okie
 
  -1  
Fri 10 Dec, 2010 05:23 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Don't worry, the anonymous (for now) critic doesn't need to be censured nor should he or she be required to resign. It was just frustration after all.
It's more than frustration.
People are ashamed to admit they voted for Obama or ever supported
him and they don't want to keep him in the White House for another term.
I understand the search for a democrat to run against Obama
in the next presidential election is well under way. Good luck.
If that happened, the Dem. should resign. We don't need that kind of stuff in D.C., nor do we need people there that will stoop that low. It isn't even fit for this forum, let alone D.C.
JTT
 
  0  
Fri 10 Dec, 2010 06:32 pm
@ican711nm,
The US's purpose is to rape the systems of foreign countries by taking from the HAVES, until such a time as they become the HAVENOTS, and giving it to the USAHAVES.

The vehicle that supported this was the US military; the present system is more one of hired marauders. It allows a greater degree of plausible denial.

Then the USA stands back and make comments about this and that "failed" state.

Ican bleats about taxation programs that are perfectly legal but he's fine, it warms his heart, to see the riches of poor foreign countries stolen and the people brutalized and murdered.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Fri 10 Dec, 2010 07:25 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFhe331Zv84
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Did you miss the 11/10 elections?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:17 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:



Don't worry, the anonymous (for now) critic doesn't need to be censured nor should he or she be required to resign. It was just frustration after all.



It's more than frustration.



Tell that to Shirley Berkley, it's her assessment, not mine.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Fri 10 Dec, 2010 10:22 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

H2O MAN wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Don't worry, the anonymous (for now) critic doesn't need to be censured nor should he or she be required to resign. It was just frustration after all.
It's more than frustration.
People are ashamed to admit they voted for Obama or ever supported
him and they don't want to keep him in the White House for another term.
I understand the search for a democrat to run against Obama
in the next presidential election is well under way. Good luck.
If that happened, the Dem. should resign. We don't need that kind of stuff in D.C., nor do we need people there that will stoop that low. It isn't even fit for this forum, let alone D.C.


Okie - Did you read the article? It happened.

Joe Wilson didn't resign and neither will this individual (if and when identified).

Of course Wilson's outburst was the product of boorish, hyper-partisan racism, while this one was just an expression of frustration...and not very loud.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Sat 11 Dec, 2010 05:54 am
I think republicans should pass on President Obama's so-called tax
cut deal and come up with a much better, less expensive plan later.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  -1  
Sat 11 Dec, 2010 05:04 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
okie wrote:
H2O MAN wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Don't worry, the anonymous (for now) critic doesn't need to be censured nor should he or she be required to resign. It was just frustration after all.
It's more than frustration.
People are ashamed to admit they voted for Obama or ever supported
him and they don't want to keep him in the White House for another term.
I understand the search for a democrat to run against Obama
in the next presidential election is well under way. Good luck.
If that happened, the Dem. should resign. We don't need that kind of stuff in D.C., nor do we need people there that will stoop that low. It isn't even fit for this forum, let alone D.C.
Okie - Did you read the article? It happened.
Joe Wilson didn't resign and neither will this individual (if and when identified).
Of course Wilson's outburst was the product of boorish, hyper-partisan racism, while this one was just an expression of frustration...and not very loud.
I do not think the statement by Wilson that Obama was lying, can be compared to this comment. Wilson's statement had meaning and substance, while this one does not, it is instead an example of a sewer mouth and mindset, which is totally out of bounds in my opinion. Also, I fail to see how you can make some leaping assumption that Wilson's comment was the product of "boorish, hyper-partisanism." I think instead it was due to a strong conviction that Obama was in fact lying. We endured years of Democrats accusing Bush of lying, yet nothing was seen as out of bounds about that. At least Wilson had the guts to say it to Obama.

As much as I disagree with Obama and think we could have a better president, I will not condone that type of language in D.C. I would not appreciate it if that kind of thing was thrown at Bush or some other president, and so I think the same standards should apply for any president.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sat 11 Dec, 2010 10:11 pm
@revelette,
I've been thinking about compromise. Normally, I hate it. After all, if something is ethical -- such as helping the unemployed -- and something is totally non-ethical -- like providing the captains of industry and paris hilton with tax breaks -- how can there be a compromise?

We all hated DADT but, after nearly two decades, most straights are more accepting of most gays.

Who knows? Maybe in another two decades, people will realize that the captains of industry are crooks, paris hilton is a waste of space and there are no ethics on the right.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Sat 11 Dec, 2010 10:13 pm
@H2O MAN,
As someone recently said: How is giving the those who are to blame for the economic mess the same tax breaks they have had for several years going to fix the economy?

I bet P. T. Barnum's grave is roiling from his posthumous chuckling.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Sat 11 Dec, 2010 10:14 pm
@plainoldme,
Is it compromise you hate, or is it the fact that the dems were forced to give up part of what they wanted.
If the repubs had caved and given away everything they wanted, would you have called that compromise?
plainoldme
 
  0  
Sat 11 Dec, 2010 10:14 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
If most of us on the left do not agree with Obama, perhaps it is because the left comprises only 20% of the population and Obama is squarely in the middle.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 06:47 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

If most of us on the left do not agree with Obama, perhaps it is because ... Obama is squarely in the middle.


Wrong.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 05:25 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Of course Wilson's outburst was the product of boorish, hyper-partisan racism, while this one was just an expression of frustration...and not very loud. This is sarcasm okie
I do not think the statement by Wilson that Obama was lying, can be compared to this comment. Wilson's statement had meaning and substance, while this one does not, it is instead an example of a sewer mouth and mindset, which is totally out of bounds in my opinion. Also, I fail to see how you can make some leaping assumption that Wilson's comment was the product of "boorish, hyper-partisanism." I think instead it was due to a strong conviction that Obama was in fact lying. We endured years of Democrats accusing Bush of lying, yet nothing was seen as out of bounds about that. At least Wilson had the guts to say it to Obama.

As much as I disagree with Obama and think we could have a better president, I will not condone that type of language in D.C. I would not appreciate it if that kind of thing was thrown at Bush or some other president, and so I think the same standards should apply for any president.
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 08:53 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
If the repubs had caved and given away everything they wanted, would you have called that compromise?

I'd call it a miracle.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:02 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I do not think the statement by Wilson that Obama was lying, can be compared to this comment. Wilson's statement had meaning and substance, while this one does not, it is instead an example of a sewer mouth and mindset, which is totally out of bounds in my opinion. Also, I fail to see how you can make some leaping assumption that Wilson's comment was the product of "boorish, hyper-partisanism." I think instead it was due to a strong conviction that Obama was in fact lying.

So where was your outrage when Dick Cheney told Sen. Patrick Leahy to "go **** yourself" on the senate floor? Or was that OK because, after all, it was true that Pat Leahy should have gone and fucked himself?
okie
 
  2  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:35 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
okie wrote:
I do not think the statement by Wilson that Obama was lying, can be compared to this comment. Wilson's statement had meaning and substance, while this one does not, it is instead an example of a sewer mouth and mindset, which is totally out of bounds in my opinion. Also, I fail to see how you can make some leaping assumption that Wilson's comment was the product of "boorish, hyper-partisanism." I think instead it was due to a strong conviction that Obama was in fact lying.

So where was your outrage when Dick Cheney told Sen. Patrick Leahy to "go **** yourself" on the senate floor? Or was that OK because, after all, it was true that Pat Leahy should have gone and fucked himself?
Good point, joe. Cheney was clearly out of bounds. Surely we can find politicians that are better than that. That was a low point for Cheney, and I hope he apologized to Leahy for it. I am no fan of Leahy, but that is not acceptable, period.
okie
 
  2  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Of course Wilson's outburst was the product of boorish, hyper-partisan racism, while this one was just an expression of frustration...and not very loud. This is sarcasm okie
Understood, Finn. Thanks for the correction. If my interpretation is correct now, we are in agreement. I admit now that I thought your comment was different for you, but I did not catch on that it was sarcasm.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 09:45 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
Good point, joe.

I guess that's one in a row for me.

okie wrote:
Cheney was clearly out of bounds. Surely we can find politicians that are better than that. That was a low point for Cheney, and I hope he apologized to Leahy for it. I am no fan of Leahy, but that is not acceptable, period.

Sure, Cheney should have apologized, but should he have resigned?
okie
 
  0  
Sun 12 Dec, 2010 10:04 pm
@joefromchicago,
We are talking about a VP rather than two-bit member of Congress, joe. I understand your comparison, but if you really want to get down to brass tacks here, and apply some standards more universally, that would have meant comparing the seriousness of comments like this with Clintons antics in the Whitehouse as well, abusing interns and all of that. I think that overall, we have lost our way as a culture, we have lost our decency, both in language and in behavior. I think we need a higher standard, but I believe we should have kicked Clinton out, no question, and maybe that would have turned us in a better direction than what we are seeing. Unfortunately though, it needed to be bi-partisan in terms of all politicians seeing decency as important enough to do that, and frankly we just don't have it across the board. It is probably a cultural thing as much or more as it is a condition of Washington politicians. Face it, about all you get on TV are sexual innuendos and toilet humor, which is not all that great of a commentary about our culture in general. All of that influences how we deal with each other, including our communication and ability to get along in any kind of a respectful manner.
 

Related Topics

So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
Obama 2012? - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama '08?
  3. » Page 1878
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 03/19/2025 at 01:36:09