Please Answer This Question Obama Supporters

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

how am I whining? I posted a legitimate question received a pm calling me a dick... and I called cyclo out on it. That ain't whining pal. Now let's drop it before the whole thread gets locked.

Yes, it is whining. And you're the one that brought an ostensibly private exchange into a public thread.

If you don't like his PM, then ignore it. If it is offensive, then report it. Don't reply with abuse and then try to cover your tracks with a "but he did it first!" defense.

so now you're in charge of my behavior? Goddam you all are nervy. What you seem to ignore is the fact that I merely started a thread with a legitimate question. Answer my polite question politely and that's the end of it. Start some snarky horseshit and receive it in return. If you're so interested in keeping things on an even keel then don't insert yourself into the frekin' conversation with an adversarial post pal. You're not the goddam hall monitor.

You are SUCH a dad. :-) (I mean that in the best possible way...)

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

so now you're in charge of my behavior? Goddam you all are nervy. What you seem to ignore is the fact that I merely started a thread with a legitimate question. Answer my polite question politely and that's the end of it. Start some snarky horseshit and receive it in return. If you're so interested in keeping things on an even keel then don't insert yourself into the frekin' conversation with an adversarial post pal. You're not the goddam hall monitor.

I merely asked a question about your state of mind. Some might take that as a sign of concern.

Whine away. Far be it from me to stifle what's so obviously a winning strategy for you....

I'm not knocking Obama.

DrewDad wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

so now you're in charge of my behavior? Goddam you all are nervy. What you seem to ignore is the fact that I merely started a thread with a legitimate question. Answer my polite question politely and that's the end of it. Start some snarky horseshit and receive it in return. If you're so interested in keeping things on an even keel then don't insert yourself into the frekin' conversation with an adversarial post pal. You're not the goddam hall monitor.

I merely asked a question about your state of mind. Some might take that as a sign of concern.

Whine away. Far be it from me to stifle what's so obviously a winning strategy for you....

here's your post.... I don't see a question anywhere.......

Yes, it is whining. And you're the one that brought an ostensibly private soexchange into a public thread.

If you don't like his PM, then ignore it. If it is offensive, then report it. Don't reply with abuse and then try to cover your tracks with a "but he did it first!" defense.

so now retreat with a lame attempt at sarcasm... it's standard MOD......

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

we've also learned that after receiving a nasty post from someone in response to a nasty post from him.... he reports them for abusive language.

we've learned that cyclo likes to dish it out but can't take it.

Bear... why do you persist in publicly whining about this kind of crap?

I'm not knocking Obama. I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to know... how many times do Obamas volunteers, staff, adivsers et al... do questionable things and then Obama comes out and says "That doesn't represent me or my campaign or the way I think" and that makes everything all right and no one begins to question even a little bit?

How many times?

FreeDuck wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

'cept for the fact that you have no evidence it was a 'known policy' of the Campaign, Lash. You are making that up.

We have no evidence about a lot of things but it is reasonable to infer from the facts in this case that it was somebody's policy even if it didn't reach as high as the national campaign headquarters. Keeping in mind sozobe's point about dying by the sword of grassroots organizing and autonomy, it still seems reasonable that somebody higher up than the volunteers made a decision and communicated it.

I don't know about that. If a campaign organizer asked a handfull of volunteers to "select a decent cross-section of people to sit behind the stage" and turned them loose, it wouldn't surprise me that a couple might worry about creating a picture that would be used against the candidate. It's clear they weren't against Muslims per se since several were asked to be in the backdrop. What is clear is that the volunteers acted improperly. Was that due to lack of clear guidance or due to abundantly clear guidance? Can't say, but it is an interesting question. We'll know more at the next speech. Old Europe's observations that Obama has appeared with Muslim headscarves in the background before does lend credence to the assumption that Obama does not have a standing, anti-Muslim policy though.

Could drew dad be cyclo in disguise or vice versa. They seem to think alike.

See, I think that when you say 'I'm not knocking Obama,' you're lying. Otherwise, what are you getting at?

Cycloptichorn

Obama isn't the messiah that you bunch make him out to be; he can't predict or control what everyone can say

There are over 700 people working for him; another 4000 or so volunteers who are 'regulars,' and another 10k who volunteer from time to time. How would you, dear reader, like to be held responsible for every comment and decision made by 18 thousand or so people?

Obama's campaign did what was appropriate; said that this wasn't their policy, that it was wrong, and that they apologized and it wouldn't happen again. What else were they supposed to do?

I don't believe that the fact that members of Obama's campaign make mistakes, or say things they shouldn't, is a sign that Obama isn't interested in running a cleaner campaign. If he refused to respond to their issues, it would be. But his responses have been pretty clear each time.

Of course, for some haters, nothing he does will ever be good enough.

Cycloptichorn