Journal pudge's Journal: Obama's Address and Why It Sucked 29
Obama wants us to put aside our "petty grievances." We should not have "conflict" or "discord" or "recriminations."
Apparently we're all supposed to agree with Obama. If we believe, due to "worn-out dogmas," that our government is too big (and therefore, necessarily, takes away too much of our liberty), then we are focusing on "childish things."
He explicitly stated we should not be asking whether a government program violates the Constitution: if a program "works" (by his standard), we should do it, the Constitution be damned:
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward.
Yet most small-government advocates base their views in large part on the Constitution, so according to President Obama, he intends to move forward, regardless of what the Constitution says. (Note that he said this mere moments after vowing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.")
To President Obama, I say: Screw You. (Oh yes, I did!) Whether government takes away liberty is far more important to me than whether by your standards it "works."
I will not stop fighting for liberty just because you try to make my fight into something dirty and un-patriotic. You will not decide for me what is important, what is patriotic, what is worth fighting for, what is good and just and right and meaningful.
Incredibly, Obama uttered one of the most Orwellian phrases I've ever heard from any politician: "To those who cling to power through
Obama said at the beginning of his address, "... We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebearers, and true to our founding documents." If he cares so much about our forebears and founding documents, he would do well to read Federalist 10:
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
This nation was founded on the notion that we will not agree. The entire republic is set up to deal with this fact of life.
It is not President Obama's job to tell me what to think. It is his job to protect my right to think it, to express it, and to act on it. Of course, this wouldn't be a problem is he actually followed his oath to uphold the Constitution, and didn't propose violating it in the first place.
Liberty, Liberty, Liberty. This is what matters. This is why the Constitution exists, and why it must be followed. And Obama, like Bush before him in various ways, are saying liberty and the Constitution don't matter.
I won't agree, and President Obama can bite me for saying I should agree.
Now Playing: Petra - Grave Robber
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Good summary (Score:2)
I was about to write up something similar but I may just refer to yours.
On a local program they also mentioned he took some Bible quotes WAY out of context as he has in the past, but then a lot of people do that.
Of course my main concern is less about what he might or might not do or try to do as it is about the mindset of many who voted for him. My perception is that more and more citizens welcome the notion that government tell them how to live their lives and of course that magically someone else foot t
Re: (Score:1)
Strikingly dead-on, with my only wavering being that I don't think people perceive any such fact that the system they and Obama want to change America to has never worked. The American people think it does work. They know that European countries have more social programs and larger government and fewer citizen rights and higher taxation, and they haven't collapsed. Canada has socialized medicine and that country hasn't collapsed. We've had deficit spending for decades and they can't see how it's hurt us any
I can't help but feel you're not paying attention (Score:1)
It really seems like you're just reinterpreting what Obama said to fit your own preconceptions of how you think he will be terrible.
You also seem to think being angry is a virtue. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the issue is that President Obama throughout his campaign coupled his message of hope with open disdain for a not insignificant portion of the populace via straw man arguments typically (like above) while conveying a message of 'Unity'.
If you were insulted by someone saying isn't it great we can all agree and aren't bound by 'stupid ideas' (worthiness notwithstanding) that YOU agree with then YOU might be more than a little cynical at the whole precept of 'agreement'.
Just saying is all.
I mean, tradi
Re: (Score:1)
Which above?
That is an insulting and cynicism-inducing situation. However, I'm pretty sure (as I posted in response to Pudge's response) that Obama is not saying to disregard anyone who disagrees with him - he i
Re:I can't help but feel you're not paying attenti (Score:2)
It really seems like you're just reinterpreting what Obama said to fit your own preconceptions of how you think he will be terrible.
I implied nothing about how he "will be." I only remarked on what he said. And you provided not a single reason for anyone to think I was interpreting him incorrectly.
You also seem to think being angry is a virtue.
In the face of injustice? Always.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I doubt this will change your mind - not many internet discussions can bring change to either side, but I will respond to specifics in your post, since you imply that I have no reasonable basis for saying that you're interpreting him incorrectly.
You state:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pudge likes strong leaders.
Um. Doesn't everyone? There's no such thing as a good, weak, leader. Obama appears to be a strong leader; if he did not, he would not have won.
He liked Bush, at first, because Bush was an asshole. Bush wanted to torture suspected bad guys, and he went right ahead and did it.
Actually I've opposed torture.
Bush tried to topple one Central American regime 'cos the leader was a jackass, but moreover was a leftie jackass.
Actually I've opposed intervention in Central American regimes.
And then were was Saddam. Saddam - and those pesky civilians who just refused to rise up and topple the bastard - deserved a good smack down, and Bush went right ahead and ordered that it be so.
Actually I opposed much of what Bush did during the build-up to Iraq, and after the invasion.
That's Pudge's view of how a President should act.
You're a liar.
When Obama says something like:
"Can't we just all get along?"
Pudge thinks that what Obama means is "OK Motherfuckers, you either play nice, or I'll tear your guts out and wrap 'em around a telephone poll".
You're a liar. He was not talking about getting along, he was talking about abandoning your principles about whether something is right or wrong for the country to d
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, Pudge. You're the liar.
See, the difference is, I backed up all my claims that you lied. You provided no evidence that I lied. Indeed, you continue to add more lies:
You've sat there supporting this evil regime for most of the last eight years, and you now sit here pretending that you didn't
I supported no evil regime, no. I did support the Bush presidency, and I never denied doing so: you are lying when you claim otherwise. I did deny supporting specific policies of his administration, such as warrantless wiretapping, which is, of course, a fact.
and you pretend that Obama has said things that cannot be found in any words that he has said
False, of course. I backed up what I said quite clearly. You can feel free to disagree, but the logic mak
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
you imply that I have no reasonable basis for saying that you're interpreting him incorrectly.
No, I implied that no one should care what you have to say unless you present that basis.
He says nothing about silencing criticisms or ending debate about things
Incorrect. The very first quoted sentence he does: "we have chosen hope over ... conflict and discord."
... he simply says that we should work together without being politically dogmatic. I take this to mean that we should evaluate things in the free market of ideas, and not base our evaluations on dogmas, but on careful thought.
And, of course, Obama calls my belief that most of his policies are unconstitutional "dogma." Note that when he references dogma, he doesn't imply it is not based on careful thought, only that it is worn out and has held us back.
However, he never once claims that the Constitution is irrelavent.
Yes, he does. He says the ONLY QUESTION is whether or not a program "works." And this
Re: (Score:1)
You have said a lot that I agree with and more that I disagree with, but I can see how you are prone to polarizing my and everyone else's statements, so I'll pass on responding to most of your post.
Your last statement, however, I feel the need to respond to. Here's the thread, quoted with annotation for context and completeness:
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
First, I did not "misquote" you - I referenced what you said, along with what I feel you were actually doing.
No, you misquoted me. You said I said it was a virtue to get angry about something "crossing one of my dogmas." I never do get angry at such a thing. Ever. I get angry at injustice. It's not the same thing at all.
Second, and this is the real crux of the matter, why would you claim that I was " intentionally misquoting" you?
Because you had what I wrote right there, and you changed it into something completely different and unrelated. So you misquoted me, and it was done with intent. Hence ...
Re: (Score:1)
No, I never said you said that. I said that what you thought was injustice looks to me like you getting up in arms about your dogma being crossed. Let me quote my previous post, since the choices are that you missed what I wrote, or are too stupid to understand it, and I choose to believe, for now, that you are not stupid, but just missed it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I never said you said that.
Um. You really did. You said, "it's not virtuous to get angry just because something crosses one of your dogmas."
I said that what you thought was injustice looks to me like you getting up in arms about your dogma being crossed.
No, you didn't. You may have intended that, but it sure as hell isn't what you said.
And what you say you intended makes no sense anyways, given the context of the discussion, where I am talking about fundamental principles of liberty being violated, which is necessarily an issue of justice, not of mere "dogma." You have the same problem Obama does: you do not understand what liberty is, why i
Re: (Score:1)
Where in there is the part that I misquote you? I did not say you said that. I said it, and you decided that I must be attributing it to you. I'm not sure why you can't see that and apologize for your mistake.
The rest of your post is definitely addressing issues that I'd like to discuss, but to put this plainly, I'm not going to waste my time discussing it with you if you can't even parse
Re: (Score:2)
Where in there is the part that I misquote you?
Lather, rinse, repeat.
The rest of your post is definitely addressing issues that I'd like to discuss, but to put this plainly, I'm not going to waste my time discussing it with you if you can't even parse the exchange we had ...
Shrug. I don't see why you can't just admit your mistake.
Re: (Score:1)
OK, let's spell this out slowly and simply. You say that I misquoted you. Where is the post that you are referencing in which I wrote "You said" or "Pudge said", or "stop saying" and then followed it with something you did not say?
You continue to act like your statement has some currency in the discussion, that it has some intrinsic value which need not look to facts. While I believe that harsh, emotionally charged words can be used to discuss topics rationally and constructive
Re: (Score:2)
You say that I misquoted you.
Yes. Because you did.
Where is the post that you are referencing in which I wrote "You said" or "Pudge said", or "stop saying" and then followed it with something you did not say?
Let ME spell it out simply and slowly: you implied I think anger is virtuous. Then I said, yes, anger in the face of injustice is virtuous. Then you replied, directly to me, and to what I said, "no, it's not virtuous to get angry just because something crosses one of your dogmas."
And then you want me to think that you did not intend your statement to refer directly to my statement, to be a representation of what I said.
I call bullshit.
you persist in lying about what I posted
You persist in bullshit.
I've been thinking about this, too, why you are clinging so tenaciously to this lie
It's not a lie. You're t
Re: (Score:1)
Are you actually fluent in english? You just stated
Where in there do I do anything but state what I think about what you said? I never attribute those words to you, I simply (obviously this is complex for you to understand, but it really is simple) expressed that I think you're getting angry about your dogmatic view being contradicted when you think you're getting ang
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Where in there do I do anything but state what I think about what you said?
Um. Where you did that.
I never attribute those words to you, I simply ... expressed that I think you're getting angry about your dogmatic view being contradicted when you think you're getting angry about injustice.
Sigh. You're lying. Or YOU do not understand English. Your use of the word "no" followed by the independent clause means you intend for that clause to rebut the claim I just made. Which means you absolutely were intending those words to represent what I said.
The fact ... that to you, getting angry is the equivalent of being a righteous martyr
You're a liar. That is no fact at all.
and you care more for appearing righteous than about what is actually right and true.
You're a liar.
The fact is that you dishonestly attributed that to me. And now you are lying about me to try to deflect from that fact.
Re: (Score:2)
What a laugh watching pudge wriggle and reveal his ignorance, which is only exceeded by his arrogance.
Pudge, like most right wingers in a total spin now their discredited policies, and laughably bad administration are gone. Have some pity for the poor chap, he is in full blown denial.
Amusingly his best response is to contradict those pointing to his own statements and call them liars.
Like all supporters of Bush and his neocon cronies they are not so keen on having the same ghastly laws they supported applie
Re: (Score:2)
What a laugh watching pudge wriggle and reveal his ignorance, which is only exceeded by his arrogance.
Wow. So many ad hominems. The problem is, you can't rebut what I wrote, so you resort to mere personal attacks and lies. This is a common tactic, but it never works. It always makes the person who does it look stupid.
Pudge, like most right wingers in a total spin now their discredited policies, and laughably bad administration are gone.
What policy of mine was discredited? I defy you to give a single example.
Amusingly his best response is to contradict those pointing to his own statements and call them liars.
Yes, I do call people like you liars. For example, the "ghastly laws" you refer to (but don't specify) were most likely opposed by me. And (since you didn't specify) if you're referring to something I did support, n
Does it work? (Score:2)
I don't for a second believe in sacrificing liberties especially fundamental ones for the sake of expediency or any other means...but just as a thought experiment, let's consider it.
Let's say that we disregard the Constitution and consider only the effectiveness of government policies and legislation. If we are to truly and honestly hold the a program, policy or law to the standard of actually being effective at it's intended goal - then he really is the candidate for change. Because if that's a case, he's
Re: (Score:2)
moof (Score:1)
"...the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask..."
The debate is over. Consensus has been reached.
Sounds familiar.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I didn't draw that comparison in my head, but, of course, it's the same damned thing.
This is what many people do -- especially on the left these days, but not exclusively -- to win arguments they know they can't win by sheer argument: they change the terms of the argument, they rig the game, so that they win no matter what.
Geez Pudge... (Score:2)
Seriously, though, if you ask a Cuban what he thinks about his government, he'll say he enjoys it because it works. Scary, eh?