@snood,
snood wrote:
Why should you admit that people saw in him things that legitimately caused them to vote for him over everyone else running? Because it would be intellectually honest.
I'm sure that some people saw in him things that legitimately caused them to vote for him over everyone else running. So what? I'm also sure that some people saw in Richard Nixon things that legitimately caused them to vote for him. They were wrong too.
I am also sure that his being black was the only characteristic some of those who voted for him needed, and that for many more, it was an extra added attraction. Do you really deny this to have been the case? If it makes you feel righteously outraged (the favored source of endorphin rush for those on the Left) to believe that my comments have been directed at you personally, go for it. I like a good buzz as much or more than the next guy.
snood wrote:That’s cute. And supposedly family values and Christian charity are virtues the right admires, but that’s neither here nor there, and it's not what I meant.
But... he also had a strong grasp of constitutional law, he chose to work for the needs of inner-city neighborhoods over becoming rich overnight at the law firm of his choice, and had done work on legislation in Illinois to ensure prisoners in custody were not being coerced into confessions.
Little things like that were things I saw in the man that made me look closer (and here you were thinking all I saw was his skin color, huh?), and when I looked, I kept finding things that I liked. I’ve also seen things I don’t like (yeah, rational consideration and everything), but he is still head and shoulders above any other person I see expressing interest in the job.
You find that cute? Familial love and charity (whether Christian or not) are not virtues you admire, and are neither here nor there? You challenged me to say something nice about the man, and I did, but apparently that's not good enough for snood. I guess I was supposed to somehow validate what you believe and I do not.
You voted for him because:
1)
He had a "strong grasp of constitutional law." How did you come to that conclusion? Because he claimed to have been a "Constitutional Law Professor?" Even if that were true, it hardly proves he has a "strong grasp of constitutional law." Anton Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Richard Bork are, arguably, ten time the constitutional scholars than Obama has ever been, but I’m guessing you wouldn’t accept that as a valid reason to vote for any of them to be president.
2)
He chose to be a community organizer rather than a high paid lawyer. Well, yes he did, but there is every reason to believe that he saw the former more advantageous for his political career than the latter. Besides, being a high priced lawyer, for any length of time, requires hard work and Obama has demonstrated an incredibly short attention span. BTW – Do you really believe he was living a Spartan life style while he was a Community Organizer?
3)
He did work on legislation in Illinois to ensure the rights of prisoners. Now that’s an accomplishment that screams “Make this guy the President!” That’s it? That’s the extent of his legislative accomplishments that convinced you he was The Man?
Frankly snood, I don’t give that much thought to your personal motives for them to inform my opinions. I never said you voted for him only because he was black. If you say you didn’t, I’m not going to accuse you of lying. I’ve no doubt your primary reason for voting for him in the general election was that his expressed ideals matched up more closely with your own than did McCain’s.
As for him being “head and shoulders” above everyone else…of course you are entitled to your opinion, as am I.
snood wrote:Well, since you don't have to provide anything to substantiate the pejoratives, and people are just supposed to take your word for it, not much I can say about that except you have an opinion.
Sort of like yours that he is “head and shoulders” above everyone else?
I have on more than one past occasion explained why I believe Obama to be incompetent and dangerous. I didn’t realize I needed to replicate my arguments, or provide links to them, in order to summarize my feelings about the man.
snood wrote:That sounds like a diagnosis, doc. Is it based on anything, or are descriptions like “seriously flawed narcissist” just stuff you pick up from his press conferences?
Well yes, the way he conducts himself at press conferences, town hall meetings, and other public forums has led me to conclude he is a narcissist. Here again, I’ve previously explained why I believe him to be a narcissist.
Finn wrote:I suspect that I would not like him if I met him...if for no other reason than he takes himself way too seriously, but that doesn't inform my opinion of him as our president.
snood wrote:Well, since we were talking about things that I thought caused people to vote for him as our president, I fail to see the significance of whether you think you’d like him. (And you saying anyone takes themselves too seriously is just precious)
Can you read snood? Check out my quote above: “..but that doesn’t inform my opinion of him as our president.” I don’t really care whether or not you approve of or find significance in my offering a personal comment, but perhaps you find that insulting as well.
Finn wrote:He's the President of the USA, a position he craved, sought and won
snood wrote:(and I lo-o-o-v-e how that fact galls some people).
I’m sure you do. Once again, I’m happy I can give you a thrill or two, because it does gall me that he won. Of course you would have been totally magnanimous about McCain winning as you were when Bush won…twice.
snood wrote:I said “good qualities” – you assumed that to mean only personal attributes. I and a lot of others thought the man had a lot to sell himself on, and your intimation that the choice wasn’t rational is insulting, but it's totally predictable coming from you.
I didn’t assume any such thing. You asked me if it would kill me to say something good about him. Since there is virtually nothing about his presidency that I consider “good,” I was happy to acknowledge that I don’t believe Obama the man is an evil miscreant, and that I am sure he has good qualities. If you take that as an insult to you, so be it…more endorphins I guess.
snood wrote:W was a swaggering idiot who drunk-drove us into a ditch in any rational way it can be measured. I’ll have that argument with you or anyone else anytime. I'd like to have it on a thread that one of his supporters starts to promote what was good about his presidency, if I had my druthers.
What can I say that this comment doesn’t?
snood wrote:I don’t recall many “slanderous lies” about him (outside of the dubious papers that Dan Rather shouldn’t have used to pursue what was very probably a true story of your guy being unlawfully absent from his place of duty), but I saw him as a ‘C’ student who was in the office as a legacy baby, and couldn’t hold Obama’s jockstrap in terms of competence.
Selective memory is a neat trick.
snood wrote:I couldn’t give less of a crap then or now about what kind of person people saw him as. It got said a lot back then that people would “rather have a beer” with Bush than Kerry or Gore. So I’m sure people thought he was a peachy keen person.
I think I see your point…
I’m supposed to acknowledge that there were rational reasons for voting for Obama, because failing to do so (predictably) insults you, but you couldn’t give less of a crap about what his supporters thought of him.
Interesting.
You know snood, you're actually cooler than your avatar photo suggests. Is that the Obama stare into the future?
