patrick.net

One hundred days before the election, I promise to come here and post one valid reason to dislike Obama every day until election day.

Why wait? I've listed plenty of reasons to dislike, even hate, Obama.

I wonder, however, are your reasons going to be important ones, and if so, won't they also apply to the vast majority of Republicans? After all, Obama is more of a Republican than a Democrat in policy. He's more like Bush than he's like Ted Kennedy by far. Hell, he's more like Bush than he's like Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter. Hell, he's more like Bush than that guy on SNL who impersonates him.

170 nope 2012 Mar 18, 9:03am

thomas.wong1986 says

He may be a decent person and I do not hate President Obama

He's not a decent person. Decent people don't torture and murder. And having a list of U.S. citizens to assassinate without trial is murder, plain and simple. The only reason to deny a person a trial is that the state has no case against him.

I'm quite certain that a "decent person" by that standard would never be president.

Even a well intentioned president (or, really, the leader of any country) is going to have to do some pretty vile things. People who always do the right thing rarely make effective leaders.

171

Dan8267 2012 Mar 18, 9:14am

People who always do the right thing rarely make effective leaders.

There's a big difference between "always doing the morally right thing even when it's dangerous" versus "fuck all human rights, I'll kill anyone who looks funny to me". It's a false dichotomy to say either you have to abandon human rights, habeas corpus, and rule of law or you have to let the terrorists will win.

Today is the safest time in all of human existence. You are less likely to be murdered than at any other time in the past 200,000 years. But if you are murdered, it's far more likely to be your government doing the evil deed than a terrorist.

I'm quite certain that a "decent person" by that standard would never be president.

As far as I know, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower all were presidents without suspending habeas corpus, without torturing, without having lists of U.S. citizens to assassinate. And the cold war was every bit as trying as the war on terror.

We cannot win the war on terror by making our government the biggest terrorist organization in the world.

172

freak80 2012 Mar 18, 9:22am

Even a well intentioned president (or, really, the leader of any country) is going to have to do some pretty vile things. People who always do the right thing rarely make effective leaders.

Sad. But true.

173 nope 2012 Mar 18, 1:29pm

As far as I know, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower all were presidents without suspending habeas corpus, without torturing, without having lists of U.S. citizens to assassinate. And the cold war was every bit as trying as the war on terror.

So your definition of "decent person" seems to be "only kills people and does other horrible things to people who aren't american citizens*"

I wouldn't doubt for even a second that any one of those men (well, maybe not carter, he's kind of a pussy) would have ordered the killing or detention of american citizens had they been viewed as a threat the way that the government currently views organized terrorism.

* And even that also happened. Kent State anyone?

We cannot win the war on terror by making our government the biggest terrorist organization in the world.

We can not "win" the war on terror, period.

We should also not be bringing hyperbole here. What government actions are being done for the sole purpose of frightening people into meeting some demand or changing their way of life?

Governments do appalling things all the time, which is why they must be held accountable, but to act like anything that has happened over the last decade is really new is laughable. From the treatment of native americans, to the civil war, to blacks, to unions, to student protestors, to war protestors, there's plenty of history of our own government doing shitty things.

I firmly believe that any president in office would be doing the same, or worse, than anything that Obama has done. Everyone who has run for the office in the last 10 years has promised to do exactly that.

The only thing that's going to get the government to stop doing these horrible things is for the citizens to stand up and say that it's wrong. When a strong majority of people believe that it's OK to shoot anyone that is identified as a possible terrorist threat, you should be happy that we're at least still respecting the constitution when on american soil.

174

Dan8267 2012 Mar 18, 1:58pm

So your definition of "decent person" seems to be "only kills people and does other horrible things to people who aren't american citizens*"

You pulled that out of your ass, not out of my philosophy. Try again.

My only point is that none of the prior administrations had gone to the extreme level of evil that the current and past one did. Therefore, you are incorrect in concluding that this level of evil is necessary to combat terrorism or ensure national security. Your statement is empirically false.

Any conclusion beyond that is your assertion, not mine.

I wouldn't doubt for even a second that any one of those men (well, maybe not carter, he's kind of a pussy) would have ordered the killing or detention of american citizens had they been viewed as a threat the way that the government currently views organized terrorism.

Kennedy and Eisenhower certainly would not. And as for Carter, not killing innocents hardly makes one a pussy.

We can not "win" the war on terror, period.

Then the Constitution shouldn't be suspended during this period of indefinite war.

Governments do appalling things all the time, which is why they must be held accountable, but to act like anything that has happened over the last decade is really new is laughable.

Gitmo, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, government stating that assassination of U.S. citizens is legal are all new in American history. So yes, our government has become materially worse in the past 12 years.

I firmly believe that any president in office would be doing the same, or worse, than anything that Obama has done.

And there you are wrong. There are no fewer than 1 million Americans who would have done a better and more ethical job than Obama, and that's an extremely conservative estimate.

Everyone who has run for the office in the last 10 years has promised to do exactly that.

Except Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Ralph Nadar. And if people voted for these two instead of all the assholes, there would be more people like them in office. Electing people like Elizabeth Warren and William Black would help a lot too.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/17/elle-macpherson-loves-obama-i-m-socialist-what-do-you-expect

The only thing that's going to get the government to stop doing these horrible things is for the citizens to stand up and say that it's wrong. When a strong majority of people believe that it's OK to shoot anyone that is identified as a possible terrorist threat, you should be happy that we're at least still respecting the constitution when on american soil.

And on that, we agree. Well, except that I don't believe "we're" respecting the Constitution on American soil.

175 Honest Abe 2012 Mar 19, 12:39am

The Joker's real persona:

He wants to fundamentaly destroy American values and substitute the failed policies of redistribution, when it was free enterprise that made America great in the first place.

Free enterprise = America, USA
Redistribution = Amerika, USSA

176

freak80 2012 Mar 19, 1:11am

Honest Abe says

He wants to fundamentaly destroy American values and substitute the failed policies of redistribution, when it was free enterprise that made America great in the first place.
Free enterprise = America, USA
Redistribution = Amerika, USSA

ITPRWPORT?

177

Bap33 2012 Mar 19, 3:42am

I do not hate Lord Barry. Lord Barry is simply the man .... the figure head of the movement/ideals/principality that is against traditional American culture, values and beliefs as found on Leave it to Beaver, Fozie, George Lopez, Karate Kid, Full House, Family Matters and Cosby Show.

I hate evil. The oposite of good. Lord Barry's group, and their supporters, do not agree with me and other conservos on what is evil and what is good.

I am pretty sure we have went over this stuff a few times already. Good and Evil ... right and wrong ... it is from here that the split begins.

178

MisdemeanorRebel 2012 Mar 19, 4:10am

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/postman-ayers-family-put-foreigner-obama-through-school/

I do not hate Lord Barry. Lord Barry is simply the man .... the figure head of the movement/ideals/principality that is against traditional American culture, values and beliefs as found on Leave it to Beaver, Fozie, George Lopez, Karate Kid, Full House, Family Matters and Cosby Show.

Do you have specific examples?

179

freak80 2012 Mar 19, 4:10am

Bap,

What has Obama actually done to negate any of those values and beliefs? He's only a president, you know.

I can understand being against Obama: Obamacare seems like another givaway to Big Health Insurance.

As for the economy, I'm not sure what Obama (or any other president) can do to revive an economy suffering from the necessary debt-deleveraging "hangover" that comes after a period of irrational exuberance.

What I think we need is sound money. Ultra low interest rates encourage "yield chasing," excessive risk-taking, and serial bubbles.

180

Bap33 2012 Mar 19, 6:51am

@80,
I said Lord Barry is only a man. Where did I place blame for today's situation on him? He is only a representative figure of the "problem" in my estimation.

@thunderlips,
I'm pretty sure Lord Barry's group has taken a position on immigration, God in public, guns, gays, welfare, and issues such as those, that does not match the position of -- lets say, Tea Party people -- for example. And, as in my example, members of Lord Barry's group do not seem to like/agree/embrace the America depicted in those shows I put up. While I think we can all agree that the Tea Party members are depicted in such shows, or at least associate with them in a positive way. I just used some shows that most folks would know, and to save a bunch of time with details and explanations to only have them be thrown out. That may have been a bad medium to choose.

But, to be honest, I am not sure what you are looking for in the way of examples. My original premis may lack the detail to satisfy your question.

181

freak80 2012 Mar 19, 7:06am

If he's only a man, why "Lord Barry" as if he were a King or God? That's what I meant.

182

Bap33 2012 Mar 19, 7:56am

he came to power with zero background, as if chosen by some devine power.

his followers allow him free run, giving blind obedience.

those who oppose him or his system are demonized with great effort.

he shows no reverence for the laws of man

his words and actions bring warmth to his followers, while his words and actions bring fear and anger to his opposers.

he operates above any oversight.

I guess I just went with Lord Barry to get used to doing by choice something that will be demanded of us all starting Dec. 21, 2012 - if he wins - and he really might.

If he does win, we might not see another election in America without first having a civil war to reset the nation. Just a hunch.

183 Honest Abe 2012 Mar 19, 8:26am

Bap - You're right on. In fact there is a book called "Surviving Civil War II. Preparing for Economic, Social, and Political Collapse".

It postulates only two possible outcomes: (1) the productive class, for generations to come, resigns themselves to involuntary servitude. Political and economic bondage. Slavery if you will. OR (2) There is a civil war and revolt of the productive class. In other words, an economic default on the requirement and obligation to support the non-productive class.

Whats surprising to me is how a small, bitter, jealous, envious, manipulative, pathologically dependent, highly vocal crowd can sway public opinion and get laws passed that are slowly but surely destroying America. Creeping tyranny.

God bless America, God save America. [Thank God I'm an athiest].

184

MisdemeanorRebel 2012 Mar 20, 1:28am

Latest Birther freakout: Ayers put Obama through school, claims route postman.

Funny how the Postman remembers shit from 40 years ago.

185

freak80 2012 Mar 20, 1:31am

World Nut Daily. Always a reliable source.

186 Honest Abe 2012 Mar 20, 3:01am

Thunder and wtfker, always throwing stones, criticising and casting dispersions - without ever stating potential solutions. Your problem is that you see big government as the solution to every problem in America.

But wait, if we can only get those evil people who provide jobs and pay their taxes according to the current tax laws to pay "their fair share" then all the problems in America would disappear.

You worship the sociopaths in power, collectively known as Government.

187

leo707 2012 Mar 20, 3:17am

Honest Abe says

You worship the sociopaths in power, collectively known as Government.

Ah... a point of view that is adorably naive.

You say that like you actually believe that the government has not been bought and payed for by the richest 0.1%.

188 bob2356 2012 Mar 20, 3:31am

he came to power with zero background, as if chosen by some devine power.

his followers allow him free run, giving blind obedience.

those who oppose him or his system are demonized with great effort.

he shows no reverence for the laws of man

his words and actions bring warmth to his followers, while his words and actions bring fear and anger to his opposers.

he operates above any oversight.

Are we talking about Bush or Obama here? Why do you see Obama as evil incarnate and not Bush, they are really pretty hard to tell apart as presidents, other than Obama not starting any wars yet.

189

Dan8267 2012 Mar 20, 3:41am

I do not hate Lord Barry. Lord Barry is simply the man

Seriously Bap, you need to stop listening to Glenn Beck. The guy is poisoning your mind. He's the Jim Cramer of politics.

the figure head of the movement/ideals/principality that is against traditional American culture, values and beliefs as found on Leave it to Beaver, Fozie, George Lopez, Karate Kid, Full House, Family Matters and Cosby Show.

America was founded in 1776, not the 1950s. Furthermore, America's foundation, although an improvement over the feudalism and monarchies, was hardly a perfect society. There were many injustices including slavery, object poverty, child labor, racism, sexism, and nationalism. American's history is a series of struggles to right those wrongs and others while battling those who would return to those injustices.

And those injustices all have one thing in common: one group of people having control over another group of people.

The 1950s were no utopia. It was the height of McCarthyism. The KKK ran uncheck. And the federal government was providing sanctuary to Nazi war criminals in order to get an edge over the Soviets in rocketry. Meanwhile, the threat of nuclear annihilation was a constant fear.

From the shows you listed, I an only surmise that the goal you with to accomplish is a sexless society. This simply isn't going to happen. And the Republicans and social conservatives aren't going to decrease the amount of premarital sex no matter what they do. Just rent any Girls Gone Wild video. Notice that all the girls have red state accents. That's not a coincident. You'll never see an MIT, UC Berkley, or Harvard coed showing her titties on GGW.

Christian fundamentalism took off as a way to keep girls and women from having sex. It has completely and utterly failed to do so. It turns out that the more educated a woman is, the likely she is to appear on GGW. So, instead of trying to replace evolution with bible studies, you should be doing the opposite if you want there to be less promiscuity.

Ultimately as long as birth control exists, there will be promiscuity. And no politician is going to get birth controlled banned no matter how much he/she wants to. The demand for birth control is simply too great that our society isn't going to let the government take it away no matter what.

However, it's really sad that people still obsess over promiscuity when there are so many other, far more important issues to deal with. Issues like genocide, war, energy independence, pollution, rising sea levels, the income gap, counter-progressive taxation, America's brain drain, fraudulent banking, an unstable financial sector built on fraud and speculation, deteriorating and obsolete infrastructure, etc.

So stop trying to use government to force people into chastity. It won't work. It has never worked. It will never work. And that's not what government is for. As long as you try to use government for this purpose, it cannot function effectively at dealing with the problems that it should address.

190

freak80 2012 Mar 20, 3:44am

bob2356 says

Are we talking about Bush or Obama here? Why do you see Obama as evil incarnate and not Bush, they are really pretty hard to tell apart as presidents, other than Obama not starting any wars yet.

That's just it. The difference between Bush and Obama is purely cultural. Their economics are pretty much the same.

We just love fighting the same old culture wars over Gays, Guns, n' God.

191

Dan8267 2012 Mar 20, 3:45am

bob2356 says

Are we talking about Bush or Obama here? Why do you see Obama as evil incarnate and not Bush, they are really pretty hard to tell apart as presidents, other than Obama not starting any wars yet.

Both Bush and Obama have done the same evil things: tortured, murdered unarmed civilians, falsely imprisoned people with no access to the courts, etc.

However, I have a conjecture on why Bap and other social conservatives hate Obama but not Bush. Since Obama is a Democrat, he represents sexual freedom, and to a social conservative two consenting adults having premarital sex is a greater evil than torture and murder.

This is a really fucked up value system, but it seems consistent with the political stances of social conservatives.

192

Dan8267 2012 Mar 20, 3:46am

wthrfrk80 says

We just love fighting the same old culture wars over Gays, Guns, n' God.

I have a solution to that. We need a gay, gun-toting god like the this guy.

193

TPB 2012 Mar 20, 3:57am

The USA Patriot Act could be used to suspend elections in an emergency, where emergency is defined at the sole discretion of the president. Pretty much, the president can do anything under the USA Patriot Act.
Of course, Republicans are mostly responsible for that act.

Finally blame where blame is due.
But how can we not blame a Current Liberal administration for NOT abolishing the Patriot Act and much of its ominous consequences?

What do you think History will have to say about Obama, if the next administration takes Patriot Act even a step further, to where we have Gustopos like the KGB rounding folks like you and I up, for even posting in this thread?

194

leo707 2012 Mar 20, 4:04am

What do you think History will have to say about Obama,

History probably would not view it well, but not as bad as first instituting the the Patriot Act in the first place.

if the next administration takes Patriot Act even a step further, to where we have Gustopos like the KGB rounding folks like you and I up, for even posting in this thread?

And, this would probably be viewed by History even worse than the writing of the Act in the first place.

The question here would be, who is more likely to take the Patriot Act further?

195

Dan8267 2012 Mar 20, 4:09am

But how can we not blame a Current Liberal administration for NOT abolishing the Patriot Act and much of its ominous consequences?

I do blame Obama for the Patriot Act. I just also blame Republicans because far more of them than Democrats voted for that act. And the vast majority of those who voted against the evil Patriot Act were Democrats and Independents.

As for Obama, I never supported him because he voted to extend the Patriot while he was a senator. I also didn't support Hilary because as senator she voted for the Patriot Act. But are you telling me that Santorum, Newt, or Romney are against the Patriot Act? Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is against that act and the Republicans have always broadsided him.

What do you think History will have to say about Obama, if the next administration takes Patriot Act even a step further, to where we have Gustopos like the KGB rounding folks like you and I up, for even posting in this thread?

That is the nightmare scenario that those of us against the Patriot Act, the NDAA, the TSA and all other forms of executive unchecked power and human rights abuse have.

In the short term, tyrants are always portrayed in a positive light. In the long run, Bush and Obama will go down as the axis of evil.

196

Dan8267 2012 Mar 20, 4:12am

leoj707 says

The question here would be, who is more likely to take the Patriot Act further?

And unfortunately I can't say that Obama won't, especially in a second term when he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

And unfortunately our press is composed of incompetent idiots who completely ignore these issues including the recent announcement that due process does not mean judicial process. Due process now means whatever the government wants to do.

197

leo707 2012 Mar 20, 4:17am

And unfortunately I can't say that Obama won't, especially in a second term when he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Yeah, that is why I did not phrase it as a rhetorical question.

That said, I think that given their history a Democrat President -- with the propensity to do nothing other than maintain the status quo -- is less likely to push the Patriot Act to the nightmare scenario.

198

leo707 2012 Mar 20, 4:19am