prag·mat·ic
pragˈmatik/Submit
adjective
1.dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
"a pragmatic approach to politics"
synonyms: practical, matter-of-fact, sensible, down-to-earth, commonsensical, businesslike, having both/one's feet on the ground, hardheaded, no-nonsense; More

...while throwing the people who elected you under the bus.

There is nothing pragmatic about including the problem as part of the solution.

what is that second line even about?

Don't you remember the 'bargains' Obama made with the GOP? You know, extending the Bush tax cuts (and the recession) for a temporary unemployment extension that would have passed anyway. Giving Boehner 98% of the damaging RW policies he wanted...the things that put us in this mess. Handing the GOP austerity cuts that Obama admitted would damage the economy. Stuff like that.

And I saw no one claim that if Obama were reelected we'd have a liberal renaissance.

That would depend on having a liberal Congress as well.

...in his deals with the GOP. His "half Republican, half Democrat" third way nonsense if regressive. His including the problem as part of the solution is regressive. His failure to do anything about the banks robbing the middle class of 40% of its collective wealth is regressive.

He may be progressive in a few areas socially, but he is regressive in most others.

and its funding based on higher tax rates for the 2%, is clearly progressive. Not as progressive as universal single-payer, but far more progressive than the system it's replacing.

And it has a few good things in it. He keeps delaying the important parts though, so I will believe they will be implemented when they ARE implemented. I suspect he is delaying them to placate the GOP, whom will never, ever be placated ever. It is also huge corporate-insurer ass-kiss, IMHO.

that are already offering insurance.

This isn't the "important part."

Which include deductibles and co-payments until 2015. This is huge.

Mine deductible is over 3k a year. They tried to make it 6k a year but everyone at our workplace went into open revolt over it. We are pretty much screwed for an extra year because of this.

Other than that, we're getting much of the same political catnip cat-toy tactics that have worked for Republicans for decades.

Instead of incremental changes in abortion rights laws, we're getting incremental changes in gay rights laws, though a disclaimer is in order that this is much more Obama getting out in front of the public than any blazing torch of liberal conviction on his part.

And it's not that these changes don't matter, but they don't touch core policy areas on the economy, foreign relations, access to and exploitation of resources, and police/military/intelligence services power over citizens.

It's mostly the same old Clinton globalist free-trade consensus on economics and trade.

the BIGGEST increase in social safety net and that is regressive?

He accomplished what other Democrats have been trying to improve for 50 yrs...but thats regressive?

Hardly...

Removing Dont Ask Dont tell is regressive?

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com

Like I said. He is progressive in certain social areas, but regressive in most others.

the rest of that party.

This is 2013, not 1973. There actually used to be people called "liberal Republicans" but they don't exist anymore.

That isn't saying much.

Obama is pushing an extremely unpopular pile of bullshit here which would almost certainly result in disaster there is nothing pragmatic about it. Of course most people who call themselves pragmatists when it comes to politics are not actually pragmatic, they just call themselves that because corporate sellouts does not have such a nice ring to it.

war is declared on his chemical weapons....Assad should have been more pragmatic before he decided to use them....

How many chemical weapons deaths are your threshold set for? How many babies can Assad or Kim Jung Jr etc. gas before you stop them?

But the Administration is proposing bringing the US into the Civil War.

I oppose any use of chemical weapons whether it is Assad using them or US military officials. The US is known to use such weapons as white phospherus, Depleted Uranium, Agent Orange and Napalm, but I have yet to hear a single one of the hypocrites advocating this war on Syria push to hold any of the US officials who ordered the use of these weapons accountable.

So you ask me how many people have to die before I stop Assad, but you fail to ask what we should do to hold our own government accountable for its use of chemical weapons.

Let me ask you, what have you done to ensure that no Depleted Uranium is used in the attack on Syria? If we do go to war and Depleted Uranium is used will you condemn Obama for their use and abandon all support of him? What are you doing to ensure the people responsible for the White Phospherous attack on Fallujah are held accountable? What do you think needs to be done for any civilians killed by US bombs in the event of an attack? Will you be posting pictures of the children our bombs killed and mourning their deaths or will they be dismissed as collateral damage as the victims of all our other wars have been? Are you doing anything to promote holding our military accountable for civilian deaths or are you only advocating holding Assad accountable?

Tell me what you think needs to be done differently to protect civilians in this war as opposed to every other war this nation has fought in which civilian casualties have been ignored. If you can clearly explain how you think the Pentagon and the Administration should be held accountable for civilians then I might believe your claims that you are concerned about the welfare of the people of Syria, but if you are going to merely use the victims of this chemical attack as an excuse for war but show no concern for what happens to them during the bombing then I will consider you a hypocrite.

They can lie their asses off all they want about what the definition of war is, but if they claim dropping bombs on a country is not war then they are lying.

Looks like you have nothing to say about how civilians will be protected from our bombs so I think it is safe to assume you only pretend to care about the people of Syria if you can use them to promote war, you obviously are not too concerned about what happens to those same civilians when the bombs start dropping however.

If there were a DU prize for most hyperbolic word parsing post, you would win it hands down.

Don't rest on your laurels, though. You've got plenty of competition from your fellow pragmatists.

then you are definitely not paying attention...keep your eyes open you will see it..

But let's say we do fire off a round of missiles (that's war, as far as the targets are concerned). What happens then?

Nobody knows. But it MIGHT get real sticky in a hurry.

Bake

Obama needs to deal with the situation as it exists NOW. Not try to divine the future in tea party leaves or whatever.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

When the strike might just light the match that sets off a lot more. No, I can't see the future. That's why I oppose the proposed military action.

Bake

are laughable at best. There is nothing pragmatic about any of it. He seems hell bent on impressing the Republicans at all costs. It's sad to watch. I swear he suffers from Stockholm syndrome.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:01 AM - Edit history (1)

brutally murdered by an illegal chemical attack.

I'm waiting for some independent confirmation of the Administrations claims before I start sporting a war bone.

what then....do you then support surgical strikes against those weapons?

White Phosphorous in Iraq and then bomb ourselves as punishment.

Why do you keep bringing that up then? It's making a non-point. To you it doesn't matter if Assad gassed civilians...either a thousand or a hundred thousand...you don't give a shit.

So much for your humanitarian bullshit argument.

You don't care about anything except Obama and his plan to drop bombs that will kill more people. You don't really give a crap about those people. Just bomb them all and cause them more death & pain.


Have yourself some more Kool-Aid!

phosporous is has been used incorrectly by the bush administration....but he is not president and we are using phosphorus now...We HAVe signed an agreement against Chemical weapons..that 98% of the world has signed...Syria being one of only 5 that hasnt.

How many chemical weapons deaths do you allow before you want to remove them?

That'll show em who's boss!!!!!

You had absolutely no business taking anything Obama said on the
campaign trail seriously. This is politics.

You are naive beyond belief to have bought that "home & change"
song and dance.

blah, blah

and started beating that.

my post was sarcasm, don't you know?

He campaigns using manipulative linguistic devices pacing and leading his audience to fill in the huge content-free gaps in his rhetoric with their own assumptions. People come away from his speeches believing he said and meant things he didn't say or mean.

He's a master of public speaking.

You Bet'cha!

Most of those people got hounded off DU years ago, sadly.

You would have thought I killed and ate a baby on the 911 memorial.

nt

those promises he has made to every demographic. That is what has made for such a successful campaign and such a lousy presidency.

A Republican talking point.

Get your degree and flip burgers. It's a job and the job reports are glowing.

but the Conservatives have stymied govt growth or we would see many more and much better jobs...

"And I was assured Obama's 2nd term was going to be a "Liberal Renaissance"

...on domestic policy it's moving in that direction.

ACLU: How to Process Eric Holder’s Major Criminal Law Reform Speech
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023451453

Police Groups Furiously Protest Eric Holder's Marijuana Policy Announcement
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014581533

Pentagon To Announce Equal Benefits For Married Gay Couples
http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023461008

Foreign policy, except for international aid, is rarely described in terms of "liberal," such as going after bin Laden and issues of national security.

Electing Mr Obama was a good thing

But the point of voting is simply to get a more favorable political climate, so we don't have to plow frozen fields and sow seeds in the snow

Elections aren't magic, and they don't absolve us of our own responsibility to become the source ourselves of the changes we seek

What you said is so true that we must be involved in making the changes we seek.

However, it so disappointing when the people one voted for completely abandon the promises they made while campaigning. And it is even more painful when the politicians one supports are in office, they start calling some segments of their supporters names and being dismissive of them.

It was an unintended clerical mistake and you are making too big a deal out of it, and you have to admit, such a paradise was delivered, as soon as they find a way to finalize the Summers thing, It will be even better, a "Neoliberal Paradise"

that's what Anarchists want right?

Some of us democrats do not see this as you describe it...

that post was.

because maybe you should be since you suggested it...

This sounds really interesting.

I'm proud you can use a dictionary, but you haven't explained the relevance to your comment. How, exactly, do you come to your bizarre utterance that anyone here was expecting "anarchy"?

signed treaties to eliminate chemical weapons...(we are 78% of the way there...we will have eliminated ours by 2017 by the way) and Assad didn't sign...and now he has used them against civilians in their beds....

How much tolerance for chemical weapons should a "good Liberal President" in your estimation allow?

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:30 PM - Edit history (7)

First, my comments weren't just about Syria. They were about the entire corporate/neocon/neolib nightmare that this Presidency has become, of which the Bush-like "Lie-Us-to-War-in-Syria" campaign is just the latest horrifying component.*

But here's the answer to your absurdity about causing "anarchy&quot !) if we don't bomb Syria to defend the treaty:

Syria didn't sign the treaty to eliminate chemical weapons. Did you know that the US is shipping thousands of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, when 83 nations around the world *have* signed a treaty banning cluster bombs? By your logic, it would then be okay for those countries to start hurling missiles into Arlington or McLean, Virginia..

...to avoid "anarchy."

because I am against Anarchists?

Like cluster bombs. Banned in the rest of the world, but not the good old USA!!!!

U.S. Shipping Thousands of Cluster Bombs to Saudis, Despite Global Ban

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/22/us_shipping_thousands_of_cluster_bombs_to_saudi_arabia_despite_international_ban


U.S. Fails to Join Allies in Signing UN Weapons Treaty

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-03/u-s-fails-to-join-allies-in-signing-un-weapons-treaty.html



I love watching people pretend to give a shit, keep it up.

You keep trying to pretend you give a shit about the Syrians...I see through it.

Currently 189 states are party to the CWC.[1] Of the seven UN Member States that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria).

And we haven't agreed to ban them. You know nothing about what you speak and consistently make a fool out of yourself by either lying outright or spreading ignorance.

Did I hear Obama say he was going to clusterbomb the place?

The international community is not happy with the United States and Saudi Arabia amid news that they have inked a deal for hundreds of millions of dollars of controversial and potentially unethical cluster bombs.
The $641 million deal would send 1,300 cluster bombs to America's closest ally on the Arabian Peninsula, through U.S. defense contractor Textron, according to a Pentagon release on the contract.

Because you're throwing around terms that you obviously have no comprehension of.

There were no other options worth considering.

ne·o·lib·er·al·ism (n-lbr--lzm, -lbr-)
n.
A political movement beginning in the 1960s that blends traditional liberal concerns for social justice with an emphasis on economic growth.

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

Noun 1. neoliberal - a liberal who subscribes to neoliberalism
liberal, liberalist, progressive - a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

Adj. 1. neoliberal - having or showing belief in the need for economic growth in addition to traditional liberalistic values
liberal - tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

You are allowed your own opinions just not your own facts...

Traditional liberalism is free market at any cost near libertarianism. The word "liberal" in the United States is used differently than elsewhere. Neo-liberalism turns over power to multinationals and disregards fare trade (nafta, etc). Neo-liberalism is now the economic policy of the Republican party and a good chunk of the Democrats.

Today's libertarians are classical liberals in that believe in a small as government as possible which exists primarily to protect property rights. Traditional liberals also want to protect property rights but improve the welfare of all the people through government action if necessary. Libertarians believe we are on our own.

traditional liberalism
Web definitions
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It was committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_liberalism

ne·o·lib·er·al
ˌnēōˈlibərəl/
adjective
1.
relating to a modified form of liberalism tending to favor free-market capitalism.
noun.
1.
a person holding neoliberal views

In the United States we used "liberal" as an alternative term for center-left. In the classical sense "liberal" is used to describe open markets with little or no central planning (libertarians are classic liberals).

Neo-liberals are suppose to be the middle between complete open markets and the left wing. Instead it ends up resulting in crony capitalism and the wrong end of the stick for workers via free trade.

Funny to say someone is wrong and then go on to describe their point exactly as your counter, neocons and neolibs are two sets of rhetoric and rationales that result to the same outcomes.

They are not a middle ground, they are the same actual con and it isn't all about markets. The thing is everyone can't be sold the same way, different buttons must be pushed. Commercials aren't the same in every market but they want to sell the same shit. That is the fundamental difference between Neoconartistry and Neolielisism, nip around the edges, rationalize, and finger point all you want but the same crap is what comes out of the wash.

IT IS A SCAM AND A LIE. FALLING FOR IT IS STUPID. NOT IGNORANT. NOT EVEN WILLFUL IGNORANCE BUT STUPIDITY AND PROBABLY WILLFUL AND ARROGANT STUPIDITY.

The track record is too clear and obvious for ignorance, one is either in on the con or a mark. Those are the choices huckster or fool.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:10 PM - Edit history (2)

Actually, what we have is corporatism. Both groups push the same corporate/war/police state agenda, with some differences on the social issues to keep the masses busy and preoccupied and hating each other and convinced that they still have a choice.

Right after he finds the perfect pair of comfortable shoes.

Don't remember who it was but I guess they were right.

Remember when he was overheard telling the Russian president that he'd have more "flexibility" in his second term? And the first things we got were attempts to cut Social Security and an attempt at starting a new war in the middle east.

Not like he needs our votes again.

I still can't believe I gave him money.

A "Liberal Renaissance" would take a progressive president, 60 progressive senators, 218 progressive representatives, and a progressive Supreme Court. And that's just at the federal level.

With this single push for war, he has marred forever, his image.

The fact that he cares about innocent people being gassed and burnt alive, and doesn't say " let Allah sort it out" , shows what an amazing human beign he is.

Until we can get our majority in congress we need to lay low on a more progressive agenda. After that it will be our playground to do what we want with.

But the MIC has to pull the choke chain every so often

second term?

Yeah.

the people who supported him because he doesn't have to worry about getting their votes ever again.

He ran as a moderate

We've made tremendous progress since 2009.

Of course, there are people who deny that. Many of them are the same people who like to claim that the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic criminal Richard Nixon was a "liberal".