georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:46 am
@Thomas,
Nothing that bothered me. I merely pointed out the obvious.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:51 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Your very contrived "analysis" above does not suggest any skepticism. On the contrary a rather slavish inclination to rationalize.

Well, I'm glad you got this off your chest. Are you feeling better now?


He's merely on advice from his doctors to periodically vent the splenetic humours which build up inside, lest he suffer a rupture at an inopportune moment.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 11:03 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
Nothing that bothered me. I merely pointed out the obvious.

Well, if you think that a self-deluded Obama is preferable to a phony Obama, and that calling him self-deluded is therefore an act of rationalization, that's your business not mine. As for myself, I quite hope that politicians are phonies. I am horrified by the thought that they actually believe the denial of reality that they're trying to inflict on their constituents.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 11:36 am
@Thomas,
George is myopic. The fact that many dem leaning people are unhappy with the dems goes right past him. But Bush was never wrong in the eyes of the repubs even though history has proved him wrong most of the time.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jul, 2011 01:25 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

George is myopic. The fact that many dem leaning people are unhappy with the dems goes right past him. But Bush was never wrong in the eyes of the repubs even though history has proved him wrong most of the time.


That many left wing Democrats are frustrated with Obama's failures to advance their particular agendas is no more surprising, or unknown to any of us, than the equivalent tensions that have long (and still) exist among Republicans. You are dead wrong on both my supposed myopia and your imagined unanimity among Republicans.

My objection was to Thomas' rather tortured explanation for Obama's supposed moderation as a result of an ingrained desire to please those around him. It is certainly a possibility, but is neither indicated by any specific information or even the most likely explanation for his actions.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 11:13 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuctDRAQPwE&list=PLTpcK80irdQjeWdZIYCIDf7D7rSogz-ts

Obama a foe to net neutrality
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 May, 2014 11:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
The amusing aspect of this reanimated lament is that "they" didn't do anything with Obama. He is and always has been the same guy for whom you and your confreres vote...twice.

Another amusing aspect is the pitiful excuses made for his failed presidency that are founded on the notion that somehow the minority party has managed to wield the power of a majority (even when both houses of congress were held by the president's party) and thwart the noble efforts of Prince Barrack.
Under any other scenario, the blaming of one’s failures on a minority of opponents would be universally seen as pathetic, and yet for the Demi-God who promised us he would change the world, both politically and physically, it’s A-OK.

Somehow, the man who promised us that his presence would slow the rise of the oceans and put an end to the aggression of anti-American groups and nations, just hasn’t been able to muster enough of his wondrous mojo to counter the opposition of Republicans.

There is no doubt that he will have a fairly large group of adorants who deny reality and forever claim his achievements, even while the house falls in around them, but with each passing year of his administration he continues to lose the adoration, admiration and even, to some extent, the support of those who heralded him as the transformative leader of our time.

In point of fact, he has been rather transformative. Unfortunately, the transformation he has managed has left the nation in desperate need of a transformative president to succeed him.
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 May, 2014 08:24 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
The amusing part, actually, we kept teabaggers from the presidency. The unamusing part, we voted the lesser of two evils. The next unamusing part, we just may put H Clinton in office in 16 and get more of the same. With Bernie Sanders out there, I don't know why folks would settle. But, hey, it used to be a free country.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 02:48 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

The amusing part, actually, we kept teabaggers from the presidency. The unamusing part, we voted the lesser of two evils. The next unamusing part, we just may put H Clinton in office in 16 and get more of the same. With Bernie Sanders out there, I don't know why folks would settle. But, hey, it used to be a free country.


You did? That's quite amusing, but not in the way you meant.

God only knows what your definition of "teabagger" is (although it's safe to say it is as ignorant and insulting as the demeaning term you use), but who in the wide world ever, intelligently, named McCain or Romney as members of the Tea Party movement?

It's not a free country? This has to be one of the most ridiculous claims you've made in this forum.

You need to dial back the hate ed, you'll live longer.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 02:52 pm
They allow teabaggers to dictate. Hence, they are no better. teabagger is my polite term for that movement.
eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 03:07 pm
@edgarblythe,
- teabaggers funded by Koch -

Kinda says it all.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 05:11 pm
@edgarblythe,
That bile build-up is going to kill you ed.

For an older gentleman, you're quite uncivil.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 05:16 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
So tell me, what do you think about Tom Steyer.

I think I can guess, but I don't want to assume.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 05:17 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Gosh, the thumb down was almost instantaneous.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 05:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I will be uncivil to anyone that pushes the teabag **** at me. It's a matter not only of principle, but of saving the nation from inner rot.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 May, 2014 05:47 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I thumbed it back up.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2014 12:53 pm
@edgarblythe,
What is the "teabag ****" you find so offensive.

Is it anything like the "commie lib agenda."
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2014 01:09 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Off the top of my head:
1. The teabaggers want to take away a woman's right to decide for herself whether or not to seek an abortion.
2. They are hell bent on taking away medicare, medicaid and social security.
3. They say, don't let the federal government interfere in states' affairs, because the states alone should decide. But if the feds don't take a hand, the state governments start dirty little schemes to keep non Republicans from voting. They bring back Jim Crow. They don't take care of the poor, the mentally ill.
4. They try to kill Obamacare.
5. They won't allow taxation of the rich, even though infrastructure is decayed.
6. They don't want government to have a nickle, even though we are short on law, firefighting and so on.
7. They don't want to protect people from gun attacks.

Aw, hell. That's enough.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2014 04:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
For an older gentleman, you're quite uncivil.

Tough ****.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 May, 2014 04:05 pm
@edgarblythe,
Why dident you simplify it by stating that they want anyone who dosent have a million bucks in the bank to die. Including in most cases themselves. Unless of course they can kiss some billionares ass like the Koches.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/28/2021 at 05:50:49