Liberals want Obama to be a king, not a president

dabateman · #1 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 07:48 PM

Liberals want Obama to be a king, not a president - CNN.com

Quote:

Can liberals ever be happy? I keep asking myself this question as I hear an increasing number complaining about President Obama.

There seems to be a Greek chorus of liberal whining: "I'm disappointed by him." "I expected more." "I thought he would be different."

Earlier this week, singer Jackson Browne, a vocal 2008 Obama supporter, lamented that President Obama is "...just as beholden to the people who put him in office as any of the Republicans would be."

Matt Damon, who had very publicly supported Obama in 2008, has now very publicly attacked President Obama. Damon even went so far as to heap praise on former President Bush, saying: "I would kiss George W. Bush on the mouth" in appreciation for his work fighting AIDS in Africa. Although Damon did note his kiss of Bush would be limited to: "Three seconds, no tongue."

Others turning on Obama include John Cusack, comedian/actor Jon Lovitz, and even the distinguished professor Cornel West, who called Obama: "A black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats."

A new Gallup Poll released this week found that President Obama's support among liberals was at its lowest point in seven months, although it's still a solid majority of 70%.

What's clear is that the liberals speaking out don't want a president, they want a king. Albeit a liberal king -- but still a king, who would be unrestrained by Congress as well as the checks and balances enshrined in our Constitution.

These disenchanted liberals apparently wanted Obama -- upon taking office -- to have instantly transformed every campaign promise into law by the simple wave of a pen. Or maybe they would have preferred Obama to have walked out onto a White House balcony where, in a scene reminiscent of the musical "Evita," he would be greeted by adoring throngs waiting below, and on the spot, declare that all his ideas were now the law of the land.

I would start with the assertion that those most disenchanted with the President are not liberals, they are progressives. There is, despite a conflation by the right, a difference between the two. I would assert that progressives can never be happy because there is never an end to the "progress" while liberals look for maximum liberty with responsibility which is quite different.

I would also assert that most people have high hopes for their candidates and are disappointed by the actions once elected. I would say that anyone who isn't disappointed in their candidate, once in office, is a blooming partisan idiot.

However, this is a typical problem with the left. They are never satisfied and end up losing to the right because the right at least is consistent in being unified behind a singular message right or wrong.

AZRWinger · #2 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

Liberals want Obama to be a king, not a president - CNN.com

I would start with the assertion that those most disenchanted with the President are not liberals, they are progressives. There is, despite a conflation by the right, a difference between the two. I would assert that progressives can never be happy because there is never an end to the "progress" while liberals look for maximum liberty with responsibility which is quite different.

I would also assert that most people have high hopes for their candidates and are disappointed by the actions once elected. I would say that anyone who isn't disappointed in their candidate, once in office, is a blooming partisan idiot.

However, this is a typical problem with the left. They are never satisfied and end up losing to the right because the right at least is consistent in being unified behind a singular message right or wrong.

Progressives are never satisfied because there is no end to progress. How cute. Progressives will be "satisfied" when the maximum leader they install tells them criticizing the government is punishable by a long sentence in the reeducation camp or by death. You know, like Fidel and Hugo do. Progressives are nothing more than radical socialists dressed up with a new name.

Mikeyy · #3 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 08:08 PM

It's early yet. I think most peoples complaint with Obama is that he tried too hard to reach across the aisle. He didn't build alliances behind the scenes and remained aloof. I am not sure he has learned that lesson.

dabateman · #4 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Progressives are never satisfied because there is no end to progress. How cute. Progressives will be "satisfied" when the maximum leader they install tells them criticizing the government is punishable by a long sentence in the reeducation camp or by death. You know, like Fidel and Hugo do. Progressives are nothing more than radical socialists dressed up with a new name.

There is a difference between progressives and socialists as well. It's called nuance. It's all about degrees. Hell, Republicans are socialists too.

dabateman · #5 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeyy

It's early yet. I think most peoples complaint with Obama is that he tried too hard to reach across the aisle. He didn't build alliances behind the scenes and remained aloof. I am not sure he has learned that lesson.

My complaint is over his same-sex marriage redo...

I will not be a political pawn used to score points.

Though this president has done more than any other in history to work for equal rights, I cannot support being treated like a pawn.

I will be voting for Gary Johnson.

cnredd · #6 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

There is a difference between progressives and socialists as well. It's called nuance. It's all about degrees. Hell, Republicans are socialists too.

No...Republicans are NOT socialists...

I know, I know...

You're going to make a technical definition defense instead of real world application...

I've already debunked it when discussing McCain...One of the four horseman of RINOs (with the Maine twins Snowe & Collins, and Graham)...

Quote:

Here's the difference...

A guy hits 50 home runs every year for the last five years...

Another guy hits 3 home runs every year for the last five years...

Are they both considered "home run hitters"?...

In YOUR logic, "yes" because they've both TECHNICALLY fulfilled the qualifications of the TECHNICAL definition ("One who has hit a home run")...

But ask 100 people who understand baseball and will rely on reality and not on technical terms, and all 100 of them will tell you that the first guy IS a "home run hitter" and the second guy is NOT even close...

Imagine this during contract time...

The general manager goes up to the first guy and says "Why should I sign you?...

The first guy says "I'm a home run hitter"...His stats back it NOT ONLY in the technical term, but how the term is applied to reality...pretty compelling evidence...

But what do you think would happen if the second guy said "I'm a home run hitter" to the GM?...

In the TECHNICAL realm (what you're using) he's absolutely correct...But you know damn well that, in reality (what you're not using), he'd get laughed right out of the office...

That's the difference between McCain and Obama...When it comes to a socialistic platform, Obama's the "home run hitter" when realistically applied...

dabateman · #7 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

No...Republicans are NOT socialists...

I know, I know...

You're going to make a technical definition defense instead of real world application...

I've already debunked it when discussing McCain...One of the four horseman of RINOs (with the Maine twins Snowe & Collins, and Graham)...

If you take Social Security, you're a socialist. If you attended public school, you're a socialist. If you believe in providing for a military, you are a socialist. Socialism is government doing things for you...

We are all socialist to some degree.

Mikeyy · #8 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

If you take Social Security, you're a socialist. If you attended public school, you're a socialist. If you believe in providing for a military, you are a socialist. Socialism is government doing things for you...

We are all socialist to some degree.

It's the only way it will work.

cnredd · #9 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

If you take Social Security, you're a socialist. If you attended public school, you're a socialist. If you believe in providing for a military, you are a socialist. Socialism is government doing things for you...

Using that logic, when someone asks me what I do, I'll say "I'm a poker player" because I've played poker three times in the last year...Then I can say "I'm a swimmer", because I've swam a couple of times, too...And THEN I'll say "I'm a snow shoveler" because I've done that, to...

...and a baseball player...and a cook...and so on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dabateman

We are all socialist to some degree.

We are all socialists if you use the technical definition, which no one in their right mind does...

You can say the same for anti-capitalists that brought a pair of shoes at a retail store...Same absurdity...

dabateman · #10 (**permalink**) 06-09-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cnredd

Using that logic, when someone asks me what I do, I'll say "I'm a poker player" because I've played poker three times in the last year...Then I can say "I'm a swimmer", because I've swam a couple of times, too...And THEN I'll say "I'm a snow shoveler" because I've done that, to...

...and a baseball player...and a cook...and so on...

We are all socialists if you use the technical definition, which no one in their right mind does...

You can say the same for anti-capitalists that brought a pair of shoes at a retail store...Same absurdity...

What's absurd is that you don't apply that nuance to the other end of the spectrum. Which is my point. Liberal does not equate progressive and progressive does not equate socialist.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
MrLiberty, pjohns

The Following User Says Thank You to Mikeyy For This Useful Post:
MrWrite

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
Mikeyy, MrWrite

The Following User Says Thank You to cnredd For This Useful Post:
pjohns

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos, MrWrite

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to dabateman For This Useful Post:
crazyflamingos, Kizzume, larryr, MrWrite