Obama supporters post on my FaceBook "wall" then get offended that I respond.

• 

  Katherine Wernier

  The point of OFAMA is not to provide a platform for LWNJs to troll & bash..there are plenty other opportunities for that online. Go away. BTW the door to Firedog Lake is always open.

  
  

  • • 

      Patrick Frank sorry for engaging...nothing like a prodigal son

      about an hour ago via ·
    • 

      Katherine Wernier That guy was only interested in taking our eye off the work to be done by hurling marxist firebombs. I guess I see this as a workplace:)

      54 minutes ago ·
    • 

      Mary Ellen Palermo Please, get involved and be heard...but never forget to listen as well. We can all learn and have an exchange of ideas without trolling and bashing anyone's ideas. The best way to spread the word is by our knowledge and discussions. Without knowledge, there is no insight.

      52 minutes ago ·
    • 

      Patrick Frank good point. ive just been working for obama for a long time (since senate primary) and it hurts me when people project their dissatisfaction with the country on this one man who is working so hard to play his role in setting
      it right.
• 

  Bernice Nowack

  Yes, I would like to see the war end....but don't blame Obama...he is the best...and what do you have for a Republican Candidate....the worse group I have ever seen.

  
  

  • • 

      Alan L. Maki What do the Republicans have to do with whether or not you vote for Obama or any of the many rotten, worthless Wall Street serving Democrats? In most countries the people vote for politicians and political parties based on what kind of country they want to create. Obama is nothing but a Republican anyways--- and a thoroughly reactionary Republican at that.

      16 hours ago ·
    • 

      Patrick Frank

      speaking as someone who did not have healthcare until the ACA I disagree with your statement. Speaking as someone whose parents lost 50% of their wealth to financial insitutions that can no longer do what they did without over sight...I disagree with your statement. Speaking as someone paying a lower interest rate on his student loans, i disagree with your statement. Obama is most certainly a democrat, and "Obama's wars" include ending combat operations in Iraq which he said he would do, and turning up the pressure on Al Queda which he said he would do. Libya was Obama's Rwanda moment and he choose not to let genocide happen. You must be careful not to lump all politicians together because it makes picking diamonds like Obama out of the rough that much harder.

      5 hours ago ·
    • 

      Alan L. Maki

      Obama is no "diamond" although he might be considered a well-polished fake.
      
      What you fail to mention, Patrick, is that while each of these programs might help you and your family, there are millions of other people hurt by the pieces of legislation that these programs are attached on to.
      
      Apparently you are easily tricked by an unprincipled, crooked and corrupt diamond peddler.
      
      Obama is no "crown jewel."

      4 hours ago ·
    • 

      Patrick Frank since you decided to insult me (easily tricked?) I will answer you with truth. Your argument is weak and unfocused. Make your case with fact then I can respond. I told you SPECIFIC things that I appreciate about Obama's legislative record, complaining about "millions hurt" does not offer any specific criticism. Please make a rational thought clearly, do not insult me...and then we can continue a discussion

      4 hours ago ·
    • 

      Alan L. Maki

      Obama is nothing but a part-time health insurance salesman working for Wall Street posing as a president. There is nothing at all "weak" about my position that while you selfishly tout being "helped" by the "Health Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industry Bail-out and Profit Maximization Act of 2010," millions will be left without healthcare of any kind while millions more will be ripped off, forced to pay expensive premiums.
      
      What is required is a National Public Health Care System; publicly funded, publicly administered and publicly delivered based of the model of VA set up along the lines of public education but financed from funds saved from ending Obama's dirty wars and taxing the hell out of the rich.

      4 hours ago ·
    • 

      Patrick Frank

      ya cause our education system funding is the way to go on healthcare...that way inner cities dont get care and rich neighborhoods would get great care. Look, I'm all for single payer, but doing single payer in one swoop during a job crisis would have exacerbated the economic struggles since the Health Insurance industry is one of this nation's largest employers. You are saying millions without healthcare but the estimates are that by 2014 98% of the country will be covered...where are you getting your statistics? And since when is raising the top tax rate back to Clinton era levels considered "taking the hell out of the rich" Your hyperbole and personal attacks reveal your ignorence.

      4 hours ago ·
    • 

      Alan L. Maki

      You are obviously very dishonest, Patrick. Did you see anything about me saying a National Public Health Care System should be financed the way we fund public schools? In fact, I think our public schools should be funded just like the military is presently funded and the military should be funded through bake good sales and sending the soldiers out selling candy bars and flower seeds door-to-door.
      
      Also, if you would have read what I wrote I am not a big fan of Medicare for All but rather VA for All--- maybe you should check out the difference.
      
      That you acknowledge, but don't care, that there will be at least six-million people without access to health care who are the poorest of the poor says all I need to know about you.

      3 hours ago ·
    • 

      Patrick Frank

      well...what defines you is the fact you came to an obviously pro-obama group just to start a fight... you are right that i extrapolated too much from your comment "set up along the lines of the education system" you were not referring to the funding so that's a fair point. As to the few million that will be without care, that's an issue, but we are already talking about a federal mandate and these are folks that will still find a way not to get healthcare. I don't think I nor anyone in this group wants to stop working on reforming the system until we get everyone. I guess the best way to defuse the craziness of this conversation is to ask you some questions. Forgetting about what you clearly don't want. What do you think Obama COULD have done differently taking into a account the hostility of congress to passing anything?

      3 hours ago ·
    • 

      Alan L. Maki

      First of all for two long years Obama had a majority of Democrats in the House and Senate. Instead of coming forward with a peoples' agenda for real change based upon the reason why voters elected him he should have:
      
      1. Ended the wars instea...See More

      3 hours ago ·
    • 

      Patrick Frank

      Thank you, this is a much better line of argument. You use actual points that can be addressed. I think some of your criticisms are fair, but not all of them. 1. Obama did what he said he would do on Iraq and on Afghanistan. Remember that Obama didnt start Libya, France fired the first shots and we didnt get involved until the UN and the Arab League sanctioned the action. Calling it a "war" is not accurate, we were trying to stop Gaddaffi from liquadating the inhabitants of Benghazi which belong to a different tribe than his, it would have been genocide. 2. Obama said what he said about the wars and healthcare when he was running he never claimed he would push single payer or end the war in afghanistan. He mentioned on many occasionas expanding operations in Pakistan. Your other points are mostly valid though I remind you that 60 senators were needed for everything and that included Ben Nelson, Joe Liberman, and other "blue dog" democrats. I think fair critique of Obama is that he was unwilling to let nothing happen because of a stance on his laurels, he is always willing to comprimse. I appreciate that quality, but I can see how it can annoy some on the left.

      3 hours ago · ·  1 person
    • 

      Patrick Frank

      its clear your problem is not with "Obama" it is with "America" as a
      global hegemony. I think thats a fair point to argue about our military
      bases, but that isn't about an individual politician its about how we see ourselves as a country. Obama is not the President of the 10% of the
      country that is very liberal and progressive. He takes very seriously the
      47% of America that voted against him and tries to pick policies that
      reflect us all. On healthcare Obama has said that if he were starting from scratch he would go single payer, but since running for President he has not once said that was what his plan would be

      about an hour ago via ·
    • 

      Alan L. Maki

      Patrick; Obama has not simply "annoyed" those on the "left." He has "annoyed" liberals and progressives, too. We are not "annoyed" with Obama without reason or for any minor concerns. In fact, Obama and the Democrats are attacking the standard of living of ALL working people the overwhelming majority of whom consider themselves liberal, progressive or left.
      
      In fact, Obama DID state his support for single-payer universal health care many, many times--- over and over again as he sought the Democratic Party's nomination. Here is the indisputable proof:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE
      
      In fact, it was Obama who led the effort to re-elect Joe Lieberman when had the desire of Democrats for an alternative in the Democratic Primary stood, a very progressive Democrat for peace and single-payer would have been elected to the U.S. Senate.
      
      The war in Iraq is not ending; in fact, the costly 100 year occupation of Iraq favored by McCain is just beginning--- both Puerto Rico and the Philippines have been occupied by the United States for over 100 years as a result of similar wars. There is the 60 year occupation of South Korea, too along with more than 800 U.S. military bases on foreign soil not to mention a huge presence of our naval fleet on all the oceans of the world.
      
      You know, and I know--- we both know that Barack Obama never would have been elected president of the United States had he campaigned on the basis that he was going to do what he has done.
      
      You may come back with "all politicians do this." However, this argument holds no water because Obama led people to believe he was going to be a different kind of politician not beholden to the interests of the wealthy elite. Obama is nothing but a flim-flam man and con-artist--- that he is a master of his "craft" in no way alleviates any of the anguish and suffering he has caused.
      
      You and your Obama supporting friends claim that things would be so much worse with a Republican in the White House and yet you continue to support this loser Obama.
      
      Obviously Obama can no more run for re-election on his "accomplishments" while in office than he could have run had he told the American people what he would really be doing once elected.
      
      Come on; really. Do you really believe that a president engaged in fighting three wars; soaring food prices and the robbery at the gas pumps couple with rising prices for home heating fuels combined with massive and growing unemployment with no end in sight for home foreclosures and evictions is going to be re-elected? With a record like this Obama couldn't even be elected dog-catcher in Chicago even if every dead person voted for him.
      
      Obama has instituted austerity measures here at home to pay for his dirty wars abroad and this is surely not going to be popular among the American people who in their majority have indicated in one way or another--- more often than not in numerous ways--- that they want no part of these dirty imperialist wars.
      
      "Compromise," you say.
      
      Since when is a "compromise" with injustice a human quality that should be looked upon with fondness?
      
      It was just such a "compromise" with injustice that led Abe Lincoln to go crazy as he "compromised" away the lives of 38 Dakota warriors whose only crimes were defending their Nation, their homes and their families--- from the time Lincoln ordered 38 Dakotas, instead of over 200 to hang as part of a political "compromise" in 1862.
      
      Lincoln was perhaps fortunate he was assassinated less than 3 years later because he might have been the first president to "retire" from office living out his life in a mental institution.
      
      Of course, unlike Obama, Lincoln had a conscience; Obama has no conscience as is evidenced by his order to murder Osama bin Laden without so much as a trial--- a president touting savage and barbaric revenge then calling it justice is never going to be re-elected in a country known and respected for being based upon law.
      
      Obama has to go; Obama should be either forced out of the race or primaried by liberals, progressives and leftists. Failing this, Obama should face a challenge in the General Election from a ticket for peace, social and economic justice.
      
      You and your Obama loving friends most definitely have the right to continue supporting the worst president in U.S. history; but, beware; should a Republican end up in the White House you will only have yourselves to blame.
      
      Sometimes I wonder if the Republicans haven't hired the lot of you to continue backing this loser: Obama.

      about an hour ago ·
    • 

      Patrick Frank Well it still sounds like your problem is with America, not with Obama. But I will address a few of your specific complaints. First your healthcare youtube video is bunk. Here is the politifact research into it http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/16/barack-obama/obama-statements-single-payer-have-changed-bit/. Basically, as a State Senator Obama supported single payer, and he at no point has retracted that support. but as a Presidential Candidate he was always clear that was not going to be a possible solution given the context in which reform might take place. Your video does nothing but explain the point I already made, that he's in support of single payer but its not feasible. As for Iraq, combat operations in Iraq have stopped, 100,000 troops have been taken out. Per our treaty with the SOVEREIGN government of Iraq, we have left a few bases open to help the new government stabilize, Obama has been clear, if the Iraqi people ask America to leave, they will. But your points go wildly off track, asking Obama to withdraw trrops from South Korea and the rest of the world. Their are plenty of politicians (Kucinich, Ron Paul) who would agree with your point of view. American democracy has marginalized those viewpoints because that is not the will of the majority of the country. You can criticize the position America takes on foreign intervention but Barack Obama has done what he said he would do, and I'm sorry if that vision isn't the one you were looking for, thats why we have elections and I encourage you to display your dissatisfaction in the coalition part of the election better known as the primary. Your arguements remind me of a favorite story of mine. Labor leaders helped re-elect FDR for a second term even though he was on shaky political ground. So they sat him down and said we want A, B, C done now. FDR said, those sound great, now go make me do it. If you want American troops completely out of the world's business, and for single payer healthcare, than Obama won't stand in your way, but you have to make it happen. He is not a President who will make decrees and unilaterally turn away from 100 years of American foreign policy only to lose a re-election to Mitt Romney and watch it all be re-instated. His focus has been on reform that he has enough capital to pass, and frankly compared to the record of Bill Clinton, I think he is doing very well. I understand you like so many others saw him as an avatar for whatever you believe in, but he's not. He is a very specific individual that is upfront about his policy and always explains himself eloquently. You cannot pin a total transformation of domestic and foreign policy on one individual like that, its not going to happen.

      about an hour ago ·
    • 

      Alan L. Maki Again you insinuate I backed Obama at some point. Read my blog; I never supported, backed him nor voted for him because I recognized him for the Elmer gantry that he was, is and always will be.
      
      As for your so-called "fact check" regarding the YouTube video. This video was used by a number of organizations, groups and individuals including the "Progressives for Obama." In fact, I received the link to this YouTube video from one of the primary organizers of the "Progressives for Obama" after I gave a speech stating that there was no evidence suggesting Barack Obama supported single-payer universal health care. In fact, when I requested that the Obama campaign state publicly that Obama was not for single-payer they refused to do so. I gave the Obama campaign the opportunity to publicly state exactly what is stated in this "fact check" you have provided. Obama, being the flim-flam man and con artist he is WANTED this mis-information circulating to deceive liberals, progressives and the left to back him.
      
      No you cry "foul" when this video is once again used.
      
      In fact, the United States has prepared Iraq for what is required for long-term U.S. occupation.
      
      As I said; here is Obama's record--- let him run on it: engaged in fighting three wars; soaring food prices and the robbery at the gas pumps coupled with rising prices for home heating fuels combined with massive and growing unemployment with no end in sight for home foreclosures and evictions.
      
      I dare you to post this most important and vital question for comment right at the top of this FaceBook page:
      
      How is Barack Obama's Wall Street war economy working for you?
      
      Then the "red-baiting" slanderous comment about me: "That guy was only interested in taking our eye off the work to be done by hurling marxist firebombs." Once again proving that dishonest politicians and their supporters always stoop to "red-baiting" when faced with the truth.
      
      A "marxist firebomb;" is that what one calls the hunger pangs of a small child who can't get a free lunch in school because the wealth of the Nation is being squandered away on militarism and wars from which Wall Street's merchants of death and destruction who bank-rolled Obama's campaign reap such lucrative profits from?