4 ms·

I can technically agree, but that's just because i'm 22. To me Obama showed much promise, but he's really been just as horrible as every other president that's

by neona 13y ago

I can technically agree, but that's just because i'm 22. To me Obama showed much promise, but he's really been just as horrible as every other president that's graced the White House, if not worse.

hga 13y ago
When you were 17-18, you were allowed the naivety of youth. Now, not so much. Those of us who noticed where he came from (the Chicago political machine), or his 2008 campaign's signature thuggishness (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578501411510635312.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732465940457850...) are not in the least surprised. If you're still using the same media sources that didn't report the above back then, perhaps you should broaden them. Of course, who knows when the government will start telling your friends that you're reading unapproved sources, right now that sort of thing is limited to donors of money but "If This Goes On—"
- websitescenes 13y ago
  Lol. Seriously? The wallstreet journal... Wallstreet is full of crooks, with highly politicized agendas.
  - hga 13y ago
    "Crooks"? Seriously, their political reporters like Kimberly Strassel are criminals, who should be in jail instead of engaging in subversive political speech? Well, thank you for demonstrating why this up to now cold civil war is not going to be resolved peacefully, when opposition is by definition illegitimate; YOU are part of the problem. And you don't have to take her word for it, all the incidents are trivially discoverable with your favorite search engine; I read them contemporaneously, and only cite her article now because she puts them in a neat package. I mean, it's really a bunch of falsifiable propositions. E.g. did or did not Bob Bauer, general counsel for the Obama 2008 campaign, try to criminalize simple opposition to the campaign, core 1st Amendment political speech, in these specific cited examples? Let me close with another Wall Street Journal writer's words, although she's a notorious Palin hater and is an only half-reformed Obamacon (Obama "conservative"), Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights."
    - websitescenes 13y ago
      Man you've been sucking the propaganda up. Yes, crooks. Who do you think politicians work for? It's not the constituents. It's the financial elite. Where do the financial elite work? Wallstreet. What do the financial elite read? Wallstreet journal.

by neona 13y ago

I can technically agree, but that's just because i'm 22. To me Obama showed much promise, but he's really been just as horrible as every other president that's graced the White House, if not worse.

hga 13y ago

When you were 17-18, you were allowed the naivety of youth. Now, not so much. Those of us who noticed where he came from (the Chicago political machine), or his 2008 campaign's signature thuggishness (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578501411510635312.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732465940457850...) are not in the least surprised. If you're still using the same media sources that didn't report the above back then, perhaps you should broaden them. Of course, who knows when the government will start telling your friends that you're reading unapproved sources, right now that sort of thing is limited to donors of money but "If This Goes On—"

websitescenes 13y ago
Lol. Seriously? The wallstreet journal... Wallstreet is full of crooks, with highly politicized agendas.
- hga 13y ago
  "Crooks"? Seriously, their political reporters like Kimberly Strassel are criminals, who should be in jail instead of engaging in subversive political speech? Well, thank you for demonstrating why this up to now cold civil war is not going to be resolved peacefully, when opposition is by definition illegitimate; YOU are part of the problem. And you don't have to take her word for it, all the incidents are trivially discoverable with your favorite search engine; I read them contemporaneously, and only cite her article now because she puts them in a neat package. I mean, it's really a bunch of falsifiable propositions. E.g. did or did not Bob Bauer, general counsel for the Obama 2008 campaign, try to criminalize simple opposition to the campaign, core 1st Amendment political speech, in these specific cited examples? Let me close with another Wall Street Journal writer's words, although she's a notorious Palin hater and is an only half-reformed Obamacon (Obama "conservative"), Peggy Nonan (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324412604578515673945731506.html?mod=rss_opinion_main http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732441260457851...): "What does it mean when half the country—literally half the country—understands that the revenue-gathering arm of its federal government is politically corrupt, sees them as targets, and will shoot at them if they try to raise their heads? That is the kind of thing that can kill a country, letting half its citizens believe that they no longer have full political rights."
  - websitescenes 13y ago
    Man you've been sucking the propaganda up. Yes, crooks. Who do you think politicians work for? It's not the constituents. It's the financial elite. Where do the financial elite work? Wallstreet. What do the financial elite read? Wallstreet journal.