The Democrat Thread

[southsider2k5]

I am so f'in tired of the 30 second soundbite mentality of not only politicians, but of the media. Like the article said, some issues cant be summed up in 2 sentences. Some issues, cant be dealt with in a 30 second soundbite that fits nicely into a newscast so they can move on to the next topic about some 13 year old being shot.

 

On thing I LOVE about Obama, is he challenges you to engage in a debate. Engage a topic. He'll have his little soundbits, but he goes out of his way to try any talk about the complex issue rather than say "you're either with us, or against us" which is a nice soundbite, but HORRIBLE politics.

 

I actually watched Steele and Kaine on Meet the Press. I'll be honest it was the first time I had seen a full interview with the guy, before I had only seen the bastardized clips that you guys have been posting, and he is nothing like is constantly being represented. For example when they asked him about people of other opinions in the party he made a clear distrinction that all are welcome, but as CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICIAN PARTY, this was his particular view on a specific issue. That is a very important parsing. Steele also noted that Kaine had a few things he believed personally that were not in-line with the Democratic platform, but as chair of the Dems, he has to stand up for what he party believes regardless.

 

As for Obama, after getting into office he has for sure changed into Bill Clinton mode where instead of actually acting on the big promises and left wing rhetoric that he said HAD to be done during the campaign, he now goes out and talks about both sides of the issue and does nothing about it, because it is too hard. That's not leadership, that is not uniting people, that is being afraid of getting your approval ratings hurt by stepping on toes. I have to say that I didn't expect that from Obama.

[lostfan]

As for Obama, after getting into office he has for sure changed into Bill Clinton mode where instead of actually acting on the big promises and left wing rhetoric that he said HAD to be done during the campaign, he now goes out and talks about both sides of the issue and does nothing about it, because it is too hard. That's not leadership, that is not uniting people, that is being afraid of getting your approval ratings hurt by stepping on toes. I have to say that I didn't expect that from Obama.

Oh GMAFB with this, if what you say is true, he would've not left troops in Iraq, he would've not escalated the war in Afghanistan, brought back tribunals, approved the sniper mission on the pirates, or held back the Abu Gharib photos. He's been pissing off both the left and the right regularly. If you are saying that he made unrealistic promises during the campaign and he can't keep them once elected (surprise! he's not the first and won't be the last), then that's one thing, but what it sounds like you're saying is bulls*** and I think you know it.

Edited May 19, 2009 by lostfan

[StrangeSox]

Surprise, Obama isn't the far-left radical he's constantly painted as. In fact, the far-left is pretty pissed off at Obama and just sees him as "new boss, same as the old boss."

[southsider2k5]

Oh GMAFB with this, if what you say is true, he would've not left troops in Iraq, he would've not escalated the war in Afghanistan, brought back tribunals, approved the sniper mission on the pirates, or held back the Abu Gharib photos. He's been pissing off both the left and the right regularly. If you are saying that he made unrealistic promises during the campaign and he can't keep them once elected (surprise! he's not the first and won't be the last), then that's one thing, but what it sounds like you're saying is bulls*** and I think you know it.

 

He is leaving troops in Iraq, and he is holding back torture photos. But on both abortion and DADT he has for sure gone waffling.

[lostfan]

He is leaving troops in Iraq, and he is holding back torture photos. But on both abortion and DADT he has for sure gone waffling.

Abortion - pretty standard political talking point, actually pretty irrelevant to the executive branch and I like seeing it downplayed. On DADT he has the rest of his term to do something about it. When the time is right he'll change the policy. Really I'm not worried about it and I don't know why other people are. However, I just get tired of seeing people repeat things that really have no basis in fact, are distorted versions of the truth, or are flat-out false such as "he's a far left radical" (borrowing StrangeSox's words), "he's flip-flopped on everything since being elected and hasn't made any tough decisions nor will he," or possibly the dumbest "he hasn't done anything since he's taken office." That is some s*** I'd expect to see in the comments section of a right-wing blog but I see otherwise intelligent people saying stuff like that.

Edited May 19, 2009 by lostfan

[lostfan]

Surprise, Obama isn't the far-left radical he's constantly painted as. In fact, the far-left is pretty pissed off at Obama and just sees him as "new boss, same as the old boss."

When I read Dailykos or Huffpo commenters it just seems like they don't see or don't care about the difference between what's ideal and what's politically feasible.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Yeah that really really really wasn't the point of his speech.

 

Maybe they should take a cue from him though - I didn't see them protesting anything else. They just shout about one issue, and loudly.

Ok, so I need to vent a little. The link i posted was posted on Facebook by my pastor. I wronte a comment saying basically what i said here that the title of the link and to an extent, the video was a gross misrepresentation of what Obama said. Then this was posted by someone I know:

 

Based on my knowledge of the Bible and what I hear preached from the pulpit every Sunday, I fail to see where Pro Life and Pro Choice are ever going to find "common ground" or ever agree on anything. Also based on this I believe abortion is wrong. On the other hand, maybe the pastors that I listen too are not "with it" or "open minded" enough.... Maybe the Christian church is exactly what it is being accused of (prejudiced, narrow minded and not progressive), the Bible is not a static or unchanging document but one that needs to be reinterpreted every so often so that it accurately reflects the times, some or all of it's content no longer applies to the 21st Century, maybe life begins at birth not conception so abortion is not killing anything. In fact maybe the teachers I had for Sunday School, VBS 7th & 8th grade confirmation as well as the pastors I have known are wrong. Maybe BO has it right. Maybe Christians need to become more "with it".

 

I think it's pretty obvious most of it is sarcasm. But the part I bolded is what really gets me. There ARE things we can work on together. Push adoption. Abstinence. Contraception. These are things we can work on together!

[lostfan]

Ok, so I need to vent a little. The link i posted was posted on Facebook by my pastor. I wronte a comment saying basically what i said here that the title of the link and to an extent, the video was a gross misrepresentation of what Obama said. Then this was posted by someone I know:

 

 

 

I think it's pretty obvious most of it is sarcasm. But the part I bolded is what really gets me. There ARE things we can work on together. Push adoption. Abstinence. Contraception. These are things we can work on together!

Abstinence/contraception being two things that help reduce the # of unwanted pregnancies which is why we have so many abortions in the first place. I don't see why it has to be one or the other, so the abstinence-only crowd kills me.

 

I didn't see his whole speech but I know the focus of it wasn't telling anti-abortionists to change their mind or back off, he pretty much said that at a certain point the debate is irreconcilable. He was calling for more civility and to see what can be done... things like you just said. Right now the focus is pretty much on overturning Roe v. Wade which is really unhelpful.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The ironic part... my church's senior staff is reading a book, "unchristian", that is based on studies showing how most "unchurched" people view the Christians as intolerant and hateful.

[kapkomet]

Re: abortion, if it is so hard of a decision, and we need to educate those who are having one, and we need to preach abstinance, isn't that a clue that abortion itself is wrong, if we have to have all these issues dealt with BEFORE it ever takes place?

 

Just a thought.

[StrangeSox]

Re: abortion, if it is so hard of a decision, and we need to educate those who are having one, and we need to preach abstinance, isn't that a clue that abortion itself is wrong, if we have to have all these issues dealt with BEFORE it ever takes place?

 

Just a thought.

 

That's a bit of circular reasoning, no? It's wrong because its a difficult decision that one has to think about?

[lostfan]

Re: abortion, if it is so hard of a decision, and we need to educate those who are having one, and we need to preach abstinance, isn't that a clue that abortion itself is wrong, if we have to have all these issues dealt with BEFORE it ever takes place?

 

Just a thought.

I get all that, but I think it's just a dealing-in-reality kind of thing. It's like, we know we have a problem, but is supporting abstinence-only education and not allowing abortion really going to help anything? Does it send a desired message? Yes. Does it realistically accomplish anything, in the world we actually live in? No.

[Soxbadger]

Re: abortion, if it is so hard of a decision, and we need to educate those who are having one, and we need to preach abstinance, isn't that a clue that abortion itself is wrong, if we have to have all these issues dealt with BEFORE it ever takes place?

 

Well for some its a hard decision, others not so much (like me).

 

At the moment something can survive on its own, it is alive and therefore has a right to be protected. But as long as it is entirely dependent on another being for life, that being can decide whether or not it wants to support that life form.

 

(Now some people would argue that children can not survive on their own and therefore parents should be able to kill their children, but, my definition of survival is based on a beings ability to independently breathe and sustain itself, which a child can do.)

[kapkomet]

I'm not saying right from wrong, it was just a thought I had.

 

I personally have a problem with abortion, but I will not judge those who choose it, because it's not my place. I can only state why I believe what I do and that's then a person's free will to choose.

[Soxbadger]

I understand, I obviously dont have a problem with people who chose not to have abortions.

 

I understand that potential life is valuable, but sperm/eggs are potential life too and I think the easiest place to draw the line is where does it become "alive". Historically there were ideas such as the "quickening" etc, but with modern science I think that we should use a standard of when can it survive.

 

It also makes it so that as science progresses the amount of time to have an abortion should decrease as they will be able to survive earlier and earlier without their mother.

 

Perhaps there will even become a time where instead of an abortions the fetus is removed but kept alive.

 

That way both the mother and fetus have rights.

 

But we arent there yet, we are limited by our capabilities.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Soxbadger

[KipWellsFan]

I actually watched Steele and Kaine on Meet the Press. I'll be honest it was the first time I had seen a full interview with the guy, before I had only seen the bastardized clips that you guys have been posting, and he is nothing like is constantly being represented. For example when they asked him about people of other opinions in the party he made a clear distrinction that all are welcome, but as CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICIAN PARTY, this was his particular view on a specific issue. That is a very important parsing. Steele also noted that Kaine had a few things he believed personally that were not in-line with the Democratic platform, but as chair of the Dems, he has to stand up for what he party believes regardless.

 

As for Obama, after getting into office he has for sure changed into Bill Clinton mode where instead of actually acting on the big promises and left wing rhetoric that he said HAD to be done during the campaign, he now goes out and talks about both sides of the issue and does nothing about it, because it is too hard. That's not leadership, that is not uniting people, that is being afraid of getting your approval ratings hurt by stepping on toes. I have to say that I didn't expect that from Obama.

 

If you're referring at all to Obama's speech dealing with abortion at Notre Dame I'd refer you to Audacity of Hope where he talks about the issue in the exact same language.

[Balta1701]

You know it’s real. You can see it, and you can feel it. This change, my friends, is being delivered in a teabag. And that’s a wonderful thing.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Just for a little light hearted humor:

A new Web promotion by the Republican National Committee, the "ObamaCard" -- parodying the national debt built up by the stimulus bill -- seems to be a bit confused about exactly when a presidential term ends:

 

 

Note that the ObamaCard is listed as being valid through January 2012 -- as opposed to, say, January 2013, when the current term will actually end as laid out by the Constitution. The card could have also potentially gone for November 2012, as an allusion to when Republicans hope to unseat President Obama on Election Day 2012.

 

But no, they went for January 2012, the month when we can actually expect the Republican Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary.

[HuskyCaucasian]

No way. are you serious? LMFAO!!!

Edited May 19, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[Balta1701]

Yay.

Sen. Edward Kennedy’s brain cancer is in remission and he is expected back in the Senate after the Memorial Day recess to spearhead healthcare reform, according to Democratic colleagues.

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Tuesday that he spoke with Kennedy’s wife, Vicki, in the past few days and was told the 77-year-old lawmaker is “doing fine.”

 

Reid said Kennedy’s cancer is in remission and added that while the lawmaker is going through another regiment of treatment, the procedure “is not unusual.”

 

“This is something we expected,” he said.

 

Kennedy, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, has been mostly absent from the chamber for the past year, recovering in Florida and Massachusetts.

 

He is expected to lead a markup of highly anticipated health reform legislation in his first month back - one of the biggest bills of the year and a signature domestic initiative for President Obama.

 

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a senior member of the HELP Committee, said that Kennedy is scheduled to return to the Senate full time the week after Memorial Day recess to chair the committee markup.

 

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one of Kennedy’s closest friends in the Senate, also said that Kennedy would return to wield the gavel on healthcare reform during the first week in June.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This is why sometimes I just keep my mouth shut and dont even bother to argue. Fro my pastor:

What is there for the Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion (the real name for Pro-Choice) to agree on? NOTHING! Pro-Life says life is sacred and should be protected at all phases of life. Pro-Abortion says we outrank God and can end life whenever we choose. I am already sick of this presidency.

 

no middle ground.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[lostfan]

This is why sometimes I just keep my mouth shut and dont even bother to argue. Fro my pastor:

 

 

no middle ground.

He just stated the part that CAN'T be compromised on, and that's pretty much what Obama said. He's just arguing for the sake of being argumentative.

 

I wonder what your pastor's opinion on the death penalty is? The last time I asked someone that question that opposed religious grounds he gave me the answer "innocent life to criminal life" which is not an answer unless you are actually God.

Edited May 19, 2009 by lostfan

[FlaSoxxJim]

lostfan's point about asking the self-proclained pro-life pastor about the death penalty is in important one — one worth my temporarily breaking my self-imposed Filibuster exile to chime in on.

 

Using the pastor's own words:

 

What is there for the Pro-Life and Pro-Abortion (the real name for Pro-Choice) to agree on? NOTHING! Pro-Life says life is sacred and should be protected at all phases of life. Pro-Abortion says we outrank God and can end life whenever we choose. I am already sick of this presidency.

 

Someone writing these words has to logically conclude that the death penalty is also immoral because it similarly depends on man "outrank[ing] God and can end[ing] life whenever we choose".

 

AHB, I agree it's easier to keep your mouth shut most of the time just to keep from going nuts. But if you take your pastor to task on this, let us know how he responds. If he sees capital punishment as equally morally unjustifiable as abortion, then I will respect him for being consistent regarding his position on the sanctity of life whether I agree with him or not.

[CanOfCorn]

As I'm rarely in here to post, I apologize in advance if this has been said:

 

The two sides to this, labels attached, are Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. I think, for the most part, the Pro-Choice side has been consistent at saying "Choice." This isn't to say that any one of those people are actually Pro-Abortion. That, to me, is the crux of the matter. With exceptions, this country is based on the freedom to choose (and please, don't start flaming me with, "Patriot Act!" "Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theater!" I understand all of that, I'm talking the Constitution, as written).

 

Personally, I am against abortion in some cases, like late-term. I also think, if a woman has had more than a designated amount (i.e. using as birth control) something should be done, I don't know what, but something. Honestly though, it's none of my damn business what women do with their bodies. I understand the moral attachments that come along with it, but there is absolutely no way that pro-life Bob or Mary from Wheaton should be able to have a say in what Jane in Hilton Head should do.

 

If you are against abortion...don't have one. Teach your kids that abstinence/contraception is the way to go. You can only control what you can control...and you can't control everyone.

[jasonxctf]

If you are against abortion...don't have one. Teach your kids that abstinence/contraception is the way to go. You can only control what you can control...and you can't control everyone.