Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  The fact that you don't realize (15+ / 0-)

    you're part of the problem is at both times touching and very, very sad.

    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 03:11:00 PM PDT

    •  Explain. This is an empty statement otherwise. (28+ / 0-)

      I'm sad that you're sad. Now tell me why you haz a sad about the diarist's analysis...

      ... unless it can be neatly summed up with a pithy "Obama Rox!," of course. In which case, say no more.

      "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 03:29:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You misunderstand (10+ / 0-)

        I'm not sad. I think the diarist is sad, that is, pathetic.

        No one who naturally agrees with the diarist will understand why they are just propagating the silly 'let's choose sides mentality.'

        Meanwhile, those of us who see value and good faith in both camps will just have to sigh and carry on, I guess.

        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 03:45:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In which case, I think you missed the point of (43+ / 0-)

          the diary, which rejects the false "camp" dichotomy mentality, and argues that people who are critical of Obama base it on policy, governance and ideology, not the man or the Party. Whereas many of those who believe he Rox are loyal to the person/personality and/or circle the wagons for the Party establishment. The choosing of sides is for apples vs. oranges.

          I'm happy you are willing to acknowledge variations, but your understanding of the problem seems still to be limited, given your reaction to the diary.

          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 04:06:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you Kombema. (30+ / 0-)

            I am still waiting for those who think I am "part of the problem" to voice their endorsement of the neoliberal thought collective.

            "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 04:13:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You always write such intellectual diaries. (9+ / 0-)

              They always enlighten and give me food for thought.

               I agree the problem is as you presented.   I think the frustration in the sux crowd is that they have no place else to go - at least that's what we've always been told.

              The roxers are the easiest to handle.  As you say, some people are just not going to be part of the thought collective -- they're not ready yet.  

              The harder to accept is that there are no sux, and that the Left possesses nothing even remotely approaching the sophistication, which explains why it gets so repeatedly outfoxed.

              I don't know about the roxer's, but if I was one of them, I would have been highly offended by MBNYC's diary.   I know it meant well, but I found it condescending.  It sounded like exacerbated parents explaining slowly for the tenth time:  I'm sorry there's no Santa Claus, roxer;  but if you'll just listen, I'll tell you how helpful knowing this can be.  

              So what I take away from this is that there is no organized opposition to the neoliberals and probably won't be in our life time.  I knew it, but I didn't want to believe that Santa was dead too.

               Asking with little to no hope, am I wrong?

              What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

              by dkmich on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:19:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Left gets outgunned more than it gets outfoxed (10+ / 0-)

                I have exerted myself in more futile presidential campaigns (Ted K in '80, Mondale in '84, Simon and then Jackson in '88, Harkin and then Brown in '92, Bradley in '00, Dean in '04) than most anyone here.  I started out w/ Edwards in '08 before moving to Obama as the alternative to more Turd Way DLC "realism."  I didn't realize then that the Turd Way had already bought both horses in that "race."

                Given the trial and error nature of any presidential campaign, one can argue that all of my candidates cited above contributed mightily to their own ultimate demise.  I still, for example, recall Ted K stumbling through the Roger Mudd interview on the eve of his announcement in fall '79.  W/ most of these candidates (esp. since the DLC takeover in late 80's), however, it really didn't matter what they did--they weren't getting nominated anyhow.  The party mavens were no more going to let Dean get nominated than they were going to sign oaths in blood to never take lobbying jobs.

                While I agree w/ your tag line, even if Warren does decide to run, her odds of getting nominated are marginally better than yours or mine are.  Frank Rich does as good of a job as anyone of explaining why:

                But this syndrome didn’t start with the Obama administration and won’t end with it. Perhaps the more useful question to ask is when and why this change came over Washington’s entire Democratic hierarchy. There have always been lobbyists in both parties, of course, and there have always been powerful Democratic influence peddlers to match their Republican counterparts. Clark Clifford, Robert Strauss, and Vernon Jordan—the respective pals of Truman, LBJ, and Bill Clinton—are among the most legendary Washington operators of the post–World War II era. But what once was an unsavory appendix to the legislative process has scaled up over the past three decades to become a dominant, if not the dominant, Washington private industry. And while some former office holders, senators and members of Congress included, have always joined the lobbying ranks, lobbying and its adjuncts have now become the career havens of choice for Establishment Democrats with government résumés, not just for Republicans traditionally aligned with corporate interests. There’s more status than shame in joining this gold rush—as we see in This Town—and many of the Democratic practitioners barely pay lip service to the ideal of siding with working- and middle-class Americans against the plutocrats of finance and industry. They are too busy rushing to partner with Republicans in servicing the very same corporate accounts.
                I already expect to have plenty of free time on my hands come 2016.

                Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

                by RFK Lives on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:02:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  No, it's just that, like a lot of socialists (0+ / 0-)

              you are extremely critical of people who haven't fully disentangled themselves from whatever system you're critiquing.

              I read you like I read Chris Hedges; useful intellectually, especially as an intellectual purgative or a BS-meter.

              You're not a part of the problem; you're a less-helpful-than-you-might-be  part of the solution. You're part of the solution because you're telling the truth; you're less helpful than you might be because you don't take into consideration what that truth might be like as a lived historical experience. You're not willing to get into those shoes and walk around in them and then evaluate people's actions and inactions based on what it would be like to live through these political experiences. Instead, you use your logic to analyze Democratic politics as an idea system, and point out the flaws, and the lies, accurately. That is helpful, but it's help of a limited sort. I hope you get what I'm saying, and that I'm not saying that I don't value your diaries.

              Just for clarification: I think I may be misunderstanding what you mean when you say that "Obama Sux" "does not exist." It's unclear to me whether you think "Obama Sux" does not exist because 1)they are not united, 2)they are not really about Obama sucking, but are focused rather on policy, or 3)they're not really a group because they won't suggest alternatives to Obama, or, rather, to the neoliberal control of the party, which is basically what "Obama" stands for symbolically, now that he has been re-elected and the political fate of Obama the individual politician is basically set.

              Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:11:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I vote #3 (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kombema, Words In Action

                "Obama sux" isn't really a political group.  It's just a bunch of complaints to anger the likes of Rahm Emanuel.

                "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 07:40:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then let me say that IMO you are being (0+ / 0-)

                  overly dismissive of a lot of people.

                  Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:01:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Did they organize Congress -- (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    JVolvo

                    to have Obama primaried in '12?

                    What kind of opposition did they stir up in Congress to oppose the sequester?

                    How did they stop Obama from killing the public option in the ACA?

                    The answers, then, are no, nothing, and they didn't.

                    I appreciate the angst that is routinely vented here at Orange over right-wing policy.  Really, I do.  But it doesn't seem to amount to anything.

                    "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 09:38:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Organize Congress? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kombema

                      Stir up opposition in Congress?

                      That is a very weird thing to say for you, who are pretty savvy about the way things like Congress actually work these days.

                      As someone who still, God knows why, lobbies Congress on occasion, let me assure you that Congress doesn't give two shits (heh) what anyone says unless they make at least 400K a year. If they did, they wouldn't be debating on how much they should cut Social Security benefits, and exactly how that should be done, while according to a poll released last Feb, 87% of Americans support maintaining benefits at the current rate even if they have to pay higher taxes for it.

                      As for the progs here, they've given up on begging Congress to do the right thing, for the most part. (From time to time we still do it, usually when we can't stand to do nothing, but we know it's almost certainly futile.) Because they spent three years doing just that to no avail. They still probably sign the odd petition, or stop by their congressman's office when they can't bear not to try, but they know that the old routine of petition, call in, write letters, meet with staffers, is largely no longer effective. The only instance in which it seemed to have some effect in the last 3 years, that I can think of, is the Amash-Conyers amendment. For the first time in ages, Congress acted almost like an actual, somewhat representative, body of legislators.

                      But if the typical good citizen routine of phone calls, petitions, etc. worked, we'd be golden. We're good at that routine.

                      How would you suggest we should have"stopped Obama from killing the public option in the ACA?" As I recall, there was a massive movement to do just that, and immense effort. It didn't work. Obama had already made the deal, and basically ignored the left. That was essentially the end of the line for progressive Democrats, liberal Democrats, and generally speaking any even slightly left-wing person in the Democratic party. Obama made it clear, and Congressional Leadership essentially followed him, that we were not to be given a seat at the table. (Hell, he initially didn't invite Conyers to his healthcare summit b/c Conyers favored single-payer).

                      Since then, there's been a stunned inactivity as people try to pick themselves off the ground and see what world they're actually in and what they might be able to do about it.

                      Occupy helped, and a lot of so-called Obama Sux types were part of that. But Occupy was essentially crushed by infiltration and paramilitary force.

                      So, yeah, we've been floundering. We're flailing around trying to figure out what to do. And most of the places we had for having that discussion have been yanked away from us. We essentially don't have representation, don't have a party, and have little or no foothold in the public sphere. We need the infrastructure we've lost over the last 30 years. If you have nowhere to have a discussion and no way to disseminate it, you probably won't have much of a discussion.

                      Again, I hope you don't take this as an indication that I don't value your diaries. I'm seriously glad that you're still around at DKos, because you open a window and let in the air.

                      Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:05:04 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  You're certainly not part (0+ / 0-)

              of the problem. I usually avoid diaries like this, but you lulled me into believing you might have something to say.

              I was wrong to read it and comment as it is just another fatuous diary proclaiming how your side is on the path of truth and righteousness while the other side sprang from neo-liberal hell to destroy the planet.

              I regret wasting half an hour on this drivel. Allow me to educate you a little.

              There will never be a perfect President! Humans don't do perfect well.

              Some Presidents, while not perfect, are vastly better then others. In my lifetime. I have observed that Democratic Presidents are vastly better than the Republican ones. I believe in coalitions and in political parties. They don't always do exactly what I want, but that's how coalitions are. I do whatever I can to support the Democratic Party and its leader, Barack Obama.

              My views won't change because of someone on the internet spewing garbage about neo-Liberalism. I promise that next time I will happily walk on by your diary.

              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 11:19:59 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I.e., "Obama Rox." I'm sure Cassiodorus values (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cassiodorus

                your thoughtful input to his diary, and feels REALLY bad that you wasted your time reading it. Now Look Forward!...

                "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                by Kombema on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 12:29:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Why does the argument so often devolve (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Cassiodorus

                to a patronizing lecture on the imperfections of the human race, argued against the dryest of straw men?  It always signals the proponent is devoid of any actual credible arguments.  

              •  Thank you OIL GUY. (0+ / 0-)
                I promise that next time I will happily walk on by your diary.
                I'm hoping you can keep your promise.

                "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 Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 05:32:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  That's just wrong. (14+ / 0-)
            Whereas many of those who believe he Rox are loyal to the person/personality and/or circle the wagons for the Party establishment.
            Where do you pull this bullshit from? Is there a place they grow condescending tripe on trees and you just got back from a vacation in its capital?

            Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

            by MBNYC on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 04:35:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's one way to express disagreement. (29+ / 0-)

              Of course, you could also try to establish "direct clash," which (in the language of debate) would mean that you directly contradicted one of Kombema's sentences.

              For instance, one can argue that there are other reasons for endorsing Obama than "person/ personality and/or circle the wagons for the Party establishment."  What would those reasons be?

              The debate-language word for your response, on the other hand, is what is typically called "combative interaction."  

              "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 04:38:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  I'm sorry you don't see this reality, and if so, (11+ / 0-)

              maybe you are also purely a fan of Obama's policies, or not, and have no particular loyalty to him as a person. But there are those here who treat any "insult" of Obama as a virtual personal affront -- as in, "How dare you criticize him!"

              I was just accused of being making "slimy insults" for saying the WH/Obama are looking like asses in their response to the NSA revelations, and deliberately straw man'd with the claim that I'd said Obama IS an ass. That's the kind of silliness I'm talking about, and it exists here, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

              In fairness, if you don't share such feelings as the Obama-the-Person loyalists, then you may just miss the implications, and good for you for giving such people the benefit of the doubt. But I see it, and it's insidious at times. He's just a fucking politician, and he's currently making an ass out of his administration, and damaging the country and the Constitution in the process.

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 04:44:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Oh, I see it. (11+ / 0-)

                But with respect, your broad brush misses some finer strokes.

                But there are those here who treat any "insult" of Obama as a virtual personal affront -- as in, "How dare you criticize him!"
                Some, sure. The inverse is also true. The real question is whether or not we can have disputes among ourselves when we're really basically arguing with caricatures.

                I'm right behind you when you say that the NSA scandal is damaging the Constitution and this administration. What I'm not willing to do is denounce this President in toto, or sign off on a statement like "he's worse than [fill in the blank]", when I don't see that as empirically sustainable.

                Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                by MBNYC on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 04:54:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, FWIW, I am also not denouncing him in toto (9+ / 0-)

                  Yes, there are some, even many things this administration has done right. And, for the record, since many of his fans seem to think if you're upset with many of his policies, then you're just like the Republicans (a Paulbot, etc.), of COURSE he's better in the main than a Teabagger Repug.

                  So I think we may be closer in principle in acknowledging the finer strokes, even as we may disagree on the implications of the broader, sum total of benefit or damage that this administration is bestowing on the country. I want to make this about policies, not loyalty to politicians, and I appreciate that you do too.

                  "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                  by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:02:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes. (12+ / 0-)

                    I agree. And to boot, the "firebagger" remarks are odious. So are the "authoritarian surveillance stooges" or however it's phrased. The reality is far more complex than the insults.

                    I would just really like to have more conversations here like this one, as opposed to variations on a pointless theme of counting who rated what comment with which sinister motive. These don't just offend our collective intelligence, bad enough on its own, they create divisions that we later need to heal.

                    I've seen many such piefights since first signing up here in 2006, so there is precedent, but this one seems to go deeper than its predecessors. Hence my concern.

                    Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                    by MBNYC on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:23:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Now there's a sig line for someone to steal: (8+ / 0-)

                      Reality is far more complex than the insults.

                      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                      by Meteor Blades on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:42:41 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  With proper credit (6+ / 0-)

                        licensed merchandise could be not far behind. Screenplay, TV deals, Broadway, maybe a fashion line. Definitely a fragrance.

                        Fuck me, it's a leprechaun.

                        by MBNYC on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:48:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Some parts of reality are. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Kombema, poligirl, kharma

                        Some are not. One of the progressions I've been noting with horror over the past several years is how politics is getting simpler. That's always a bad thing. Politics when decent, or halfway decent, is complex and nuanced. Politics when simple is a boot in the face.

                        Or to quote Watership Down, "These are my teeth so this is my cowslip. These are my claws so this is my burrow."

                        Might makes right is real simple, and that's where politics has been going, and it's been speeding up recently. Some people see it; some people don't; some of the people who don't verbally whale on the people who do. Some of the people who do retaliate.

                        That's what I see.

                        Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

                        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:16:26 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Interesting to note that at least two (5+ / 0-)

                        front pagers commented in this diary, which is at minimum clearly a thoughtful one, but neither found it worthy of a respectful "rec'd for discussion" or even a tip.

                        In my mind, that plays well into the diary's point about where we stand in relation to each other here on dkos.

                        I suppose neither of them wanted to be perceived as reccing the thesis to those who would find that distasteful. I suppose it's understandable, given the dynamics here.

                        But maybe this is just me, and how my mind works. I tend to notice these peripheral things.

                        In this regard neither the attitude of "Obama rox" nor the nonexistent unity of "Obama sux" will suffice.  We might start to ditch the "Obama rox/ Obama sux" nonsense by clarifying where we in fact stand, rather than obscuring our positions with side-arguments.

                        "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

                        by ZhenRen on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 09:52:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Disagree - very few mind mere policy disagreement (9+ / 0-)

                    It's not mere disagreement over "finer" strokes that fuels the schism, as you suggest.  I would humbly offer that it is the overwrought rhetoric coming from the "sux" that puts the "rox" in a defensive posture.

                    Does this sound like disagreement over "finer strokes" to you?:

                    1.  Obama is a liar and a fraud;

                    2.  Obama is a lying POS;

                    3.  Obama has presided over nothing but lies and broken promises;

                    4.  Obama is a traitor destroying America;

                    5.  Obama is shredding the Constitution and ruining the country;

                    6.  Obama is a tyrant and a dictator who deserves to be impeached;

                    7.  Obama is a fascist determined to destroy our freedom;

                    8.  Obama is trying to destroy our rights;

                    9.  Obama is much worse than Bush;

                    10. Obama is a murderer;

                    11. Obama is going through his critics' records to find dirt on them;

                    12. Obama intends on using drone strikes against Americans.

                    These are not terms culled from right-wing hate radio.  This is rhetoric from the "sux" element.  Go into any recent NSA diary and you will still find virtually all of this rhetoric and worse getting highly-rec'd, particularly rhetoric of the "Obama is a liar, is worse than Bush, and deserves to be impeached" variety.

                    So, you'll pardon me if I do not chalk the current disagreements up to mere differences as to the "fine strokes."  A large contingent here has gone off the rails in their express hatred for Obama.

              •  But there were several whole (5+ / 0-)

                diaries about Snowden where anyone who had any critique of Snowden got that same "How dare you!" treatment, as well.

                Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                by delphine on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:33:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Maybe when Snowden is President (7+ / 0-)

                  I'll invite you to my "Snowden rox/ Snowden sux" diary.

                  "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 05:44:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok. But until he is president... (4+ / 0-)

                    let's just shut the fuck up about him. Deal?

                    Please pretend that I don't give a shit.

                    by Jim Riggs on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 06:01:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yay!!!!!!!! (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      MichiganGirl, Catesby

                      Thank you.

                      It's been like a couple arguing about whether the UPS guy is good or evil after he drops off the blow up doll the husband ordered without informing the wife.

                      No one wants to talk about the plastic in the room.

                      Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                      by delphine on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:02:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Why? Snowden has arguably had more influence on (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      poligirl, kharma

                      public debate about Constitutional rights and government surveillance, the Patriot Act, and any number of other issues, than anyone in a generation or more. Why so reluctant to talk about his and other whistleblowers revelations?

                      "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                      by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:05:40 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have no problem discussing his revelations, (4+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Kombema, delphine, MBNYC, Yasuragi

                        I am just personally of the opinion that once he made those revelations he personally ceased to matter all that much.

                        In my opinion he was never the story, nor should he have been... The information he leaked? Yes, that was important, but Snowden?

                        Not so much... He's a guy that let everyone know about some important information... the information should be the story, not him. I could give a rat's ass about him.

                        My two cents.

                        "It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion." Oscar Wilde, 1891

                        by MichiganGirl on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 08:24:19 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Agreed, for the most part -- though I do care abou (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          PhilJD, kharma

                          the administration's heavy-handed persecution of him as a whistle-blower. That's the OTHER big story he's related to, in addition to the NSA revelations.

                          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                          by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 08:41:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  Show me. Typically the accusation is falsely (7+ / 0-)

                  accusing someone who believes what Snowden did was good and right, and labeling it as Snowden "worship." I.e., making it about some cult-like personality thing. This is the problem: A lot of the Obama fans, and/or Obama policy fans, want to make it all about "worshiping" Snowden or Greenwald, or in the more uncharitable bullshit accusations about admiring Ron/Rand Paul or similar nonsense.

                  For critics of the NSA policy, it's ABOUT THE POLICY, and if Obama is the doubling-down advocate of such carry-over (and new and improved) policies from the Bush Administration, the objection usually isn't just that some over-the-top comment may be made about Snowden (being a commie-loving Paulite traitor, blah, blah, blah), it's to the misdirect away from the reality of his exposing this spying shit, in an attempt to personalize it and smear the critics with some asinine guilt-by-association shit (as that worthless POC diary about Assange tried to do last night, tying NSA critics to Assange and from there to Drudge and Paul).

                  As Cassiodorus might say: A series of classic debate logical fallacies, including straw man, ad hominem, red herring, and non-sequitur, among many other cheap debate tricks.

                  "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                  by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:02:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is such a strange time (6+ / 0-)

                    If you support Snowden, we say it's a cult of personality.

                    If I support Obama, you say it's a cult of personality.

                    If you support Snowden, according to you, we sling uncharitable bullshit accusations at you.

                    In the same sentence you decry us calling you "worshippers", you call us "Obama fans" or "Obama policy fans".

                    Hmm, so if you can support someone without worshipping them, then why is it that we can't support Obama without being called worshippers?

                    I support Obama.  I'm a critic of the NSA.  Why is this so difficult to comprehend?  That we can support Obama AND criticize the NSA, and therefore there IS NO ROXX SIDE.

                    Because the "roxx side" is supposedly made up of people who think Obama can do no wrong and therefore we are blinded to what's wrong with the NSA.

                    Diary after diary about Snowden being a hero, but no diary about Obama being a hero, and we're the worshippers?

                    Bottom line, is that just about word for word we can say the same thing you just said, with just as much hurt, as much fervor.

                    Go to every diary starting with "Yawn you fucking idiots" and you will find them rife with those exact comments:  If you aren't ready to condemn Obama and wholly embrace Snowden, you don't care about the 4th Amendment.  You're an apologist.  You're like bush, you're like a Hitler follower, you're willfully ignorant, blah blah.

                    I mean, I saw those comments so many times, and I've been in the minority and bashed so thoroughly by "your" side,  that I'm completely amazed that you actually think that happened to you and can't see it happened to us.

                    I'll find any number of examples just to finally prove it.

                    I shall return.

                    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                    by delphine on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 10:23:44 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  A "fan" doth not make a "worshipper." Not sure (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Cassiodorus

                      what the problem is. I'm a "fan" of the Bill of Rights, and of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, and of a sports team or two. So if you're an "enthusiastic supporter" of Obama, then you're a fan, no?

                      And in my taxonomy, I do not put honest critics of the NSA programs in the "Rox" side -- but primarily people who ardently defend it because Obama's doing it, and who reflexively and derisively attack critics of NSA and the president.

                      "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                      by Kombema on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 12:17:50 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Here you go. (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Matt Z, MBNYC, guyeda, Yasuragi, Hammerhand

                    First, search for a diary called "Yawn You Fucking Idiots".

                    For some reason, my mouse will not copy comments for me to cut and paste.  You'll find all of this in that one diary.

                    This should answer the decades old question About how the Germans could so blindly follow Hitler.  Before it was fear, it was the cult of personality.  The Obama cheerleaders make it perfectly clear how an out of control, drunk on power president gets a pass to pursue any authoritative [sic] agenda he so desires.
                    That one got 35 recs and 35 HRs.  

                    That diary includes "Line up for showers, you dumbasses" as well.

                    "the fact I am referring to is that a tyrant's agenda can only be advanced through the support of his ardent supporters. . . . I am an expert and accomplished scholar/researcher on the Nazi era.  Can I help it if I see maddingly [sic] similar comparisons?"
                    Then there were folks (some that are in this diary) who actually tried to say it was okay to use the nazi reference as long as we weren't calling anyone hitler but only comparing us to Germans in the 30's.
                    "Cowards."
                    "They're worse than idiotic"
                    (followed by accusing people of selling their freedom - mind you no one defended the NSA, they just took umbrage at being called fucking idiots because their hair wasn't on fire - being willing to sacrifice our freedom, reflexively defending our party) - this comment got more than 350 recs!
                    Followed by this, regarding why people "defend" the NSA (which again, no one did, but they commented in the diary)
                    People who do it because they are paid to do it . . . I difficult economic times, it's probably easier than ever to find people to do it."
                    This got 177 recs!
                    "People seem to take offense at that charge here.  Why they think the other possibilities are better is a mystery to me"  In other words, it's better to be called a paid shill than to be a fucking idiot?
                    88 recs.

                    Followed by:  

                    Occam's Razor seems to indicated that they're just "good Germans", you know what I mean?"
                    15 recs
                    "Do you think this economy is an accident?  Drones (Obama supporters) are easier to find when more are hungry"
                    67 recs
                    "They don't want educated commentary.  [i.e., the hitler follower reference] They want to hide what scares them"
                    20 recs

                    Anyway, know that from the start, anything less than a full embrace of Snowden and full rejection of Obama was considered to be "yawning" "shilling for the NSA", drone-like behavior, and illustration of how Hitler came to power.

                    This was the diary that set the tone:  anyone who wasn't buying the hyperbole was called a scared Obama cheerleader who didn't care about NSA abuses and/or who was a paid NSA shill.  And that stuff got reccd!

                    I posted only a few times in there, mostly "Why do you have to label people" sort of comments.  I was shocked. Ironically, I got dinged for using terms like "hair on fire" and "unreasonable" in a diary called "Yawn You Fucking Idiots".  

                    The type of insults slung were as bad or worse than if the diary had been about Bachmann or Limbaugh, seriously.

                    Every diary since then has gone to the same place - lumping people together and sticking false, dismissive labels on us.

                    People reccd a comment comparing us to Hitler followers!

                    That's why it's surprising to me to hear your comment.

                    Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. Barack Obama

                    by delphine on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 11:34:55 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  anti-intellectual (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CroneWit, poligirl, run around, Kombema

              fits right in with ad hominen and personal attacks on the messenger.   You condescendingly lectured your audience in your last diary as if they were too stupid to use their forks.

              Don't bother to respond because I don't feed the squirrels.  

              What we need is a Democrat in the White House. Warren 2016

              by dkmich on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:25:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  of course in another diary you posted (13+ / 0-)

            what an ass Obama is.
            you also said he's just like Bush.
            people here will cheer you on for that ignorance....which proves again how meaningless this whole nonsense on a blog is.
            the amount of malarkey posted on DK lately is astounding.

            and you got the typical response of "Obama is war criminal who kills babies and teenagers.
            I mean you just posted that.
            so I think it's safe to say, you sure as H are fall into the category you say no one falls into.

            Just like their hero in the WH, sad to say. (5+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:blue in NC, Cthulhu, ek hornbeck, Tool, Smoke and Mirrors

            Who's flailing more and more every day, and looking like an ass -- or even like his predecessor. It's pathetic and alarming that they keep doubling down on this shit. Obama clearly doesn't think it's anyone's business what his administration does in secret. Those are Republican perspectives on government, not Democratic ones.

            "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 03:44:12 PM EDT

            Obama is a war criminal (0+ / 0-)

            who uses the power of his office to bail out criminal banksters and protect money launderers for Al Quaeda while going after weed sellers and smokers. He also assassinated innocent Americans without due process including a 16-year-old.  And it's now revealed that he believes We the People deserve no privacy and no individual liberty.

            If that's not an assh...

            by Smoke and Mirrors on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:09:55 PM EDT

            [ Parent | Reply to This |  Recommend  Hide  ]

            "My Mom is my hero, my angel and I revere her to no end.." Christin, July 6, 2013

            by Christin on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:24:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Obama himself likes Bush personally. (10+ / 0-)

              Or at least that's his take on their relationship.  Now, to be fair, Obama at least suggested that:

              "Obviously, we had some deep disagreements in terms of policy, but there's no doubt that anybody who takes on this job has a greater appreciation for the challenges involved,"
              As for policy similarities, Alex Kane's piece seems to be quite substantive in its description of the overlap between Obama and Bush.  Would you care to discuss it?

              And as for Obama being a "war criminal who kills babies," here is a list of children killed by drone strikes.  Are you sure Obama didn't order any of these?

              "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 05:39:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  meh (5+ / 0-)

                Wow. Obama likes bush according to you.
                So its okay to say he's just like bush.
                The suxors can say that . Its ok.
                That is so disingenuous its mind blowing and ...
                I don't have time fit this kind of nonsense.
                Its not worth it anymore.
                You write very well and thank you for being polite on your response.
                But its movie night and we're about to make nachos so I'm out.

                "My Mom is my hero, my angel and I revere her to no end.." Christin, July 6, 2013

                by Christin on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 06:57:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Go back and read the links to my last comment. (6+ / 0-)

                  Watch the video of Obama, too.  It isn't just me who is saying this.

                  "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 07:13:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  HR'd for outright lying (0+ / 0-)

                  about what another commenter said.

                  Obama likes Bush according to Obama.

                  Not even bothering to visit links in which Obama himself says something "Rox!" doesn't like is ANOTHER tendency of "Rox!" that appears on other political sites.

                  One side frequently- and again, across to other sites beyond this one- does not argue honestly. It is "Rox!".

              •  Even if he didn't, if he's upset by things like (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kombema, poligirl, Cassiodorus, JVolvo, kharma

                the killing of al-Awlaki's son, which he was reported to be, why doesn't he stop these drone strikes for a while until he can figure out, or the military can figure out, how not to kill innocent kids that apparently no one intended to kill? (And I'm not just talking about traditional collateral damage here, but about aiming a drone at someone who apparently shouldn't have been targeted in the first place).

                Or we could talk about how it's wrong for the U.S., or POTUS, to just arbitrarily kill people every Tuesday.

                Ou sont les neigedens d'antan?

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:19:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  There's where your perspective fails you, Christin (7+ / 0-)

              I said he's looking like an ass, and that his policies on illegal un-Constitutional surveillance and a few other areas are very much like Bush's. If you can't see the difference, I'm sorry. But it IS different.

              And while I never signed on to the "baby killer" meme, he has authorized use of drone strikes that have killed babies, children, and adult innocents. You can argue that that was unfortunate collatoral damage in the terrorism war, but others are due their anger and upset, and are not exaggerating when they suggest that international law COULD interpret the strikes as war crimes. That's an opinion, but not some outlandish one, even if you disagree.

              Obama is not your brother or father or best friend or boyfriend, or any other intimate of yours or mine; he's a politician, and we elected him, and so he serves in theory at the will of the People. So I get to say critical things about him without having to check my language as though I'm insulting your mother. He's making big mistakes, and he's lying to us, and we, some of us, get to be unhappy with what he's doing. You're more than welcome to disagree, but FFS stop taking it personally.

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:22:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Christin.... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, kharma, PhilK, Kombema

              FWIW, I am one of the people who uprated that comment.   Here's why:

              Who's flailing more and more every day, and looking like an ass -- or even like his predecessor. >
              I agree with this sentence.   It is exactly what I think-- the administration's actions smack of flailing (for god's sake, we used our muscle to force a search of a South American' President's plane, in violation of all forms of international law).  
              It's pathetic and alarming that they keep doubling down on this shit. Obama clearly doesn't think it's anyone's business what his administration does in secret. Those are Republican perspectives on government, not Democratic ones.  >
              I agree with this as well. The Adminiostration, rather than addressing the various issues head on, keeps trying to have it both ways -- something which various Senators keep calling bullshit on.   And Obama has adopted a Cheney-esque view of the powers of the Presidency and the lack of checks and balances.  

              I'm not exactly being ignorant, here, or just cheering on for the hell of it.   I criticized Bush on various violations of civil rights and violations of international law.   Now that Obama is President, it seems intellectually dishonest to ignore the same sort of behavior I found repugnant previously.

              Ultimately, this is my test:  if I would criticize a Republican for doing something, I will criticize a Democrat for doing the same thing.   Bad policy is bad policy, regardless of who is doing it, and the only way to stop bad policy is to fight it consistently.  

              Now, if you want to know the things I think Obama does well, I'm happy to list them.  I think its wonderful that he is, through the DOJ, pushing hard on voting rights.   I think it is awesome that he has, however, reluctantly, finally embraced gay rights.   I I am glad to see that he has fought back against challenges to abortion rights.   I believe he has picked excellent supreme court justices, although I'd like to see him pick someone with less authoritarian tendencies.   I think that his healthcare idea ended up in the wrong place, but I must admit that he got something through.   I was pleased to see him fight on budget issues, although I'd like to have seen him accomplish a great deal more through hard bargaining, and I think the sequester was a bad idea for him and weakened his position.

              Where he has failed, in my mind, is threefold.  First:  he did not use his first two years to push forward his judicial nominees.   Second, he has repeatedly embraced Repiublican concepts -- Romneycare, the Grand Bargain -- which are an anathema to true progress.   Third, he has engaged in an exapnsive view of the Espionage Act, denied whistleblower protection, and has trampled on privacy rights repeatedly -- a fearful concept for a functioning democracy.   These, combined with his unwillingness to follow through on capaign promises relating to transparency, abortion rights, and worker rights, are the reasosn for my critique.

          •  Except that's simply not true (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheLizardKing, science nerd

            Some of the Obama critics base it on policy.

            Some very noticeably haven't.

            "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

            by nosleep4u on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 05:28:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Some are so unhappy with his policies that they (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              poligirl, kharma

              are writing him off, and thus criticizing his competence, judgement, motives, principles, and even morals.  I'll grant you that.  But for most of them it has to do with assessment of the importance and value of his policies as an elected leader.

              Many of us can more than safely say that while we might enjoy having a beer with him, and find him a likeable person, we find many of his policy positions and tactics, and even willingness to obfuscate and sometimes apparently even outright lie, very disturbing for an elected official.

              Thus, while that makes it about Obama's characteristics as a leader in office, it's ultimately all about the policies. Once he's out of office, aside from his long-term legacy and any continuing influence on U.S. policy as a likely future advisory board member for Goldman Sachs, I could not car less.

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:36:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Really? (9+ / 0-)

            So no one on the sux side actually really thinks he sucks because all of you base your dislike on Policy, Governance and Ideology, but everyone on the rox side are, what did they used to call it- a "personality cult"?
            I beg to differ. I would say that those on the rox side base their opinion on the same things.
            Did that never occur to you?

            Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

            by skohayes on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 06:16:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm saying many DO think he sucks, but it's not (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cassiodorus, poligirl, kharma, PhilK

              as much because they think he's an evil person, but because his policies and ideology an an elected leader sucks. Yes there are some similarities, and it's not just some dichotomous rox-sux division: Lots of people on the fence and conflicted for various reasons.

              But in the DEBATE here on DKos, the Rox people constantly make it all about the HATE, or various personalized reasons critics may not like him (including many bogus racism claims), and then often proceed to smear the critics personally by comparing them unfairly with Rand Paul or Teabaggers. Most of the Obama critics don't do this, except when a policy or motive from the Rox side is indistinguishable from Republicans'. But the ad hom guilt-by-association smears of DKos members are far more common among the Obama Rox side, IMO.

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sat Aug 17, 2013 at 07:42:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There's NO debate on it (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                guyeda, Hammerhand, sviscusi

                There's people who like to participate in flame wars (on both sides). Then there's the people who like to start the fights (both sides), and people who egg it on.
                Please don't insult what real debate is by comparing it to what goes on here.

                Most of the Obama critics don't do this, except when a policy or motive from the Rox side is indistinguishable from Republicans'.
                L.O.L.

                Your beliefs don't make you a better person. Your behavior does.

                by skohayes on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 03:35:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  I didn't miss that point. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Yasuragi, Kombema

            In fact, I was rather offended by it and for good reason.  

            In my assessment, the policy, governance and ideological positions presented by those who are often critical of the Obama Administration, while holding a great deal of validity in my mind on some aspects, also possesses a great deal of underlying judgments on the person/personality as well.   Coupled with the lack of plausible solutions, it undermines their basic premise and causes needless dissention and division.

            Also such assessments lack a historical perspective.  More directly, I often get the impression that there are those who had hoped that this Administration would right all of the wrongs of past Administrations and policies of this government.  Perhaps this Administration once had such lofty ideas as well.  But the reality is, and I'm said this many times on DK is that you cannot fix the institution from the top down.

            It has to be fixed from the bottom up.  More and better Democrats -- hell scratch that -- more and better politicians period -- has to be a bottom up process.

            At best, working top to bottom provides a little stability but it doesn't get at the systematic problems that are institutionalized within our form of government.

            Blowing it all up and starting over will not work either because that is too destabilizing.

            At the bottom of this pyramid are the people.  We can either choose to build a better foundation or be crush by the collapsing weight of our dysfunctional goverment institution.

            Bickering over whether this President should be loved or hated is beside the point.

            •  Rox-Sux is largely pointless, I agree. Problem w/ (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cassiodorus

              bottom up strategy is that many such efforts at "better" Dems are being blocked and destroyed by the conservative Party establishment (see Lieberman, Louisiana senate, dissing of Dean, Kuttner, Krugman, etc., in 2009, etc.). Their heavy-handedness with the left of the Party, from the very beginning with hippy-puncher Rahm and Geithner/Summers, etc., etc., shows that they are outright hostile to the liberal and/or left wing of the Party. That said, we have to try to "make him" change if we are to have any hope of altering the neoliberal, foreign policy- and security state hawk Dem in the WH -- which worked with DADT and DOMA, and might work here.

              So it's a multiprong effort. Work from the grassroots, but fight like hell to get the top officials in Washington and the state houses to at LEAST not deliberately undermine efforts to elect better politicians.

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sun Aug 18, 2013 at 12:59:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  I'm glad you're touched. (nmi) (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dkmich, blueoasis, poligirl, kharma

      "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 03:53:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (56)
  • Baltimore (38)
  • Civil Rights (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Culture (28)
  • Elections (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Law (24)
  • Texas (23)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Environment (19)
  • Labor (19)
  • Hillary Clinton (18)
  • Education (18)
  • Freddie Gray (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Racism (16)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site