General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama is a "Weak Appeasing" "Warmonger"!!
YUP. He's both, depending on who you ask. Thus the two sets of quotation marks.
Ask the far right ... "Obama is a weak appeaser!! His weak response to Benghazi and Syria will kill us all."
Ask the far left ... "Obama is a warmonger who wanted to invade Iran, Egypt, Libya, Syria (fortunately Putin stopped him), and who now clearly supports the Iraq war!!"
Two totally opposite memes ... both totally insane caricatures.
Each pushed across the blogosphere. With folks on the right, and the left, freaking out ... because ... THEIR insane caricature, is obviously true.
Just another day on the internet.
I mean after all, the President is a "Socialist" "Corporatist" too.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)The phenomenon I'm pointing out here has been going on since Obama took office in a rather obvious way.
Take the ACA. When that was being debated I noticed MSNBC would have a RW pundit on, who would trash the ACA for being socialism. When that person finished, the host would ask the LW pundit to describe why the left hated the ACA. Basically, they provided two opposite messages side by side, in which each side talked about why their voters should hate the ACA.
You see it on almost every topic. That's how Obama can be a thug, planning to give reparations to undeserving blacks, while also being a puppet of the 1%.
The caricatures are designed to anger the right, discourage the left. And the intent, reduce turn out from Dems while increasing it for the GOP.
Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)FSogol
(45,356 posts)alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Clown shit for sure.
The Magistrate
(95,237 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)When all you see is black and white, you aren't left with a full spectrum view of reality.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)go get 'em!
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)either way, it makes for great reading on my breaks.
Response to JoePhilly (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Right wingers typically get angry, sometimes irrationally angry, and make an effort (always noisy, usually ineffective) to change things.
Democrats analyze the situation to death and wind up doing jack shit. Paralysis by analysis.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)I think the opposite memes model I mention goes well beyond this situation. And the memes are structured to (1) Anger the right wing, and (2) discourage the left.
The GOP's efforts (with media help) to suppress the vote goes beyond voter ID laws and things like that. The attacks on Obama and the Democrats are designed to make the RW angry, while discouraging the left.
Having a weak President angers the right. They'll be energized to try and replace him.
Having a warmonger as the President they elected means voting doesn't matter. Might as well stay home.
Same with the corporatist versus socialist memes.
Anger the right, discourage the left ... and maybe you pick up just enough of an advantage on election day.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,207 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Liberal Veteran
(22,239 posts)johnp3907
(3,723 posts)...who went to Jeremiah Wright's Christian church.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Except on the left, the framing is that the President talks about God too much, shouldn't attend that yearly prayer breakfast, so on.
But still, its another great example of how the attacks are framed from totally disparate perspectives.
johnp3907
(3,723 posts)Being totally unreligious I don't know.....DO Christians and Muslims routinely go to each others churches?
polichick
(37,152 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)In each case, we were told that the President was a puppet of the MIC, and he was going to invade those countries "Iraq style", creating more endless war.
Each time it was a done deal, definitely going to happen, he wanted it to happen. There are folks who have actually claimed that the US under Obama, has started a bunch of new wars ... counting Libya, Syria and Egypt when they have done so.
He was definitely going to bomb Iran too. He was looking for a reason.
Its been said about Afghanistan, because candidate Obama said he was going to increase troops in Afghanistan, and then did so as President. That's also why we get told he'll never end that war.
Even as he was closing down the Iraq war, it was also claimed. He wasn't really going to end that war ... nope never. He was part of the MIC and we were never leaving. Bastard!
And of course its being insinuated now. These two opposite memes are not new. They've both been active since the day he took office.
polichick
(37,152 posts)and another to say that he himself is a "warmonger."
Part of the ugly truth we have to face is that what Eisenhower long ago warned about has happened.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And that term has been used at various times in the thread history I describe.
The Syria example is good because its recent. Plenty of folks here were so sure that Obama was in fact hell bent on invading Syria, that they predicted the endless war that he was going to start there, would be THE THING that would destroy his legacy.
That's how bad he wanted that war. Then Putin robbed him of it.
The President is CIC, after all, so yea he might be involved with using our Military from time to time.
polichick
(37,152 posts)insists on it. Don't kid yourself about why we use the military where we do.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)And we'll be leaving Afghanistan as another way to stay in the Middle East?
polichick
(37,152 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)on the timeline he called for, by the end of this year.
What part of those facts leads to us staying in the ME as you claimed?
polichick
(37,152 posts)troops in the Middle East when Obama leaves office. He might want to clear out of there but that's not in the best interest of the mic.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-examines-afghanistan-option-that-would-leave-3000-troops-in-kabul/2014/02/23/a0870034-9b32-11e3-ad71-e03637a299c0_story.html
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)and usually the mic gets its way - which is why Eisenhower made that warning speech.
(With you, it's always a kneejerk reaction - reading helps.)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They wanted to keep full troop strength in Iraq, wants to keep full strength in Afghanistan, wanted to bomb Iran, and invade Egypt, Libya, and Syria.
But they aren't getting what they want in any of these places.
But let's pretend the President is giving them exactly what they want.
polichick
(37,152 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)polichick
(37,152 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... then, in each case, yes ... much of DU was absolutely sure that Obama was going to give them everything they wanted.
polichick
(37,152 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That's what we were told right here on DU.
treestar
(82,383 posts)finding him so incompetent that he is able to turn a 235 year old republic into a communist totalitarian state. That sure takes some incompetence! 43 prior presidents did not manage to make themselves dictators. Yet Obama is so incompetent he pulled it off. As a Kenyan, too!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)He's an brainy professorial elitist who is also stupid, lazy, and in over his head.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)so true
Rex
(65,616 posts)nt.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Alternate ... one day Marxist, then Socialist, then Fascist ... Corporatist gets thrown in for the left.
Any word that ends in "ist" can be used in this game.
Rex
(65,616 posts)True. No good GOPuker would call Obama a corporatist...even though the NYSE is at an all time high and we are carving away at that Republican deficit!
Here is one for you! At work, I overheard someone say THEY are working on making it possible for Obama to have a third term!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)How could anyone take offense at this being sold as better than Crimea.