Do you regret voting for Obama in 2008?

@Cycloptichorn,

That is not the post of yours that I replied to, but I can see why you'd prefer to select that one if not the relevance of your equivocation.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

That is not the post of yours that I replied to, but I can see why you'd prefer to select that one if not the relevance of your equivocation.

I'm quite aware which post of mine you replied to, thanks very much. Nothing about the format here is confusing.

Are you going to admit that my response to Roger's initial point was not, in fact, rude or aggressive in any fashion? Or stick with your earlier claim that anyone who disagrees with me is met with bile? I think it's pretty clear to the reader of this thread - and others I participate in - that this is not the case.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

So, facts aren't interesting in your little world. Party on. . . .

What facts? You haven't presented a fact or logical argument on a political topic here on A2K in well over a year. Just sniping and one-liners.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I am talking about the part where you denigrate roger as not letting facts get in the way of his "meme" and imply that this is a failing of all Republicans.

This is a common failure of modern Republicans, yes. Large parts of their ideology rely upon not letting facts or logic get in the way of their desires.

And I'm more than willing to back this up in conversation that examines the issue in depth. But nobody on the other side is ever willing to engage, other than perhaps Okie. Which to me is quite unsurprising. Lots of people have opinions but few have logical arguments for their positions, and it reveals the game when people force you to explain yourself. Folks don't like that; it's not pleasant. But I really could give a ****. The alternative is to listen to people spout bullshit and lies, while saying nothing; and I'm not here to do that.

Quote:

That was just your usual, partisan douchebaggery.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm not swayed by your insults anymore than I would be by the waterboy's.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I find it interesting to note how common is the useage of the fairly recently manufactured (and still unusual) word "meme" by the most ardent Democrats here. What causes this interesting observable difference between them and the equally disparate group of conservatives here? Could it be a product of frequent reading of party line themes and talking points by political hacks who also use it so frequently?

The origins of the word imply that meme refers to themes a group compulsively uses as a result of something analogus to genes in their makeup. i.e. "The girl can't help it". That suggests to me the observable condescending attitudes towards conservatives who disagree with them of committed liberal advocates who all appear convinced that theirs is the only conceivable rational approach to every issue. In my experience the complete absence of doubt is the true hallmark of an irrational fanatic - and they increasingly look to me like irrational fanatics.

In any event it is equally interesting to note the near unanimity of Obama voters here - they will stick with him through thick and thin - apparently because all the alternatives are - by definition - worse.

It will be interesting to observe in the coming election the degree to which the voting public differs from the committed supporters here. It's early to make a call on this one in my view. Obama has been badly damaged, but the Republicans haven't yet settled on a candidate with broad apeal.

2 Replies

It's obvious that most people that voted for Obama in 2008 regret what
has happened and they will not be making the same mistake in 2012.

You won't hear many of these same people voice their feelings publicly
because they fear bile filled attacks such as the ones launched by Cyclotroll.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

George,

"Memes" are not limited to any one political group or ideology. Dems and Liberals engage in their usage just as much as Conservatives or Republicans.

Think of memes as a thought-virus. They are ideas that spread from one person to another, and satisfy a need or solve an argument without relying upon a body of underlying proof. Because of this, they are extremely hard to combat with evidence or logic.

As an example: a common meme on the LEFT side of the fence was that Bush and his crew were somehow responsible for 9/11. As you have seen over the years, no amount of evidence will ever shut these folks up, because anyone who produces it is just 'part of the conspiracy.' Same with the current Birther nonsense on the right-wing.

It's just a fancy way of saying that people believe what they want to believe.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm quite aware which post of mine you replied to, thanks very much. Nothing about the format here is confusing.

Are you going to admit that my response to Roger's initial point was not, in fact, rude or aggressive in any fashion?

I don't see why I should, given that it wasn't the post I considered rude but if it means that much to you I agree, it wasn't rude. It was your subsequent post that I took exception with.

Quote:

Or stick with your earlier claim that anyone who disagrees with me is met with bile?

I didn't say that, nor did I say you have "bile" in every post to someone who disagreed with you if that is what you are seeking to disprove.

Anyway, I've had my say about you on this thread. Feel free to carry on without me if you wish.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm quite aware which post of mine you replied to, thanks very much. Nothing about the format here is confusing.

Are you going to admit that my response to Roger's initial point was not, in fact, rude or aggressive in any fashion?

I don't see why I should, given that it wasn't the post I considered rude but if it means that much to you I agree, it wasn't rude. It was your subsequent post that I took exception with.

Fine with me, because - in my opinion - it's fine to respond in kind. I stand by what I wrote earlier - responses such as Rogers are indeed typical of what I see from Republicans, when they are presented with logical counter-arguments to their positions. I certainly can't be held responsible for your opinion that me pointing this out is 'acting like a jackass.'

Quote:

Quote:
Or stick with your earlier claim that anyone who disagrees with me is met with bile?

I didn't say that, nor did I say you have "bile" in every post to someone who disagreed with you if that is what you are seeking to disprove.

On the contrary. You stated:

Quote:

You act like a jackass to anyone who doesn't share your political views but whine about them responding in kind?

The truth is that I don't do this in the slightest. I have many conversations with Conservatives and Conservative Dems here that don't involve any acrimony or bile whatsoever, and I certainly don't 'act like a jackass' towards them. You simply don't seem to notice those posts. And in fact, I attempted to engage in this conversation without bile or prejudice either, simply explaining my opinion on the matter.

Quote:

Anyway, I've had my say about you on this thread. Feel free to carry on without me if you wish.

I'm sure we will.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

P.S. Anyone who believed his campaign bullshit about being different from "Washington" deserves their disappointment. Obama is all about Obama. If he thinks that sticking to his purported ideals on stuff like Gitmo or torture would hurt him politically he will swap for a new set of ideals instead.

"These are my principled ideals, if they are politically inconvenient I have others."

That certainly does not describe my disappointment in Obama as a leader. It has always been clear that he has no problem tacking to the prevailing political winds. For instance, he supported "don't ask-don't tell" and opposed gay marriage when those were the politically safe positions to take, and then opposed "DADT" and abandoned DOMA when those became the politically safe positions to take. He came to Chicago not from any great love for the city but solely from political considerations. And I think it's pretty obvious he even chose his church affiliation because of political expediency. Believe me, he didn't shatter too many of my illusions.

When he spoke of the "audacity of hope," however, I expected a little more audacity from him. It turns out, though, that the audacity he was referring to was that of the voters in believing they could elect a guy like him to the presidency. As for himself, he has shown remarkably little audacity in office (apart from health care, which was audacious only in its initial concept). For the most part, he has carried over to the White House the worst traits of a typical Democratic senator: a dithering, cowardly unwillingness to do anything that might upset the petulantly loudmouthed Republican leadership. Indeed, his first major decision as the party nominee -- his choice of Joe Biden as a running-mate -- almost guaranteed that this style of non-leadership would be the hallmark of his administration.

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I hadn't been speaking about you, I remember you being less swept away by Obama than most liberals. But now I'm curious. Why did you expect audacity given your recognition of his penchant for pandering to the prevailing wind? Don't you see those as being in conflict with each other?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I had perhaps the naive hope that, because Obama had spent only two years in the senate, he had not fully embraced the prevailing Democratic ethos of fear and self-loathing. As a state senator, he managed to take some audacious stands (such as his opposition to the Iraq War that was the catalyst for his presidential run in the first place), but he reverted to type when he entered the US senate.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I had perhaps the naive hope that, because Obama had spent only two years in the senate, he had not fully embraced the prevailing Democratic ethos of fear and self-loathing. As a state senator, he managed to take some audacious stands (such as his opposition to the Iraq War that was the catalyst for his presidential run in the first place), but he reverted to type when he entered the US senate.

Yaknow, the funny thing about this topic, is that amongst my friends, I'm considered - and always have been - somewhat negative re: Obama. I remember warning people right off the bat that, no matter what he said, he'd be damn lucky to accomplish anything at all in the modern environment. Which subsequent events have proven to be mostly true.

The most frustrating thing for most of my friends and fellow Obama supporters was that they didn't actually listen to the guy when he ran in 2008. He said he wasn't going to be confrontational with Republicans and for the most part he hasn't been. He said he wasn't going to act as if the Exec branch ran the Legislature, and he hasn't done that. He said he was going to compromise instead of force his way, and for the most part, that's exactly what he's done. I'm far to the left of Obama politically, so most of the bills that have been passed have been disappointing to me. But not unexpected.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

That certainly does not describe my disappointment in Obama as a leader. It has always been clear that he has no problem tacking to the prevailing political winds. For instance, he supported "don't ask-don't tell" and opposed gay marriage when those were the politically safe positions to take, and then opposed "DADT" and abandoned DOMA when those became the politically safe positions to take. He came to Chicago not from any great love for the city but solely from political considerations. And I think it's pretty obvious he even chose his church affiliation because of political expediency. Believe me, he didn't shatter too many of my illusions.

Peter Seller's portrayal of the character Chance - the gardener whom everyone credited with understanding he didn't have - in the film "Being there" comes to mind. Certainly his career prior to his admittedly brilliant presidential campaign suggests an absence of concrete achievement and clear politicalposition, but instead a clear focus on becoming attractive to targeted parts of the political spectrum. It all came together when the poltroon John Kerry gave him the starring role at the 2004 Democrat convention.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I agree. I supported him as a centrist and that's exactly how I've always seen him.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

This is a common failure of modern Republicans, yes. Large parts of their ideology rely upon not letting facts or logic get in the way of their desires.

This affliction has infested all modern political spectra in the US.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Fine with me, because - in my opinion - it's fine to respond in kind.

Sounds a lot like the content in the threads originated by JGoldman10.

2 Replies

@Butrflynet,

Butrflynet wrote:

Quote:
This is a common failure of modern Republicans, yes. Large parts of their ideology rely upon not letting facts or logic get in the way of their desires.

This affliction has infested all modern political spectra in the US.

Well, unless you are of the opinion that everything is the same and that no judgments can be made about things by anyone, I feel perfectly fine stating that the modern Republican movement relies upon this much more so than the modern Democratic one.

Butrflynet wrote: