I will not be muzzled.....

yes, that pot stuff is stupid. California allows it for medical reasons and the feds just go on in and cause trouble. Why? Bullies.

He should find a way to fix that. California has enough problems that it doesn't need citizens that are pissed because of feds telling them they are illegal when the state said it was alright.

Oh burn! i *did* outlast you jammer!

Thanks for putting all that info together for us.

You could make your own thread for your hate.

Or just facts, as I have offered above. Inconvenient for some, I'm sure.

pointless.

I think it is funny that you couldn't critique without being rude....and you also did not offer any examples of how Obama should be critiqued. You state that there is a right way then show what the right way is. Don't state there is a right way and then not state how to do it.

That's like Republicans complaining about how they are reforming health care but not offering how they would alter it.

Again....no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Personalities are not better on either side....nor is the way one acts.
All talk and no show apparently is the liberal way.

heh. pathetic. you claim that kitteneater was rude. where in the post 'was' kitteneater rude?

Is that the best you've got? i really think it is. of course, i won't hold my breath waiting for a coherent answer.

is that the best you've got, superboy?

Hmm...You perceive my observations as a personal slight to you. Tad defensive, aren't we?

You asked "What is ok to critique Obama over?" I answered with this: "It's not so much the content of the 'critique' as much as it is the time and way it is presented. "

You did not, however, ask what the correct way of doing that was. If you'd like, I'd be happy to explain my points in more blatant terms. :)

PS: I'm neither Dem nor Rep. You shouldn't judge people over little comments they make on Current.com, dear. It's a little...misguided.

You are one of the reasons why this is necessary. omg death panels are wrong those idiots did not even read the section right......it says NOTHING about death panels.
The same could be said for many people that have replied to this thread. but of course only the liberals are allowed to criticize and be right.....making, again, this very valid...and those that answer it far better posters and contributors to the political process.

Those that have had trouble are hindrances and road blocks to a better political system.

You know you'd want to make a similar thread asking Republicans to state the positive things they see in Obama without them attacking him.

But you can't now. People like you ruined that. They now have good reason to attack.

See this could have worked both ways. But people are far too into thinking they can see where I am going and then failing on that so hard they make their face uglier for how hard they eat pavement.

the funny thing is, i have yet to hear anyone on this thread pull the race card. no one has claimed that the rethugs are bigoted, just that they're up to the same old cantankerous obstructionism.

waitaminiute...

"He's neither her nor there. His comment was without any doubt a bad idea. However, it raises a good question that no one seems to be able to answer: What is ok to criticize Obama over?"

oops. looks like I've just hoisted you on your own petard. turns out you don't deny that Wilson's criticism WAS indeed a bad idea. your words, not mine. so any constructive critique of Obama is by your own words, "not enough" but Wilson's comment was "neither here nor there?"

well said

What you have said is akin to announcing I am going to ignore you....for when you say that you've already failed.

yeah the funniest thing is, he's an unpaid movie critic.

amen.

Very true Delia. Good response.

Well said.

I'll have to add you to the list of people who burst J_J's bubble.

True that..

yes delia well said as usual.

Delia,

People have said that, but those that have have been the most abrasive proving that that answer is a farce and a croc.

EDIT:

Oh please. MSNBC doesn't do anything but shove their nose so far up his butt they they could smell what his next burp will be.

You state people do that doesn't mean that they do it.

Especially when asked for them to mention some and they find it hard to do it just because they have a problem with being told what to do.

If what you state is true, and for many that agreed with you on your post (shocker) have not made any mention of anything that they find bad about Obama, then my post shouldn't have been so hard to answer with clear and concise answers.

But of course you would see what you see. As long as you see it...then it must be true.

here we go with the telepathy again. it took me about 5 seconds to come up with my criticism of Obama. you yet again (what is this, the 4th or fifth time you have claimed to be some sort of telepath?) cite that we do not agree with your line of thinking as though that is some sort of error in judgement.

you are not in control of the debate, JJ.

One can see that it is an easy task for you to criticize but one can also see you cannot and have not criticized Obama....and therefore you have been marked. People will now watch to see if you will ever do it.
on a more serious note the only reason you criticize me is because I am Japanese. Racist.

why are we required to find fault in a president that we believe in? because you said we should? go back to being an unpaid, unpublished movie critic. how sad. are you saying that GW was better? or maybe McCain or (shudders) Ron Paul would have made a better choice? face it, Obama was the best choice, and now He's in office. quit your bitching, to use a line that the repugs used during bush 2's regime.

@J_J

I know it frustrates you when people don't play along with your little games. Sorry about that. I also know my post probably cut pretty close to the bone. Sorry about that too. But you're not the first person with a personality disorder to post on this site and I'm sure you won't be the last. I hope you get the help you need.

As for your "mark", well I guess that will just have to be something I'll have to live with.

If you stuck with just giving an answer instead of wanting to slight people.....your answer might have made more sense.

Guess you're too Republican to do better.

what a moron. i'm about as republican as Ted Kennedy.

It's ok for Obama supporters to use the race card but not Glenn Beck? Who is called racist is of no consequence if it's ok for one side to do it more than the other.

If how really does matter, as you state it does, then that's a terrible way for people to defend Obama by using the race card---do you agree or disagree with that?

What I mean is that people need to use facts to support their arguments, not say a bunch of crap and hide behind Obama's race (and that goes for both sides). It's never ok to use the race card. For Obama supporters or anyone else. My point is that people who have criticisms need to realize that, unfortunately in our subconsciously race-obsessed culture, there will always be people who are ready and willing to use it. However, in order to have productive conversations about what our president (and our gov't at large) is doing, we need to ignore those empty comments/thought/ideas (one's that are ONLY meant to be inflammatory) and try to get at the heart of the matter. People will never stop using the race card, because it's convenient and can be used to shut people down and put them on the defensive. Somehow we have to filter through the smoke and mirrors and make our way to the important parts of a debate so that we can civilly talk about what really concerns us.

On that note, I only used Glenn Beck as an example, but it certainly happens on both sides, and I am not discrediting that. There are those who make certain comments just to be inflammatory, and I think that Glenn Beck calling Obama racist is one of those examples. I sincerely doubt Obama is racist (just look at the man's upbringing, but I digress). However, in light of the circumstances that Beck was talking about at the time (the whole Harvard debacle), I also feel that Obama jumped to conclusions given the nature of the situation (black man, white cop). I believe that was the essence of Beck's argument. Naturally there are countless other examples, but I certainly not saying that one side is more correct than the other or that one side has a 'right' to pull out the race card when it is convenient. But since people will try to do that anyway, we have to ignore the bullshit and move on to what matters.

Whew -- didn't expect to write such a long response, but I hope you understand now what I was trying to say (sorry that I wasn't clear before...) :)

Obama, himself, doesn't abide by that....as one could see through his speech. Snide remarks about how he's right and anyone else that disagrees with him is wrong isn't necessarily civil. It's subversive.

Another thing it's amusing that liberal minded people can laugh at parodies about other ways of thinking and stating that it's ribbing and you're not being rude or crass....but according this thread (and post like yours) it looks like you can't take what you give constantly on this site. Those that actually tried to answer the question are the ones that have the ability to take what they give.

So instead of just answering it you're defending Obama and attacking, yet again, someone who doesn't think like you. Can't take a break and actually point out what Obama has done wrong? Can't show that you don't think he's perfect?

Why does it matter so much to hold up such an illusion? Is he fragile?

Except that nobody is saying he's perfect. Your premise is simply false. So everything that comes after is a house built on sand. It's a simple as that.

And where in Obama's speech does he imply that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong? Show me the snide remarks. No, he's far from perfect, but lying about what the President said in his speech only proves your bias. Which is ironic since you're trying to prove ours.

Hahaha...

you can't comment because you do make him to be perfect.

Your post are pointless because you always have zero backing other than the zombies.

Back up that he's not perfect.

Oh wait....you won't.

As for Obama where did i ever state he said that?

Oh wait again....I did not.

Two posts up:

"Obama, himself, doesn't abide by that....as one could see through his speech. Snide remarks about how he's right and anyone else that disagrees with him is wrong isn't necessarily civil. It's subversive."

Your words.

Why should I back up that he's NOT perfect? This is your faulty premise...not mine. And as I've stated every time you're tried this transparent little trap, criticize him on whatever you think is appropriate. Just do it with facts (something that seem difficult for you) and be prepared to back it up. If my pre-approval of your critique is so important to you and you're so uncertain of your argument, you can always send me a private message first and I'll take a look at it and let you know if I think you should post it or not. Hope that helps.

His campaign finances shows that he has massive support in his district. The opponent got more money but it most likely came from out of district.

But that is not what this thread is about. I am not supporting what he did or how he did it. I'm stating that what he has done could have been because liberal shank anyone that opposes Obama and now that one has asked how to do it they toss their hands up like frustrated parents (some actually put forth some great effort and those have been told so) and tell the child they know how to handle themselves...without any guidelines. Leaving it open so that they could beat the child or, in this case, conservative again....since they find great pleasure in causing confusion and abuse.

Nonsense.

Clean your nose. You're dripping after that last snort.

More nonsense.

agreed.

There was one inaccurate statement in his speech. That costs from cutting down ER room visits might reduce costs. There are conflicting reports, and at the moment the real problem is that its as Rumsfield would say, "a known unknown." that we know we don't know how potent the affect would be in terms of cost containment, its possible it would have a net negative affect and have slightly higher costs. What we do know however is that its proven to save lives. I can handle that bargain, the chance for decreased costs, and the certainty of more Americans alive and well all in all thats not too bad. Politifact was harsher than fact check and other sources on the statement and simply said that its false because its indicated to save lives and not money.

On the topic of illegal immigrants not being covered in the current plan. That was true, they are not. There are no death panels. The plan does cost less than the Iraq War does cost less than the Bush tax Cuts does maintain the possibility of being deficit neutral in the short term and over the long term extending the length of medicare/medicaid as long as it can meet its conservative goal of cutting costs by one tenth of one percent a year in perpetuity and that it could also extend the life of the social security trust fund as a result by cutting the deficit. Thats a whole mess of truth.

Take from it what you will. If you think that ending for all time the phrase pre existing conditions, emphasizing preventive care and overall wellness, and in the meantime providing bankruptcy assistance to those affected by healthcare right now health related costs account for more than 40 percent of all bankruptcies in the U.S and it was John McCains idea from the campaign, and finally making progress on tort reform as well with triggers that have existed since 1999 but that Clinton and Bush refused to use. As a grand bargain, thats getting alot to pass on to our children. We can give them a healthier nation with this bill and all it costs right now is to sunset the Bush tax cuts for those making more than 200,000 a year and two other proposals are taxing cadillac healthcare plans (the president doesn't prefer this method) or a reduction of itemized charitable donations to the level they were under Reagan. If you think thats worth 10-18 thousand American lives per year and the chance to prevent another doubling of healthcare cots by 2019. Thats whats being offered and thats why it needs to be debated rationaly. If you have better ideas for how to fund it pass them along. I'm not being sarcastic, everyone wants a healthier America. I think most people want to never hear the word pre existing condition. Ideas are welcome but they just have to be better than what is on the table today now and its unreasonable to talk about kicking the debate down the road or asking to start over because of the human costs associated with waiting.

You think you're so much smarter that one couldn't realize what you were talking about by the mere mention of Superman (even though it's Superboy)?

I rest my case.

superman/superboy whatever. maybe if you stop trying to play yourself off as some kind of judge of what people's "surface thoughts " or such are i wouldn't call you a hypocrite. you go around telling people their claims are not valid, on the basis of some form of logic that you refuse to divulge, and that they cannot even talk about certain issues, and when someone such as delia or i point out the gaping holes in your logic you just resort to saying that somehow we assume that we are smarter than you.

shame on us for thinking outside YOUR box, right? i can do this all day and all night long if i need to. rest your case all you want, unpaid movie critic. i can do this all day long.

I've explained myself quite well.

You're telling me to be good while you're being bad. It's no better.

But you won't outlast me. You're already trying.

Stop reminding yourself of him.

I have a universal rule and that is to never, ever assume someone isn't smarter. It doesn't matter if the person works behind the counter of a McDonald's, homeless, a secretary, school teacher or lives in Africa in squalor.....NEVER, ever think you're smarter. That is the biggest mistake one can ever make.

However, your surface thinking isn't really doing you much good or making you look like you're on that higher echelon, where poster wit resides, that you wish to be at with such a comment.

But explaining that you are wrong about what the point of this thread is and you actually getting it might be as difficult as convincing those birthers that they are wrong.

BWAHAHAHAAA!!! what? because you said so? and what, my surface thougts? in the same post you say never claim that you're smarter, and then wax telepathic. hehehe... hey everyone look at me, i'm J-Jammer! lol go read more comic books professor x. so just because someone is black, a woman,poor or homeless doesn't mean they're stupid? gee whiz mr jammer, that never occurred to me! (sarcasm) you never replied to my query above Jammer. how exactly was my critique of Obama lacking? i'm not entitled to think of the kid playing at being an evil genius? but Joe Wilson or whoever is entitled to his opinion?

anyone else see the huge vein of hypocrisy in this thread?

pretentious pseudo-intellectualism also fails to make one impressive.

It's only a reflection of Obama supporter hypocrisy as a whole.

If I have to be hypocritical to point it out....then I am. Whatever helps. At least I want to help. You want to defend, in a blind fashion, someone you've never met.

If you cannot point out what someone has done wrong you are neither a true supporter or a friend, for that matter.

Sarcasm needs work, though. You're not doing so well with it. Take a class. Obama might even pay for you to do so.....oh wait...education no so important to him as a car company.

hehe here we go again, you say that one should not assume, then assume yet again, in this case in my being sarcastic about your little diatribe on how one should not think one is smarter even if here let me quote...

"I have a universal rule and that is to never, ever assume someone isn't smarter. It doesn't matter if the person works behind the counter of a McDonald's, homeless, a secretary, school teacher or lives in Africa in squalor.....NEVER, ever think you're smarter. That is the biggest mistake one can ever make."

so even if you're poor, homeless, a secretary (usually a woman, making 70 cents on the dollar as compared to her male co-workers) a school teacher (sounds like personal issues to me, but they don't make what they deserve either) or lives in a third world country and is/may be a minority (again with the poor thing)

reason i broke it down like i did is because you left yourself open to sounding like a snobbish, chauvinistic bigot with your choices of who may or may not be smart, jammer.

i would have said, even if you're highly educated, rich, or some kind of genius, never assume that the other guy does not know what he is talking about. that's why i blatantly pointed out that i was being sarcastic.

i 'did' point out what i think Obama has done wrong.
apparently you're just refusing to hear it, like i mentioned before.

seems you've fallen prey to your own rule. and if you are going to make cracks about education, you should probably not forget to use words like "is".

You did not state anything about Obama that would be close to what I asked for.

And if you did you're gong to have to dig it out of the BS you already said to share it.

As for what I said you're spinning it well just like certain republicans you don't like. Looks like you're no different than they are after all.

you have still failed to answer my question. you asked for a criticism of Obama. i have the one issue , and it's still yet to be seen how agressively that the torturers are going to be prosecuted. with every reply to your thread, your logic changes. if there is one thing you do have in common with a super villain it's that you seem to be an egomaniac.it seems in your writing, no one but you is enlightened, that only you hold the truth. At least that's what i perceive your narrative to be saying. I may be right about Obama, i may be wrong. but who are 'you' to be the judge of how Obama is to be criticized?

You're incorrect on a multitude of levels...but let me just boldly point out one: If you want to get nitpciky and overly technical what you're doing is dictating what answers I want to hear based on your presumptuous ideas of who and what I am.

It is interesting that you point out how there are answers to what I asked and yet you gave not as single one.

This was not created for a single question as much as it was created to show that the perfect left is just as damaged as the right.....you/they just refuse to see it.

And just like on the right there are people on the left that can honestly see who they've chosen (or have to deal with via their public outcry) without having to constantly defend them at every corner.

I do forgive many because they are too 2-dimensional to realize that there's more to many things that surpass their superficial thinking.

I know that might be a lot for you to think on so I don't expect your reply to be much more than insults that have been pulled from other people's thinking and your cobwebed wit.

But there is enough forgiveness to go around....even a smidgen for you.

Wow JJ, you did that very well. I must admit I am sincerely impressed. You showed a prowess heretofore unseen and some serious word skills. Well done sir, on a semantic level. Your attempt to pigeon hole and coral my response was a bit weak. Sort of a poor mans preemptive strike I take it.

I didn't assume anything about what you or what you wanted to hear. A simple dissection of your statement showed all there was to see. You said, and I quote - "I have asked this question over and over and over again and no one who has voted for or supports Obama can give me an answer." I literally cut and pasted that statement from your post. The simple fact that you believe that to be true when anyone, including yourself can easily go back and disprove it says you are not trying to hear anything but a very narrow myopic viewpoint.

You and I have personally jousted more than a few times so I know for a fact there are direct answers to your questions. Whether you agree with the responses you get you cannot deny there existence, Proving my initial assertion, your opening statement was false.

YEAH! WHAT HE SAID!

well put man.

I second that!
Bitchslaped again Jammer! balls in you court.

great answer.

I think J_J might need some health insurance after that answer. It was an absolute beat down. Well done ocanada.

Really? A stupid Clinton line "Gotta clean up after..." and he was one of the reasons Banks started to fail. Using that line makes you petty.

And your answer was crappy.

Why was it crappy? Nowhere did you state I have a problem with Obama doing this...or that....no you had to make it a group thing. THEN (because apparently you don't do enough blame in other post in other threads about Republicans) you point fingers at Republicans. Making JUSTIFICATIONS for Obama's mistakes via them. Subtly stating that Obama is perfect.

You have complained about Republicans whining and not doing anything. Well you just whined in that entire post not one thing came from you stating why you think Obama isn't doing as much as he could in something.

The fact that you had to blame a political group as a whole for the problems America faces makes you almost a joke. IT's NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER in all political history....one side's fault. It's like stating a divorce is all one person's fault. So not true.

There is NO difference between Democrats and Republicans. That's what this thread proves more than anything.

J_J, when you get your clock cleaned like this, best to lick your wounds and live to fight another day. Your latest post, with it's wild distortions and outright lies (ocanada's first three paragraphs are all about how Obama is less than perfect), only proves how badly you were whipped.

Clearly you'd be better off not tangling with ocanada again. He's way out of your league.

Out of curiosity, does the fact that there is so much support for ocanada's posts and none for yours make any dent in your narcissism? Or you you just rationalize it? Just wondering...

J, I blame cold feet democrats for the weak stimulus and health care debates because your party is out of power. Deeply out of power because and again this is critical. Everyone hated you failures under Bush and until republicans take responsibility your never getting my generation back. Thats just an electoral fact, we are slipping out of your reach and that means no matter how many seats you pick up next year or even if you manage to win in 2012 you are ceding yourselves electoral success in the future for the gains of ginning up the base today. Just like you bet against our futures so selfishly for the last eight years.

There is a reason I have said that I like their answer but don't agree.

You've gave a partially good answer.

ok so what's wrong with my criticism? enlighten me, please.

As anyone can see by all your post in this thread.....you find it far easier to criticize anyone but Obama.

That you would rather not answer the thread because you're afraid of giving ammo. Anything anyone states isn't like they came up with something unique. They just had the guts to admit that they find him at fault for something.

I asked because I wanted to see who would actually put forth the effort to answer this hard question...something that only sensible people would be able to answer. Those that would rather defend him than state what they see wrong with what he has done are blindly following him and won't admit it. It's good to know who those people are so that on the reasonable and factual lists...they can be removed.

I'm going to keep those that answered in mind and those that didn't are the ones that get mad when someone doesn't offer facts. Well.....seems to me they can't give what they ask for themselves.

Well, what can I say, you cannot really change people's minds to so easily, if people are so against one another, then let it be....

Whether they are to claim right or wrong, its not my kind of a gentlemen's fight....to the death.......

The reason I listed those is because they are clearly a cop out. Meaning no matter who won the presidency they wouldn't have done anything with any of those things.....period.

Lyndon Johnson was President at the right time to deal with the Civil Rights and Martin Luther king JR. Was around at the right time to push peacefully. Had any President pushed before him it wouldn't have worked.

So it was clear when Obama pandered to those three that he wasn't going to do jack. Picking those to complain about is far too generic and really isn't complaining about Obama as much as it is about thre President's office in general.

I don't think Obama did pander. I remember him clearly stating that he did not think a federal amendment to legalize gay marriage was necessary and that his involvement in marijuana legality would be to discontinue the DEA's practice of overriding state's rights by raiding medical marijuana facilities. He never promised anything more.

I just don't think it is a cop out; those two issues, in my opinion, are some of the most important in America right now.

If they were important then people would be speaking about them....they don't.

The most important is the health care because that's all that one hears about.

I understand how it is important, those two, but they just aren't. Their time isn't now. Based on history it was very apparent that they weren't going to be important to him either.

He snagged votes, that's all he did. I know you don't want to believe that but he lead people on.

How did he lead people on? I just told you what he said during his campaign. If you don't believe me, look it up. He never promised gay marriage or drug legalization to anyone. He made it clear on several occasions!

"I do not support gay marriage. Marriage has religious and social connotations, and I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman." [ from the Human Rights Campaign's 2008 Presidential questionnaire]"

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws. I personally believe that civil unions represent the best way to secure that equal treatment. [Source: open letter to the LGBT community]"

Healthcare is the hot issue right now because the bills are actually being worked on to be passed. That's why we've been hearing so much about healthcare - but if you think people aren't talking about gay rights and marijuana, I don't know who you're talking to! We still have a lot of the Obama Presidency left; I think we'll have to see what issues snag the spotlight over the next few years before we determine if it's "their time".

Where are you J_J???? She's giving specifics, quotes even, to back up her opinions. Instead you would rather patronize her- "you don't want to believe it, but..." as if she and everyone else are bamboozled and you Enlightened. Oh, there you are, down further on the page "whining" again. Isn't that a phrase conservatives liked using before they were so 'oppressed'.

Early in Bush's presidency, one Really couldn't criticize. From Hollywood to mainstreet you could be blackballed. Anyone remember the Dixie Chicks? It was considered a 'time of war' and America was too fragile, we all had to stick together, and allow one administration to run this country into the ground. People caught on around year 6, but it was too late.

Well here we are, in a time of war AND financial ruin from the last administration, and people criticize and question, but its not enough for you I guess. Conservatives and Republicans want to undermine the President to the point that he can't even finish his sentences, but you are muzzled victims? lmao

Good answer and valid to the point of the thread.