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

    by newinfluence on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 03:08:45 PM PDT

    •  It boils down to: (29+ / 0-)

      I have a side, and they're right. Anyone who disagrees with my side is wrong. And they are stupid to disagree with us.

      You never trust a millionaire/Quoting the sermon on the mount/I used to think I was not like them/But I'm beginning to have my doubts -- The Arcade Fire

      by tomjones on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 03:12:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You forgot (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, Cedwyn, newinfluence

      that we're all Obama sox.

      warning: snark above

      by NE2 on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:05:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama is a snake! We have to turn on him!! (11+ / 0-)

      So says Oliver Stone: http://www.usatoday.com/...

      This is why I defend Obama.  Because of people like Oliver Stone to get so worked up that in one of their moments of passion they leap to condemning Obama as an evil person and try to convince people to oppose Obama.  

      Look, Obama isn't ideal.  But guess, what.  NO HUMANS ARE IDEAL!!!!!!  I don't know what FUCKING PLANET people like Oliver Stone are living on when they ask everyone to turn on the best fucking President we have had in my lifetime!  Oh, I am sorry, please point to the BETTER ALTERNATIVE, thank you very much!!

      I don't defend Obama from criticism, but I do defend him from being called EVIL and from calls to TURN ON HIM!  

      Look, this is what I see.  I see Obama.  I hear his speeches.  I look at his record.  I watch him in office.  I compare him to other Presidents.  All of that goes into my judgment of Obama as a person and as a President.

      And then there are the STRANGERS on the internet who tells me that I am suppose to fucking BELIEVE THEM that there is a better alternative that we are all missing out on because we are settling for Obama.

      Let me make this VERY CLEAR to those of you who think that I am settling for the lesser of two evils with Obama.  

      I think you are all as out of touch with reality as the people who believe in FAITH HEALING!

      It's like I am sitting in room talking about cancer research being done and people are trying to get me to abandon medical science and just trust in the Holy Spirit to heal me!

      That's what people like Oliver Stone sound like to me.  I hear what he's saying and I think he's fucking NUTS!  I can't even fathom how he is so willing to give up what is right in front of us for something that he has never had a fucking real reason to ever expect is actually going to materialize.  

      And do you know what happens when that better President doesn't materialize?  We get Rand Paul for President.  

      Yeah, NO FUCKING THANK YOU!!  You go ahead and trust in the Lord for a better President than Obama and I am going to keep going to the FUCKING DOCTOR!

      Ahem.  Sorry.  I got a little excited there.  But my point is, that I am going to take what is right in front of me and I am not going to fuck it up because someone is telling me that there's a chance in a billion that I can do better.  

      •  My, my, my! Let me fan myself and cool down! (7+ / 0-)

        Love how you talk.

        Srsly, too many people seem to have had laundry list of stuff they were insisting Pres. Obama do immediately; otherwise, they'd judge him a failure.  In that vein, remember the SNL skit about six months or so after inauguration where they had a checklist of promises that hadn't been kept yet?  

        Pres. Obama did not start presidenting on Jan 20/09.  He started the day after election day, November, 2008, because George W. Bush couldn't be bothered anymore.  He had to deal with the colossal destruction in every facet of your country, from stifling scientific freedom to lying the U.S. into the Iraq war.  

        Pres. Obama had to take on a work load that would founder a cart horse.   And did progressives cut him some slack and try to cover his back?  Of course not.  They just complained when he missed a spot in his clean up efforts.  And then they sat on their hands in 2010 to prove some kind of point.  We all how that's worked out.

        To be perfectly clear, I was hoping for a lot more but I'm still cutting him a lot of slack.  The glass is half full not half empty.  

        We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

        by Observerinvancouver on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 06:50:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sure they're just being hysterical. (9+ / 0-)
          Srsly, too many people seem to have had laundry list of stuff they were insisting Pres. Obama do immediately; otherwise, they'd judge him a failure.
          Especially since there's really nothing wrong with the world.  I'm doing well; aren't you?

          "Exxon’s CEO was recently quoted as saying, ‘What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?’, as if the future of humanity could be separated from the ecosystems on which we depend." -- Charlotte Wilson

          by Cassiodorus on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:03:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not hysterical. Just part of the problem instead (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lordcopper, OIL GUY

            of solution.  

            We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

            by Observerinvancouver on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:27:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  One of the preposterous beliefs of most people (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Texknight, lordcopper, OIL GUY

            on the right is that they a real shot at becoming rich.  And it keeps them voting for people who are rich and supporting policies that favor of the rich and actually undermine the slim chance that most of these people on the right EVER have of becoming rich.

            They let their belief in the near impossible actually undermine what tiny little chance they ever have of having their hopes come true.  

            And from the left, we look at them and shake our heads about how stupid they are being.

            But that's the same thing people on the left who keep expecting miracles from human beings are doing.  

            Guess what, Jesus isn't coming back and there's never going to be a President who can save this country let alone the world.  There are NO saviors.  There's just human beings.  There's just people like you and me.  That's as good as it's ever going to get.  

            And to be honest, Obama helped to end DADT and he's helping to end DOMA and ended pre-existing conditions and life time and yearly caps for health insurance coverage and just those things are stunning progress.

            Honestly, it's like Obama is a wife who works hard but isn't super woman and doesn't quite have the hot young body with the perky boobs and ass anymore and the left are feeling like they really could have done a lot better.  

            Guess what.  No.  You really couldn't have.  And you are all out of your mind for not appreciating what you actually have.  

            •  Ahhhh... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cassiodorus
              Guess what.  No.  You really couldn't have.  And you are all out of your mind for not appreciating what you actually have.

              Some people who comment on this site are really hurting.  You could be a little more empathetic.  The economy isn't improving for most.  I guess you're just lucky you're not in your 50s and laid off during the last few years.  

              If you were, you'd realize they have nothing left of their savings, no good job prospects and no real hope for retirement.

              They just hope to have a place to live and some food in their golden years.

              •  I'm one of those people. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AntonBursch

                I'm 58 and unemployable it seems.  I completely support Anton's argument. The Obama administration has done a number of things to help me and those like me - the ACA being an important facet of that.

                But, aside from my direct personal interest, the President has accomplished a great deal to make the world a better place. This in the face of fierce Republican opposition, not to mention the sniping from members of his own party.

                I look forward to our next Democratic President, Hillary in 2006, we hope, not because I agree with her every policy position, but because she would be 1,000 times better than any Republican President - just like Obama.

                Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

                by OIL GUY on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 10:35:42 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  It would appear that Oliver Stone (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lordcopper, Yasuragi, OIL GUY

        is just out hocking his wares and he will say anything to do so.  I don't find it particularly useful for him to say that Obama is a snake and we must all turn on him.  

        And he is saying it to the Japanese press.  So are the 'wes' Stone is referring to the Americans?  The Japanese?  Or the whole world?

        His statements are irresponsible at best.  

      •  Who knew Oliver Stone controlled you? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kharma, Words In Action

        Mr. Universe is a known degenerate Robotophile, and his sources include former Browncoat Traitors. What is their agenda in leaking top secret information about the Reavers and endangering us all?

        by JesseCW on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:48:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You need to take your life back... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action, orestes1963

        and don't let someone like Oliver Stone give you such turmoil.  If you are so weak that you let some Hollywood director control your emotions, then you should probably not watch his interviews.  I personally can't stand the likes of Sean Hannity, but I don't let him bring my blood pressure up.

    •  Answers (12+ / 0-)

      1) No, you're not missing anything except, perhaps, the economic dimension of Cass' critique.

      2)Electing more or better Democrats was a reasonable strategy in 2002, when the site started. Since then, we've been given new information about where the party stands. Or, to put it differently, the party as it is now is hardly at all like the party was, or said it was, in 2007. In the late 80s and early 90s, the Clintons and others took the party to the right. At least it was admitted that that was what they were doing and it was to some extent debated. In 2010 the Democratic party took another gigantic step to the right. They've gone so far now that Democrats are proposing Social Security cuts. And yet no one will admit that any change has been made in the party. That is creepy in the extreme.

      Markos' site also has not admitted to this huge change in Democratic party policy, except perhaps to make vague references to pragmatism. (Included in this is the faint hint of a notion that party platforms are just so yesterday, that the Democratic party doesn't really have policies, positions, or principles and that wanting such makes you just like the Tea Party. )

      In fact, the primary quality of the "Obama Sux" people, is that they*are* acknowledging the change, and both criticizing it and questioning it. The first question, in a healthy debate on this issue, would be

      "What should our response be to this change in our party? As Democrats, what should we do?"

      But you can't even get there without acknowledging that the party has changed, has moved right, and that certain parts of the party want to become a post-platform political party, in which anything is acceptable as long as it comes from a Democrat, because we trust Democrats and therefore they must have gotten the best deal they could.

      Thus, in order to even ask the question, the "Sux" contingent have to deal with accusations of treachery from the "Rox" contingent, and also have to deal with outright denial of the problem from the other side of the party. For people who were very united behind Democrats five years ago, or even four, it is very difficult to adjust to a reality in which other Democrats absolutely deny changes that are taking place right in front of us, and whale on us as treacherous whenever we try to deal with current political reality.

      So, yeah, we haven't come up with alternatives yet. It's tough to adjust to the fact that your team is not your team, or at least is not acting like it, and it's difficult to deal with accusations of treachery and betrayal when all you're doing is pointing out the truth of the political moves that have been made, right out in the open.

      And in response to Cass:  Be fair and at least admit that it's not like an array of other wonderful options are staring us in the face.

      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 06:51:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh come on. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        science nerd, sviscusi, Yasuragi, OIL GUY

        Really?  Do you really think that suddenly the Democratic Party has become this pseudo-Democratic hybrid?  I don't, and I think the problems of this country is really beyond party, although I wouldn't classify it in the neo liberal context either.  Politics and politicans are the tools of the rich and powerful.  So is the media.  A lot of the policies making this happen was put into place by Republicans because the money structure could just work better through them.  Now that it's in place, both parties are a slave to it and that's just the reality of the situation we are in.

        Frankly, I don't think that Kos should change his website to recognize someone else's POV.  Because whether some folk like it or not, we have to still work with this institiution called the U.S. government.  

        Unless folk are in favor of some sort of a revolution to tear it all down and start all over again, we have to fix the system that we currently have.

        Of course that revolution thing is working out quite well in Eqypt right now (/snark).

        •  Well we are doing our very best to make sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Words In Action

          Egypt's outcome is in "our" favor.

          Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

          by The Dead Man on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:02:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And what would be 'our' favor? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OIL GUY

            The Obama Administration initially backed Mubarak over the Muslim Brotherhood.  Mubarak was no prize for sure, but he was the ruler Egypt for 30 years.  I don't recall anyone being particularly concerned for Egypt's welfare during all of that time.

            Americans love to see 'democracy' achieved in other countries without understanding what it actually takes to make that happen or make it stick.

            The Muslim Brotherhood certainly wasn't about democracy -- it was just all a power grab for them and now Mubarak's backers want the country back because Morsi didn't provide the government the people thought they were getting and that is why the situation is unstable right now.

      •  And then again, sometimes they simply wave (3+ / 0-)

        "might makes right" in your face and contemptuously ask if you're ready for a violent revolution, because if not, you'd better roll over and accept the fact that the government is the tool of the rich and powerful.

        Otherwise known as the "suck it up, buttercup" meme.

        These are my claws so this is my cowslip. These are my teeth so this is my burrow.

        Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:06:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The shared trait between Suxers/Roxers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sviscusi, Yasuragi

        Neither will admit that they are on the team.

        I am neither. I've been called BOTH. I disagree with him on issues, and have said so. I also support others, and will correct when misinformation is spread, or will explain the reasons I support said issue. Yet to some (either Suxers or Roxers) either of these actions puts you in the enemy camp.

        Sorry, but there is such thing as people who are seemingly incapable of giving the President any credit, benefit of the doubt, or basic trust, and it strays far beyond simple disagreement with policy. There are those who ascribe nefarious motives to every situation, no matter the reality. Those are Suxers, and I question why that is even a doubt.

        No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

        by newinfluence on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:09:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (4+ / 0-)
          The shared trait between Suxers/Roxers...Neither will admit that they are on the team.
          Why must they? Is that some sort of required "admitting you have a problem" first step?
          ... I disagree with him on issues, and have said so. ...
          Um, that's pretty much the majority of what "suxers" do, or try to do at least.
          Sorry, but there is such thing as people who are seemingly incapable of giving the President any credit, benefit of the doubt, or basic trust, and it strays far beyond simple disagreement with policy. There are those who ascribe nefarious motives to every situation, no matter the reality. Those are Suxers, and I question why that is even a doubt.
          Is there a minimum number of kudos that must be offered in order to not be considered a "suxer?" What's a good ratio we can use to determine this?




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:48:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you afraid you are one? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yasuragi, freakofsociety

            I don't understand your questioning otherwise, because my comment as to what substantiates a Suxer is pretty clear. It's funny to me that you didn't ask me about Roxers. I find it funny that you're willing to identify someone as one of those, while questioning the existence of Suxers.

            No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

            by newinfluence on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 11:04:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not afraid of any label you or anyone (4+ / 0-)

              else might to assign to me. Why? Because I don't really give a fuck. OTHER people make those assignments FOR me based on what they perceive to be the weighting of my praise/criticism as they've come to know it through their interactions with me.

              I know where I started, and I know why I'm no longer in that place anymore.

              Why do you find it "funny" that I didn't ask you about roxers? Most of your comment focused on suxers, which I broke into parts and tried to address from my perspective.

              But since you asked, yes, there are indeed roxers who are the polar opposite of the extreme suxers you claim exist.

              In fact, they're everywhere. No matter what the policy, if Obama supports it, they find a way to rationalize their support of it to match. Even if it's the same shit they may have opposed when Bush did it, it's suddenly all cool with them.

              Why?

              Because Obama is a good man, and they trust him to do the right thing. They seem to have this faith in him that no amount of reality will diminish.

              The difference between the two extremes? One would rather celebrate stuff that's already been "accomplished," while the other wants to keep the pressure on an elected official to fix shit that's still broken.

              If embracing the latter makes me a "suxer," so be it. Time is of the essence.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ J. Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 12:40:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Afraid? Jesus Christ on a yellow pogo stick. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DeadHead

              I'm strongly reminded of a few years ago when the Republican party chair of VA said that there might be a few Democrats in VA, but they were mostly afraid to come out in public.

              Are you now, or have you ever been, a Suxer?

              We shall not walk in fear, one of another. We are not descended from fearful men.

              Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 09:19:29 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Pick a different word then (0+ / 0-)

                My point was and is that claiming one exists while denying the other one does -- simply because it hits too close to home -- is transparently shortsighted. Yes, Roxers exist. So do Suxers, and I wrote what I think defines it, which had nothing to do with what the reply was.

                No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

                by newinfluence on Mon Aug 19, 2013 at 03:16:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Yasuragi, OIL GUY, freakofsociety

          It's as though admitting to being a SUXer or ROXer deprives you of freedom of thought (i.e., ROXbots and SUXbots).

          I don't think that's necessarily the case -- unless a given group is prone to groupthink or actually prides itself on conformity over individual decision making.  Given that most of us share a Democratic background, rather than being members of an organized political party, I'm not inclined to accuse us of dogmatic failures of thought.

          However, I have found it pretty easy to identify SUXsters.  Fairly often in SUX/ROX pie fights, someone will offer their version of Obama has done nothing!  Try offering a response, almost any response, and you tend to get a slip-sliding response that refuses to cede the possibility that, well, perhaps he has done a few things:

          What about the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?  Huh!  I guess that why he wants that misanthropic Lawrence Summers to head the Fed!

          How about the Affordable Care Act?  Yeah, right!  He caved on single payer faster than you can say Big Pharma!

          At this point, they will commonly add that there's really no difference between Obama and a Republican president, so you ask --

          What about his two appointments to the Supreme Court?  Puh leaze.  Kagan is neolib's dream [because of her vote on one specific case].

          That's how I identify and define a SUXster:  They are determined to assert that Obama sucks.  

          It reminds me of the old truism that the Romans never did anything for us.

          A 47% return on investment--that's pretty doggoned good!

          by deminva on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:57:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, I honestly thought that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      science nerd, sviscusi, Yasuragi, OIL GUY

      I was the only one who read it that way.  I really did.  I thought I was missing something with the whole 'neoliberalism' presentation.  

      Maybe I'm missing something, but the whole neo liberal thing sounds like another form of neo-conservative, capitalist philosophy to me.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site