Obama has lost his credibility with the left!

cawacko said:
So how do a few people in Alaska end up equaling a majority of Republicans? I also disagree with the technique of throwing out that a bunch of people are racist and then saying you must be otherwise you wouldn't defend yourself so hard.
Click to expand...

It is not people on Alaska, it is friend, Republican friends all over the USA.

I find people who are so defensive about issues are guilty of it themselves. I am not innocent, I have prejudices! We all do and some are just more pronounced then others and I see a great many people wanting Obama to fail because he is black, if you don't like my opinion, I am sorry!
 
Rana said:
It is not people on Alaska, it is friend, Republican friends all over the USA.

I find people who are so defensive about issues are guilty of it themselves. I am not innocent, I have prejudices! We all do and some are just more pronounced then others and I see a great many people wanting Obama to fail because he is black, if you don't like my opinion, I am sorry!
Click to expand...

why do you hate hate mexicans and jews?
 
Onceler said:
Correct me if I'm wrong here: isn't Christie talking about liberals protesting Obama?

So wouldn't the correlary be conservatives protesting Bush?
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn't. We are talking about people who protested the wars. The point is how the numbers have dwindled, to which Christie answers that she gets e-mails.

It is very clear to everybody with eyes that the numbers of protesters diminished after a liberal was elected.
 
Rana said:
It is not people on Alaska, it is friend, Republican friends all over the USA.

I find people who are so defensive about issues are guilty of it themselves. I am not innocent, I have prejudices! We all do and some are just more pronounced then others and I see a great many people wanting Obama to fail because he is black, if you don't like my opinion, I am sorry!
Click to expand...

Shoot, you have a lot of friends then. I need to get out more. I just disagree with your opinion. I think what you are describing is partisanship 101. Partisanship has been going on since this countries founding and its not going to change because a black man is now President. I mean were you jumping up and down rooting for Bush to succeed? How would what you felt towards Bush be any different than a partisan republican it independent feels tears Obama?
 
cawacko said:
So how do a few people in Alaska end up equaling a majority of Republicans? I also disagree with the technique of throwing out that a bunch of people are racist and then saying you must be otherwise you wouldn't defend yourself so hard.
Click to expand...

They eat their own with little to no provocation, but heck. Let's say it's because he's black and blame it on the Republicans. That way all you have to do is spurt your "feelings".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/9/113338/843
 
Rana said:
I confess, I am prejudiced against Asian women drivers, I hate them, they suck, they drive very badly.

This is the only racism that I can honestly admit that I have, well, except against old grumpy white men who think they are persecuted!

I think this is the group you are in...
Click to expand...

LMAO.... see ... your subconscious is trying to tell you something.
 
Rana said:
It is not people on Alaska, it is friend, Republican friends all over the USA.

I find people who are so defensive about issues are guilty of it themselves. I am not innocent, I have prejudices! We all do and some are just more pronounced then others and I see a great many people wanting Obama to fail because he is black, if you don't like my opinion, I am sorry!
Click to expand...

OR.... it could just be that people don't like it when other people make sweeping generalizations with NO EVIDENCE other than 'well gee, my friends do it'.
 
Damocles said:
No, they wouldn't. We are talking about people who protested the wars. The point is how the numbers have dwindled, to which Christie answers that she gets e-mails.

It is very clear to everybody with eyes that the numbers of protesters diminished after a liberal was elected.
Click to expand...

Christie had actually fleshed it out to "cause du jour." I think that's a bit important, since most people who I know on the "left" genuinely dislike Obama at this point. To me, there really isn't a comparison on the left w/ Obama in general, vs. the right w/ Bush in general. The right was lockstep; the left is completely disenchanted.

Protests against the wars specifically still go on, everywhere. If you want to make an argument about media coverage, you'd have a better leg to stand on; it is certainly way, way down. But it had already dropped statistically to a very low level in Bush's last year + in office.

In general, your opinion on this kind of topic is not very credible. I still laugh about your characterization of "bad Bush every day" during the Exxon Valdez crisis. You're clearly the kind of partisan who sees the persectution ratcheted up higher than the reality when his guy is in office, and down at a lower level than it really is when the other guy is in office.
 
Damocles said:
Right. You get e-mails. During the Bush Presidency thousands would gather, whole villages traveling like an anti-entourage to Crawford each time he took a breath. Now you get e-mails and we see tiny groupings on occasion protesting the same wars.

You take your own experience with e-mails and use that anecdotal evidence to say it is the same as the protests under Bush, it isn't. Not even close.

It's difficult to see past your own bias, one we share, against the wars. However, even the most partisan blinders can compare the numbers and the protests to what has passed before.

This particular "inconsistency" to actual comparable action is particularly strong amongst those who are gathering in the pink shirts on occasion. Because they still care it means everybody does. However reality shows that to be extremely optimistic. Most who were against the wars were against them because they become a personification of Bush, when he left office so did their will to protest.
Click to expand...

I don't recall bush having so many demonstrations until he took the nation to war. Of course there were protests then, he was sending young people off to die on a pretext. And I don't recall bush supporters gathering in numbers to protest the wars when he was in office; on the contrary they supported the wars by overwhelming majorities.

Now even today these same anti-war protesters from the bush era were at the WH, getting busted by cops because they were going to chain themselves to the fence. Liberals, not conservatives.

aaaa-war-protestsx-wide-community.jpg


There's plenty of info on the internet about protesters against Obama's keeping the status quo for those inclined to look. See just a few links below.

ttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/war-protestors-busted-at-obama-white-house/1

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/02/18631237.php

http://antiwarcommittee.org/2010/06...war-exploitation-of-resources-in-afghanistan/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/moveon-moves-against-obam_n_375677.html
 
christiefan915 said:
I don't recall bush having so many demonstrations until he took the nation to war. Of course there were protests then, he was sending young people off to die on a pretext. And I don't recall bush supporters gathering in numbers to protest the wars when he was in office; on the contrary they supported the wars by overwhelming majorities.

Now even today these same anti-war protesters from the bush era were at the WH, getting busted by cops because they were going to chain themselves to the fence. Liberals, not conservatives.

aaaa-war-protestsx-wide-community.jpg


There's plenty of info on the internet about protesters against Obama's keeping the status quo for those inclined to look. See just a few links below.

ttp://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/war-protestors-busted-at-obama-white-house/1

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/12/02/18631237.php

http://antiwarcommittee.org/2010/06...war-exploitation-of-resources-in-afghanistan/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/moveon-moves-against-obam_n_375677.html
Click to expand...
Again, I never said that there were no protesters. I said the numbers dwindled and you now have difficulty getting crowds large enough to hold all the signs.

The picture you give me here only strengthens my argument as does the coverage of the protests you link to.
 
Damocles said:
Again, I never said that there were no protesters. I said the numbers dwindled and you now have difficulty getting crowds large enough to hold all the signs.

The picture you give me here only strengthens my argument as does the coverage of the protests you link to.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect the protests to be as large or larger?

Obama did put an exit date on both wars.

And again, where were all the protests by disillusioned bush supporters?
 
christiefan915 said:
Why would you expect the protests to be as large or larger?

Obama did put an exit date on both wars.

And again, where were all the protests by disillusioned bush supporters?
Click to expand...

Damo thinks war protesters are indefatigueable. I'm sure he remembers millions in the streets until Obama was inaugurated, and then crickets.

The protests were the biggest at the start of the war, and diminished almost yearly since that time.
 
Damocles said:
No, they wouldn't. We are talking about people who protested the wars. The point is how the numbers have dwindled, to which Christie answers that she gets e-mails.

It is very clear to everybody with eyes that the numbers of protesters diminished after a liberal was elected.
Click to expand...

You say it's because a liberal was elected but perhaps it was because that liberal actually put exit dates on the conflicts, or because the people who elected him appreciated losing the lone cowboy diplomacy and exaggerated rhetoric of the former prez.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top