Samuel L. Jackson Obama Ad

[nickiknack]

I never said anything about not voting or not volunteering. Hell, I'm going to start voting again, and I'm pretty politically jaded too. I mean look at my fucking sig...

[Veras]

We had 60+ Democrats controlling the Senate in 2009-2010? I don't remember this. I remember a lot of filibustering by the GOP. Wasn't it more like 50/49/1? I would not call that "control" myself. Also of note is that, just because the GOP automatons march lock, stock, and barrel (even against their own previously held stances) with one another doesn't mean the Democrats do or even should.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the President had difficulty getting anything through a filibustering GOP Senate and House when their sole mission was to obstruct him just for the sake of it.

Sorry, I just get really tired of reading/hearing that somehow Obama ever controlled either branch of Congress, when that was never the case.

Actually, at one point it was 60-40, but only very briefly.  There are two independents, Bernie Sanders (VT) and Joe Lieberman (CT), but both caucus with (and usually vote with) the Democrats.  Al Franken arrived late, because the 2008 election result was so close in Minnesota that there was several weeks (maybe months, I don't remember exactly) of legal battles to determine whether he or Norm Coleman would get the seat.  Shortly after Franken was finally seated, Ted Kennedy died, and Scott Brown took his seat.  It shifted from 59-40 to 60-40 to 59-41 fairly rapidly, and since 60 votes are necessary to break a filibuster, the Democrats only had a very brief window with the necessary number of votes.

The Democrats also had a pretty substantial majority in the House until 2011.

[niam2023]

I am thinking of doing something like selling Obama motivational posters and contributing the resulting funds to his campaign.

[Cataclysm]

JTO has fun ripping them both.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU</a>

[m52nickerson]

Since I have no idea who JTO is I will take Samuel L. Jackson.

The one thing I do know from that video is that JTO has that very simplistic view of things that many other have that are utterly pissed with the President.

[Qlockworkcanary]

Heh, well I stand corrected

[VirtualStranger]

JTO has fun ripping them both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU

Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?

[RavynousHunter]

JTO has fun ripping them both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU

Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?

He's an apparent "internet personality," you don't always listen to every word one of them says?  For the record, I have no idea who this motherfucker is, either.  Question.  Is the whole video in black and white?  I'd find out myself, but I honestly can't be arsed to actually watch the thing.  If so, he's so adorable, trying to be all "deep."  Because, as we all know, nothing has any intellectual value if it has any color.

...Hm.

[Cataclysm]

JTO has fun ripping them both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU

Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?

How is he a misogynist or randroid?

JTO has fun ripping them both.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpvHiLYu8gU

Why should I care what this misogynist Randroid thinks?

He's an apparent "internet personality," you don't always listen to every word one of them says?

I had no reason to listen to him than some action movie celebrity. But they swear and make rhymes sort of so it's all good.

Question.  Is the whole video in black and white? Because, as we all know, nothing has any intellectual value if it has any color.

All his videos are in black and white, with a few exceptions. I always assumed that he messed up the camera in the first video and decided to stick with it.

[largeham]

Right, because Obama doesn't care at all about poor or non-white voters.

The current form of the DREAM Act is quite weak to what is was in 2009. And Obama really cares for poor voters, what stimulus has there been since '09? And unemployment is still at Great Depression levels and real wages are still on the decline (since the early 70s).

That's not what you said. You said Obama was not the lesser of two evils. If you have two evils, and Evil A is not the lesser of Evil B, then Evil B is the lesser of the two evils.

Or you know,

Or the equal of two evils.

Obama can't control state laws, since he is not in charge of individual states. That's just flat-out stupid as an argument.

Federal law doesn't take precedent over state law? Sure, it could be unconstitutional, but so what? How many modern presidents have stayed within their constitutional boundaries?

Well, see, I do.

And in doing so have ignored all the evidence I showed above for why Obama is a piece of shit. But wait,there's more!

Also, if we're going to be snippy about motivations behind passing rights, women got the vote in America because President Wilson thought that their moral rectitude would cause them to vote for causes he supported (also, statewise, having women voters attracted women out West).

Yes, it's true that our two-party system sucks. That's not Obama's fault, and it's not a reason to not vote for him when the system is so thoroughly fucked that voting for literally anyone else (or not voting at all) is at best stupid and at worst deliberately malevolent, considering everything that's at stake. Please, tell me a solution that will actually work and I'll be behind it wholeheartedly, but considering that there isn't one, I'd rather vote for Obama and keep my rights as a woman and queer person than be subjected to a Romney presidency.

But we submit to it, hold our noses and vote and then complain when shit doesn't happen. Boo hoo, I keep voting Democrat and they keep fucking with me.

Don't bother with formal politics. As we saw with the suffrage movement, the progressive policies under Teddy Roosevelt, under FDR, the increase in rights for queer and black people in the 60s and 70s, it doesn't matter which party is is power as much as how willing people are to fight. No progressive reform has ever occurred due to the benevolence of politicians. We have seen how much pressure the Occupy movement has put on the Democrats (and the Republicans to a lesser extent).

"Especially in his first two years, where Obama held a majority in both the House of Reps and the Senate?"

We had 60+ Democrats controlling the Senate in 2009-2010? I don't remember this. I remember a lot of filibustering by the GOP. Wasn't it more like 50/49/1? I would not call that "control" myself. Also of note is that, just because the GOP automatons march lock, stock, and barrel (even against their own previously held stances) with one another doesn't mean the Democrats do or even should.

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the President had difficulty getting anything through a filibustering GOP Senate and House when their sole mission was to obstruct him just for the sake of it.

Sorry, I just get really tired of reading/hearing that somehow Obama ever controlled either branch of Congress, when that was never the case.

A) he did

B) yet the Democrats never did anything of the sort with Bush, they were more than happy to bend over

The Democrats did control both houses for a time, the problem is that there's a bunch of factions within the party itself, and there's a good deal of consevatives within the Democratic party(Blue Dogs) or caucus with them(like Joe Lieberman) that like to drag their feet when it comes to some issues. I remember a lot feet dragging was done over healthcare, because god forbid we have any decent kind of healthcare in this country.

Yet another reason to leave the party than stick with it's right wing trajectory in the vain hope of rebuilding whatever is left of the left-wing in the party. It is the exact same here, even nominally revolutionary groups will still pander to the craven, broken remnants of the Labor left, no matter how many times they surrender.

[RavynousHunter]

I'm sorry, I got about...2/3rds of the way into that video before I just had to stop.  Obama's not a savior?  No fucking shit.  Anyone with a half-functioning brain can see that.  He's still better than the other fucker because, while yeah, he's on the payroll of assholes like all the others, at least he gives us fucking something.

Am I saying we should just take our scraps and be happy?  Fuck no.  But, if its a choice between that or...not just nothing, but having my rights fucked right in the ass, while that fucking cracker smiles, you'd better bet I'll choose the guy that gives us something.

Our system is broke, its gonna take some time to fix.  There are no saviors, there are no messiahs, nobody's going to come to fucking save us, and we shouldn't fucking expect it.  We've all got to work, but the work's going to be gradual, there's no way around it.  If you change too much, too fast, you run the risk of pissing off a lot of people, and may lead to, if nothing else, massive fucking riots, destruction of who knows HOW much property, and, most importantly, the loss of the lives of our citizens.  I don't know about you, Lexi, or this...johntheother dickhead, but I'm not willing to run the risk of putting the lives of the people I love in danger because instant gratification isn't coming.

It won't.  We'll probably be our parents' age before we get this shit sorted, if not older.  Its more than the work of a single term, its more than the work of a single presidency, perhaps even a single generation.  The road ahead is long and difficult, but at least it doesn't run us the risk of falling head-long off a god damned cliff.

[Witchyjoshy]

I'm sorry, largeham.

Are you seriously saying that Obama is as bad as Mitt Romney?  Really?

I find that to be a completely unreasonable conclusion, even with the evidence you've provided (especially considering it's you that has to ignore evidence proving that he's not a piece of shit)

I could see him being not a great president, hell, I could even see him being a bad president, but as bad as Mitt Romney?

Not a chance.  Not unless you listen to Fox News.

EDIT: Oh, do you think you could use a source other than the Daily Caller?  Something about that site makes it feel like Fox News' little brother.  Especially since it seems to have nothing positive to say about Obama and  nothing negative to say about the right wing.

Not to mention it's still going on about the "Fast and Furious" fiasco which I believe was debunked, if I recall correctly?

[nickiknack]

The Democrats did control both houses for a time, the problem is that there's a bunch of factions within the party itself, and there's a good deal of consevatives within the Democratic party(Blue Dogs) or caucus with them(like Joe Lieberman) that like to drag their feet when it comes to some issues. I remember a lot feet dragging was done over healthcare, because god forbid we have any decent kind of healthcare in this country.

Yet another reason to leave the party than stick with it's right wing trajectory in the vain hope of rebuilding whatever is left of the left-wing in the party. It is the exact same here, even nominally revolutionary groups will still pander to the craven, broken remnants of the Labor left, no matter how many times they surrender.

This is the reason why I really feel the Progressive caucus within the Democratic Party, would be better off if they were to spilt with the party, and team up with Greens, and other progressives. The Democratic Party ignores them for the most part anyway.

[m52nickerson]

The current form of the DREAM Act is quite weak to what is was in 2009. And Obama really cares for poor voters, what stimulus has there been since '09? And unemployment is still at Great Depression levels and real wages are still on the decline (since the early 70s).

There has been no stimulus since the President can't just order one.  Congress controls the money.  The President has called for more stimulus, congress has not acted.

Oh, during the great depression unemployment was around 20%.  Not the 8% we have now.

Federal law doesn't take precedent over state law? Sure, it could be unconstitutional, but so what? How many modern presidents have stayed within their constitutional boundaries?

For one the federal government is limited on what it can pass as legislation.  Many issues are reserved for the states.  You have the US constitution and the Supreme Court to make sure things are kept in line.  That is why the federal government can't force state to expand Medicare and Medicaid.

And in doing so have ignored all the evidence I showed above for why Obama is a piece of shit. But wait,there's more!

Yes I can totally see how using the Coast Guard to protect ships and people from possible violence make a person a piece of shit.

If you could not tell that was sarcasm. 

But we submit to it, hold our noses and vote and then complain when shit doesn't happen. Boo hoo, I keep voting Democrat and they keep fucking with me.

Don't bother with formal politics. As we saw with the suffrage movement, the progressive policies under Teddy Roosevelt, under FDR, the increase in rights for queer and black people in the 60s and 70s, it doesn't matter which party is is power as much as how willing people are to fight. No progressive reform has ever occurred due to the benevolence of politicians. We have seen how much pressure the Occupy movement has put on the Democrats (and the Republicans to a lesser extent).

They are not fucking with you, you just expect them to do more than they can or even promised.  You are right just voting for a person is not enough.  You have to keep fighting.

As fro pressure from the Occupy movement, maybe for awhile.  It at least framed the argument of the 1% vs the 99%. 

A) he did

No, the President did not.  The party he is a member of did, but he did not control congress. 

B) yet the Democrats never did anything of the sort with Bush, they were more than happy to bend over

The Democrats blocked Bush nominees and legislation plenty of times.  Then when they had control they made the Bush White House and the GOP vote against policies they where pushing.   

Yet another reason to leave the party than stick with it's right wing trajectory in the vain hope of rebuilding whatever is left of the left-wing in the party. It is the exact same here, even nominally revolutionary groups will still pander to the craven, broken remnants of the Labor left, no matter how many times they surrender.

Go right ahead.  The problems is the the US simply is not left leaning enough as a country to support a wholly left party.

[VirtualStranger]

How is he a misogynist or randroid?

Watch his other videos. He unironically affiliates with A Voice for Men. He's an MRA shitlord of the worst kind.

He's also an Ayn Rand fanboy.