| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Could Obama Be Overthrown? |
| 2009-08-03 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #30 individual responsibility is a private virtue, its not a policy position. And that is where I call liberal bullshit. Liberals want to force government on you and take away individual choice. You get health care, you get "healthy" foods, you get cap and trade, you get social security. All of this whether you like it or not. It EXEMPLIFIES the liberal policy position. It is all about power. The only thing I want from my government is to keep the ChiComs off my ass and my roads paved. Other than that I want them the hell out of my life. The first time a government stooge comes to my door and tells me I need to raise my kid a certain way, give so much to the global warming hoax, can't have certain books as they are "hate speech", can't do certain things as they are bad for my health, they will get a .40 between the eyes. I'm sick of the government nanny state creep. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-08-03 23:24 |
| #29 #11 LH- Given the history of the past 80 years in the U.S. and in the Western World in general since Bastille Day, assuming that that hatred is there and presuming that true envy vs a simple amibtion to do better is the motivator the only prudent and intelligent thing to do. Once bitten, and all that. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2009-08-03 21:04 |
| #28 It's called the "mid-term election". But rest assured, Obama and ACORN working hard to prevent it. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-08-03 19:37 |
| #27 he has been thus far a better Prez, than I expected, or GIVEN his inexperience, I had any right to expect. That statement right there illustrates perfectly, why some people believe Liberals are mentally ill. |
| Posted by: Injun Grinesing9686 2009-08-03 19:35 |
| #26 That said - the pub's need to get off of "stupid". |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-08-03 18:33 |
| #25 Actually the whole left wing should make this a priority that this never happens or the body politic may determine them not to be adult enough to be members of said group. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-08-03 18:31 |
| #24 liberalhawk - if a NKor or Iranian Nuke takes out anything or part of the US then Obama would likely be overthrown in some way shape or form. He should make it a top priority that this never happens. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-08-03 18:29 |
| #23 But I, like most Hillary supporters, never believed that anyway. he has been thus far a better Prez, than I expected, or GIVEN his inexperience, I had any right to expect. Reach for those stars... |
| Posted by: badanov 2009-08-03 17:44 |
| #22 individual responsibility is a private virtue, its not a policy position. In american politics today, it tends to be a platitude to avoid dealing with the details of public policy. Bollocks. Individual responsibility is the opposite of collective responsibility. When the left tells us they want to handle something collectively (i.e. via government, and mostly the federal government) the appropriate response is often to point out that this is an area where personal responsibility should obtain instead. Take, for example, the recent move in the UK to install cameras in homes so that the government can verify that children are going to bed on time. The UK government is making bed time an issue of collective responsibility. It is not a mere platitude to respond that this is an area where the parents should be exercising their own, individual responsibility. It is the only sane response. The UK has lost its collective mind, and those of us who oppose such moves here are not interested in platitudes. We are dead serious. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-08-03 17:30 |
| #21 "Overthrow" is the wrong word, you meant to say "Impeached". |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2009-08-03 17:25 |
| #20 "Where is the individual responsibility party? " individual responsibility is a private virtue, its not a policy position. In american politics today, it tends to be a platitude to avoid dealing with the details of public policy. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-03 16:30 |
| #19 tu - conservatives are always talking about how the dem party has changed so much, when attacking policies where the Dems of today are identical to or MORE conservative then FDR, Truman etc. Keynsian fiscal stimulus, support for govt role in health insurance, are policies Truman would have been comfortable with. I suspect HST, certainly FDR, would have been willing to take more aggressively statist policies on the banking sector than Geithner has. Leave aside cultural issues and for policy, and the Dems of today, even the BHO admin is NOT historically lefty. The folks who think the Dems have changed since the good old days, must be nostalgic for the Grover Cleveland administration. You are right that 40 years and more ago the dems tended to nominate more obvious establishment candidates and only made exceptions for Senators with extraordinarily rich fathers. It was the GOP that nominated surprises, ironically also named Barry. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-03 16:26 |
| #18 I think both parties that I knew from 20 years ago have died. Neither really represent me. Where is the small government party? Where is the individual responsibility party? Neither are those at the moment. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-08-03 16:03 |
| #17 I don't think you're a loony, hawk. I do think the Democratic party you seem to believe in died about 40 years ago. Back then, Barry couldn't have been elected dog catcher. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-08-03 15:41 |
| #16 "Kool aid" is a good reference for loonies, not for any who disagree with you. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-03 15:23 |
| #15 It wouldn't be so much about overthrowing Bammo as it would be about reasserting limited, Constitutional government and federalism. Bammo the man is irrelevant - he's just the guy who reads the teleprompter. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-08-03 14:40 |
| #14 has been thus far a better Prez, than I expected, or GIVEN his inexperience, I had any right to expect. 'Less bad' might be a better term, and on international stuff I think I agree. Nationally though is the opposite - I thought he would only nudge us leftward, but we're in a full throttle power-slide and we'll either go all the way Euroleft or crash flaming into the grandstands. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-08-03 13:34 |
| #13 Keep drinking the Kool Aid, hawk. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-08-03 13:23 |
| #12 "Seems Obama told a few fibs and sold "hope"" he mainly sold hope and other fluff as a way to overcome Hillary. Once nominated, he merely had to be the Democrat. Obama is NOT more able to achieve change than Hillary would have been. In that sense, his "fibs" have been shown up. But I, like most Hillary supporters, never believed that anyway. he has been thus far a better Prez, than I expected, or GIVEN his inexperience, I had any right to expect. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-03 13:02 |
| #11 "Because envy is evil, but that brand of envy " Faulkner once wrote, in Absalom, Absalom, on the difference between simple covetousness and envy. The former involves only the desire for the object, while the latter entails hatred the owner of the object. For poor people to desire, say good health insurance, or even a McMansion, whether by private enterprise or the working of public policy, is not the same negative moral category as someone who actively hates those who have good health insurance or Mcmansions. Should someone without hatred simply support a policy to get them health insurance or Mcmansions, that policy should be debated on strictly pragmatic grounds, without the moral overtones associated with attacks on "envy". |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-03 12:59 |
| #10 Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact so many? Because most "activists" are well educated upper middle class people, or hippie young people without kids to support, and with upper middle class or richer parents, and are more concerned about "liberal issues" (civil liberties, antimilitarism) than about social democratic issues. The latter are the concerns of trade unions, elected pols, and at least some ordinary voters. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-08-03 12:54 |
| #9 My favorite part was this: Can progressives fight the three front war that is needed --- against the vicious right, against the slippery center, and for a more comprehensive and empowering agenda? Let's ignore for a moment whatever the hell fighting for 'a more comprehensive and empowering agenda' means. Given that voters self-describe themselves (see Vote By Ideology) as liberal 22%, moderate 44% and conservative 34%, saying you are fighting against the vicious right and slippery center means you are going against almost 80% of the country. Good luck with that, you progressively crazier progressives! |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-08-03 12:07 |
| #8 I used to wonder if antidepressants and other psych meds were being overprescribed. In the last few months, I'm not so sure any more. |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-08-03 09:25 |
| #7 Economic justice can best be won by free men, through free enterprise. From the Jaycee Creed. Followed by - Government should be of laws, rather than of men. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2009-08-03 06:30 |
| #6 Because envy is evil, but that brand of envy which masquerades as a concern for "economic justice" is the most evil of all. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2009-08-03 06:24 |
| #5 Â Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact so many? Because "economic justice" are code words for "stealing" from your neighbor. |
| Posted by: whatadeal 2009-08-03 05:19 |
| #4 Why is economic justice a priority for so few activists when these issues impact so many? Maybe it is because at it's core we generally find communism! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-08-03 02:28 |
| #3 The article is a pathetic whine full of strawmen and logical mistakes. Most of the comments are no better. Seems Obama told a few fibs and sold "hope" instead of reality and people are starting to see how niave he is/was as he continues Bush policies while blaming Bush a d while trying to shove his own massive pork through the system rather than fixing the economy. I'd always felt that whomever was elected in 2008 would be a one term President because of the economy. I also felt it would be good to have some distance from Bush the next time the GOP ran. A Democrativ victory did that. My real fear was a supermajority which gives the donks no excuses but also enables them to do some serious long term damage in a short time. I think we might see another Reaganish 12 year domination of the white house if the right person runs in 2012 (don't ask me who it is but the tea parties indicate people are ready) but the I suspect Obamas second year will be about packing the courts with young lefties. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2009-08-03 02:09 |
| #2 Geez, I remember this guy when he was, "Danny Schecter: Your News Dissecter" on WBCN the big alternative rock station in Boston in the 70's and 80's. He was a sixties derelict back then. I thought he was dead. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-08-03 00:57 |
| #1 I couldn't make it past the bit about the corporate media and right-wing television networks taking aim at poor defenseless Barack. Did they actually get around to making a point? |
| Posted by: AzCat 2009-08-03 00:31 |