It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

My Friend, the Liberal

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
As I compose this post, my wife is on her cell phone with my friend having an intensely political discussion about the state of the union. My friend is a die-hard liberal and my wife is a former liberal who has recently been reborn as a Libertarian!

It's amazing to me. When Bush was President, I remember liberals attacking Bush at every turn, attacking his associations, everything they could. Republicans would just brush it off and make excuses in defense of their conservative politicians.

Now i'm listening and my wife questions my liberal friend about Obama's policies, and why he is acting in certain way or doing things certain ways, why the bail out is a bad plan, etc. etc. etc.

If this were a year ago, I could mistake my very liberal friend for a conservative defender of Bush, brushing off these tax scandals and making excuses in defense of all Democrats.

I don't see liberals needing to defend Obama all that much, but the other leaders in the party have really driven the popularity down. If the Democrats wants to keep power I think they need to replace Pelosi and Harry Reid.

It's neat how the tides turn. Last year my friend turned over every stone to find dirt on his President, and today he is content to leave every stone unturned. Why doesn't he see himself for what he really is?

My friend, and every liberal who hated Bush on every turn, without exception is no better than every conservative who hates Obama at every turn, without exception. And there are so many of you out there. Tit for tat, side for side.

I hope some day these partisan politics will end in government, but more importantly I hope they end on the streets of America because they're dividing communities and driving wedges between friends.

Sorry for the diatribe. My friend is now talking about welfare and how he is entitled to receive more unemployment because it's not his fault the job market is in such bad shape. Between you and me, he hasn't even looked for a job!




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by The Cyfre
 


You know, I would agree with you except for one thing, Obama has only been president for 2 WEEKS. Good god man, give him a chance. And by the way after 9/11, I, a die hard liberal, did give Bush a chance and all he did was make one bad decision after another and destroy this country's image with every stroke of his pen.

Bush will be remembered as an absolute disgrace of a president and comparing the liberal response to his presidency over the last eight embarrassing years to the conservative response to Obama's first two weeks in office is a joke.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by BluegrassRevolutionary]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by The Cyfre
 


I being a staunch Conservative can see how people can fiercely back their party, but I can't figure out why the vast majority of people aren't objective and view their leaders under the same magnifying glass.

Bush was not my favorite President. He did many things that many conservatives wouldn't generally agree with, but since Bush did it, it must be right. That's a stupid view. Just as the view that Obama is this massive change we were all hoping for. What change? The new bailout? The fact that his appointees can't seem to follow the law? For some reason, that sounds familiar.

Our leaders have no backbone. They can't stand up for what they believe in. Bush and his crappy bailout, Obama and his change. The democrats are supposed to stand for the people, but when the EU got fussy over Obama's "Buy American" clause, Obama backed down. This country will never be decent until political correctness is thrown out the window, beat with a baseball bat within an inch of it's life, forced to suffer excruciating pain, then crushed.

The people and the leaders of this nation are embarrassing.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Partisanship and dualities. As long as we choose to frame issues in terms of "democrat" or "republican" no real change will ever come. I refuse to label myself in this way. Why are people so willing to conform to "their" party's political message? Maybe we have come to rely too much on politicians. We hide in this reliance by casting doubt on the integrity of our leaders, but in reality we are forfeiting responsibility for our own problems. Just my two cents..



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Vipassana
 


"Partisanship" and political orientation are not entirely synonymous. For instance, you can be a left Republican or a right Democrat. Party names are just labels. Ron Paul was arguably the only conservative running for president in a party that boasted it has moved on and that he "represented" the old of the party.

And thus, it goes on and on. The OP does make a good point though, and whether or not it's early on in his campaign, we don't need to use Obama as the latest example. We can go back to Clinton, Bush I, Carter, Reagan, etc. etc., except it serves us more conveniently to have more recent studies.

But whether or not he has been in office two weeks, that does not remove the fact that he shouldn't be watched closely by everyone, including his liberal followers.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
I take it by Libertarian you mean the correct sense of Anarchist.

Liberal is not a term which can even be used - neo-liberal maybe, rationalist -maybe.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by The Cyfre
 


I see what you see and I have a theory that explains it in part, but I'm not sure I can articulate it here. So I will use myself as an example. I don't belong to a political party and I have views from one end of the spectrum to the other. Some of my views are very liberal, some very conservative, and some are Libertarian.

Like BluegrassRevolutionary (great post, by the way), even though I didn't vote for Bush, I gave him a real chance his first year or so. I supported him and argued with my Democrat family members and friends, who bashed him at every turn. But then he proved to be unworthy of my support. He totally screwed up so many things. And then, yes, after a year and a half of his presidency, I became very openly critical of him.

Most people know that I now support Obama.
And it seems that because of that, they have a perception that I am not critical of him. They assume a blind loyalty, even though I disagree with him and criticize his decisions here. I am not leaving stones unturned. And it's very interesting how people PERCEIVE someone who supports Obama as a flaming liberal who doesn't question the president's motives and actions. It doesn't map to reality in my case and with most people I know.

I would love to see the partisan politics end and actually be able to have intelligent discussions about the politicians and policies, but for some, that "game" of politics and parties is where all the juice is. It's like their sports team. People aren't willing to give that up. And when they hear that I support Obama, they go into automatic "that's the enemy" mode and assume a whole set of (inaccurate) thoughts and opinions I surely must have because I have said those 3 words. I support Obama.

If these same people could hear the discussions I have with my husband about Obama and his policies, they MIGHT get it. But they're so wrapped up in the "game" that they either discount the criticisms I make here or they don't believe me. I don't really get it.

I think some people thrive on the partisan stuff. So, no matter how much we hope it's going to go away, as long as people get the charge out of the "game", I'm afraid it's here to stay.

And like you said, Pelosi and Reid need to be ousted.



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
face it, Obama is really a huge dissapointment so far and he is looking a bit overmatched and simply put out of his league.

Hillary probably would have been the better true "leader".



posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
You know, I would agree with you except for one thing, Obama has only been president for 2 WEEKS. Good god man, give him a chance.


Hey now, I voted for Obama and i've been supporting him ever since it became very clear that Ron Paul wasn't going to get the nomination on the Republican side. I understand that he has only been President for 2 weeks which is why i'm not going to criticize the policies he has yet to enact. For the most part, those are policies I happen to support, at least for the next four years. BUT what I don't have to give him a pass/chance on is the fact that they've been planning their cabinet positions and other positions and such now for months, MONTHS! And to expect that people aren't going to get on him for some of these picks (tax scandals galore) is kind of unrealistic in my opinion. It won't define his Presidency, but we shouldn't just ignore it. These picks are Obama's judgement and we should take that seriously, shouldn't we?


Originally posted by BluegrassRevolutionary
Bush will be remembered as an absolute disgrace of a president and comparing the liberal response to his presidency over the last eight embarrassing years to the conservative response to Obama's first two weeks in office is a joke.


It's not a joke at all. The simple fact of the matter is that the same people who tore Bush down, legitimately or otherwise, are defending Obama without being the least bit critical and I think we should always be critical of our leaders. Nobody is saying that Obama's picks who skirted their taxes is comparable to rushing us into an unjust war in Iraq, but just because they're not to be compared doesn't mean Obama's decisions with regard to who he wants to put forth are inarguable, does it?


Originally posted by audas
I take it by Libertarian you mean the correct sense of Anarchist.


Libertarians believe in minimum federal government, Anarchists believe in a total lack of government or general order. Libertarians believe in a stronger state government, with communities held together by neighborhood groups, churches, etc. Anarchists believe in a total lack of government or, again, general order.


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Most people know that I now support Obama. And it seems that because of that, they have a perception that I am not critical of him. They assume a blind loyalty, even though I disagree with him and criticize his decisions here.


I have this exact problem where I work. Because I came out and defended Obama during the election, I have been pegged as the uber-liberal in a sea of conservatives which is completely ridiculous since I am ideally for small federal government. BUT they don't want to listen, I think they feel better thinking that i'm over here just blindly supporting Obama like they've done with Bush all these years. I guess if it helps them sleep at night...


Originally posted by ConservativeJack
face it, Obama is really a huge dissapointment so far and he is looking a bit overmatched and simply put out of his league.

Hillary probably would have been the better true "leader".


This is where i'll come in with the obligatory "he has only been in office two weeks," which isn't long enough to be a "really huge disappointment." What has he done that warrants a huge disappointment? He hasn't had time to do much of anything, certainly not enough for that kind of a label. Let's wait to see which of his policies work and which don't before we start making decisions on his performance. Before we see if those policies work, however, we have to wait for them to even get passed! You're really jumping the gun, Jack.

As a sidenote, i'd say that Obama is up against a set of challenges unlike any i've seen a President face. I wish him the best of luck. I think his bail out plan is a mistake, and I find it interesting that his "green initiative" was initially going to create 2 Million jobs, but now it is either going to "create or save 2 Million jobs." I don't know how they're going to measure jobs that his policies save, but I think that's a lot more fuzzy than job creation.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by The Cyfre]

[edit on 2/4/2009 by The Cyfre]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join