|
|
On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now.
Tell me...
Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise.
|
On September 06 2012 22:12 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:04 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. That's the "perspective" thing coming into play. And your post history is way~~ too long to search for examples, so I appreciate these two well enough. Your opinion of Obama as a person colors everything you read, literally to the point that you can't help but dismiss every pro-Obama case you come across as "bullshit". (Deleted the quoted post, but won't disown it. Just seemed a bit [unnecessarily] inflammatory.) What in the world are you talking about? I don't often post news articles and other stories. I only post the really good ones. This Woodward book article makes the cut because he is a democrat hero who is throwing Obama under the bus (along with republicans, if you will). His credibility in liberal circles is basically unimpeachable. If you want to know what I actually think, my guess is that Woodward likely is more charitable to Obama than he should be in his book. Of course, I'd have to read the book to know, but that's my gut instinct. Show nested quote +EDIT: Also, I caught the "Y'all" above, but I bet it'd be easy to miss. Your usage erroneously counts (for instance) people like me among them, but I'm actually alright with that right now; if there are only two choices, and Romney/GOP is one of them, it's hardly a choice at all. EDIT: I like to paint in broad brushstrokes.
...Where did I say anything about articles you post? Anyone at all could have guessed what you actually thought about Obama, that was my point. The reason I said anything at all is because these thoughts were not "another matter". I deleted the earlier post to send something similar (a bit milder) as a PM and continue from there because I was criticizing you directly, but you quoted it and responded before I'd settled on that.
Personal feelings aside, I actually wouldn't mind seeing what you (or anyone) think about this book overall. I admit that I won't read it myself, but I could sit through a review. (Not because I'm in the "I don't read things I don't like"-camp, it just...sounds tedious.)
(Sorry for the thread clutter.)
|
On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise.
I've never understood the modern partisans allergy to objectively analyzing their own "side", and realizing the same faults they see in their opponents.
|
On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise.
It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy.
|
On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now.
The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented.
What?
|
On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What?
Was mildly curious myself, in his statement...
I posted a question a few pages back asking about how insurance deals with ex-military people? Do they consider them to have pre-existing conditions if they received injuries during war? Before the ACA, how did they get insurance - is there a government fund for these people?
|
On September 06 2012 23:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? Was mildly curious myself, in his statement... I posted a question a few pages back asking about how insurance deals with ex-military people? Do they consider them to have pre-existing conditions if they received injuries during war? Before the ACA, how did they get insurance - is there a government fund for these people?
Veterans can get health care through the VA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs
|
On September 06 2012 23:59 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:54 JinDesu wrote:On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? Was mildly curious myself, in his statement... I posted a question a few pages back asking about how insurance deals with ex-military people? Do they consider them to have pre-existing conditions if they received injuries during war? Before the ACA, how did they get insurance - is there a government fund for these people? Veterans can get health care through the VA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Veterans_Affairs
Thanks for the info!
|
On September 06 2012 23:54 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? Was mildly curious myself, in his statement... I posted a question a few pages back asking about how insurance deals with ex-military people? Do they consider them to have pre-existing conditions if they received injuries during war? Before the ACA, how did they get insurance - is there a government fund for these people?
I'm not sure on the specifics but as far as I'm aware the department of veterans affairs provides limited healthcare to ex-military. I think it only covers conditions that are a direct result of military service tho, including possible psychiatric disorders.
Also, for those of you that run:
http://www.paulryantimecalculator.com/
I could have qualified for the olympics  .
|
United States41934 Posts
On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter.
I'd argue that those flaws would be applicable to pretty much any president. A man who can genuinely think "I think I should be leader of the free world, I'm the man for the job" is definitely egocentric.
|
On September 07 2012 00:00 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:54 JinDesu wrote:On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? Was mildly curious myself, in his statement... I posted a question a few pages back asking about how insurance deals with ex-military people? Do they consider them to have pre-existing conditions if they received injuries during war? Before the ACA, how did they get insurance - is there a government fund for these people? I'm not sure on the specifics but as far as I'm aware the department of veterans affairs provides limited healthcare to ex-military. I think it only covers conditions that are a direct result of military service tho, including possible psychiatric disorders. Also, for those of you that run: http://www.paulryantimecalculator.com/I could have qualified for the olympics .
I'll shoot the question to a few friends in the military and see their responses as well. I wasn't sure, because I do hear of a few stories where military personnel return home, and don't get the care they need. But most of those stories tend to not have much info attached to them, so I was just curious.
My stance is that I am for more pay for military personnel, more training, better tour rotations, and better benefits/healthcare after leaving. I am opposed to military spending increase that does not provide for the personnel directly.
And may I ask what the joke is with the Paul Ryan calculator? I understand that it seems to decrease my running time (hey, 5 minute mile wewt) - but I must have missed the subject that caused this joke.
|
On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy.
Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad.
|
United States41934 Posts
On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What?
I believe he's of the opinion that running up a deficit is borrowing money against ones children and that even though once they reach tax paying age and actually have to contribute towards repaying it it's still somehow child slavery. By the same logic it's also sperm slavery, egg slavery, foetus slavery and adult slavery. I'll throw him some moderation for being absurd.
|
On September 07 2012 00:07 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:00 Derez wrote:On September 06 2012 23:54 JinDesu wrote:On September 06 2012 23:47 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 23:40 smokeyhoodoo wrote:On September 06 2012 20:59 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 19:10 smokeyhoodoo wrote:
OP, please include all candidates with ballot status in at least one state. I do believe it specifically says that this thread is for Obama versus Romney. Anyhow, I was supremely glad to hear Clinton's speech. I had been getting that horrible feeling that the current generation of Democrats had forgotten what it was like to stand up for their beliefs and not just cringe and try to damage control everything the Republicans say. And I don't just mean 'go on the attack' but to really explain why they think their side and their ideas are the best for the United States. I'm hoping that Obama can deliver a strong speech tomorrow and really nail the tone to set him up for a strong run in September and October. I found it amusing that some pundits and whatnot were trying to say how well the Republicans had done and how hard they'd nailed Obama in the time when the Republican convention ended and before the Democratic one began. It'd be kind of like asking a jury to decide a case after they've heard closing arguments from only one side. As an aside, it really does feel like the Democrats produce the stronger orators. I can bet you that people will probably remember "Bill Clinton gave a great speech" and "Clint Eastwood talked to a chair" a week or so from now. The title is "U.S. 2012 General Election". The other candidates should be included on pure principle. Besides that though, the two factions in the OP both support child slavery. It would be nice to have a moderate represented. What? Was mildly curious myself, in his statement... I posted a question a few pages back asking about how insurance deals with ex-military people? Do they consider them to have pre-existing conditions if they received injuries during war? Before the ACA, how did they get insurance - is there a government fund for these people? I'm not sure on the specifics but as far as I'm aware the department of veterans affairs provides limited healthcare to ex-military. I think it only covers conditions that are a direct result of military service tho, including possible psychiatric disorders. Also, for those of you that run: http://www.paulryantimecalculator.com/I could have qualified for the olympics . I'll shoot the question to a few friends in the military and see their responses as well. I wasn't sure, because I do hear of a few stories where military personnel return home, and don't get the care they need. But most of those stories tend to not have much info attached to them, so I was just curious. My stance is that I am for more pay for military personnel, more training, better tour rotations, and better benefits/healthcare after leaving. I am opposed to military spending increase that does not provide for the personnel directly. And may I ask what the joke is with the Paul Ryan calculator? I understand that it seems to decrease my running time (hey, 5 minute mile wewt) - but I must have missed the subject that caused this joke.
It's not sure on how effective the program is, and there will always be cases where medical care doesn't cover everything I guess.
And Ryan stated in some interview that he once ran a '3, high 2'50's marathon'. Some running magazine actually checked it and found out he ran 4.something and pointed out that the difference between a 4 hour and 3 hour isn't something you'll actually forget ;p.
|
On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad.
Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there.
|
On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote:
[quote]
What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus.
It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there.
Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner.
|
On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment?
Get off the Kool Aid for once. Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner.
If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed?
|
On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote:
[quote]
Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change.
Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed?
Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything.
|
On September 07 2012 00:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 00:52 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:48 kwizach wrote:On September 07 2012 00:43 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2012 00:08 Sadist wrote:On September 06 2012 23:39 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:23 Infernal Knight wrote:On September 06 2012 22:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote:On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities.
As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter.
Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. Tell me... Why is compromise bad? You realize that even if you have a Republican majority House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court, there's still about half of the country that's voted Democratic. You really think that compromising is evil? If you had the ability to govern entirely as you pleased and you went ahead and did that for two or four years and never compromised, do you really think it's a good idea to ignore the wishes of roughly half of America? If that's not your personal position, then I apologize, but I've never really understood the modern conservative's allergy to compromise. It all depends upon what is being compromised. For example, if republicans agreed to gutting 2nd Amendment rights I exchange for something else, I probably wouldn't be happy. Well, the problem is right now the republicans arent willing to compromise on anything. It seems like we cant even agree on the facts for certain issues. Right now its far beyond just compromising, the two sides don't even see reality the same way. It is pretty sad. Well, I'd argue that Obama's poisoning of the well is the principle reason for the lack of compromise. Just go back and look at what Rahm said about the stimulus bill. That didn't exactly get things off to a great start, and it all went downhill from there. Give me a break, as if Rahm Emanuel's comment had anything to do with the deliberate Republican strategy to block Obama at every corner. If someone takes a shit on you, you're probably not going to want to do that person any favors, agreed? Yes, let's pretend the Republicans were happily going to be working with Obama until Emanuel said those words and changed everything.
Well, we can't really pretend that because the stimulus package was the very first thing that Obama and the democrats worked on after Obama was elected. Basically, I'm saying that Obama poisoned the well right off the bat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
