Obama supporters losing their faith?

[monicasilver]

If that's the flip...then I guess...but it was the reasonable thing to do in order to keep the nothing issue from dominating an election when the country is heading up shit creek.

It isn't a minimal issue. It is a significant one. It isn't the end of the world, but it needs to be addressed. That is why he gets a C- from me. He didn't fail, but he was a flip flopper.

If you don't play every negative thing, then you're really not being objective. They guy is human.

Also, I still think President Barlett should run.

 

[ForumModeregulator]

so i am pretty uneducated about all these topics, but what gets me the most is that all these people who found it so trendy to bash Bush, how do they feel? Bush had the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act...Obama has Afghanistan and expanding taps to the damned INTERNET...so wtf, this is what you wanted...this is what you got...

If you bashed Bush, then where the hell is your voice now? You should be outraged...shouldnt you?

 

[Hot Mega]

They guy is human.

That's the point of it to me. I'm not sure it could have been handled better...If you think so and it's a significant issue to you...be specific about what he should/could have done differently. You said it yourself, "They (sic) guy is human." You say this but in the next breath you seem to expect him to handle a difficult situation not of his making perfectly.

Again, I'm not clear on the specifics of what you're calling a flip flop.

I'm not in disagreement with you because frankly, you have cited anything specific to agree or disagree on.

so i am pretty uneducated about all these topics, but what gets me the most is that all these people who found it so trendy to bash Bush, how do they feel? Bush had the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act...Obama has Afghanistan and expanding taps to the damned INTERNET...so wtf, this is what you wanted...this is what you got...

If you bashed Bush, then where the hell is your voice now? You should be outraged...shouldnt you?

Well, the whole world was with Bush when he invaded Afghanistan. He sort of lost steam on that support when he invaded Iraq. All but his staunchest defenders began to see the whole thing as a farce after that.

To people like me who believe there is a network at large responsible for murdering Americans and plotting to murder more which needs to be taken down...Obama increasing the effort in Afghanistan was a good thing.

Who knows if it's salvageable at this point but he is doing all that can be done short of total deployment to the region in order to break up this network.

I'm not sure what you mean by expanding taps to the internet. And the fact of the matter is Bush wasn't criticized for merely wiretapping. He was criticized rightfully for creating a policy which circumvented the court system and engaging in it without warrants.:2 cents:

 

[pool_hustler]

...so wtf, this is what you wanted...this is what you got...

I got pretty much what I wanted. An extremely intelligent, diligent, earnest, hard-working pragmatist who understands the value of genuine diplomacy but isn't afraid to bring the hammer down when necessary.

That's a complete departure from eight years of the bumbling, bombastic, easily duped, born-again Chiristian neocon with a messiah complex that preceded him.

I have my doubts about Obama's strong commitment to the war in Afghanistan, but then I'm not privy to all the factors that determine that decision. Better a full commitment (or a full withdrawal) than Bush's half-assed, stranded in limbo one.

 

[monicasilver]

I'm not in disagreement with you because frankly, you have cited anything (sic) specific to agree or disagree on.

Sure I have. I'm just not going to do any more work for you because you haven't shown objectivity on the topic.

I do think you post some of the most thoughtful posting. You're one of the brightest people I've had teh pleasure of bantering with.

Now, I have to go and find some more of your more perverted posting!

 

[Hot Mega]

Sure I have. I'm just not going to do any more work for you because you haven't shown objectivity on the topic.

I do think you post some of the most thoughtful posting. You're one of the brightest people I've had teh pleasure of bantering with.

Now, I have to go and find some more of your more perverted posting!

Another impasse. Again, if a person is going to hold a position on an issue the onus is on them in my book to be specific enough that examples of what they're talking about don't have to be fished for.

It's pretty silly to think someone is going to try and fish around only to come back asking, "is this what you're talking about, is this what you're referring to, is this what you meant, is this when, etc., etc., etc., etc.,....................................................................................................................................................."

That's silly and not intellectually honest.

Alleging a flip flop and chronicling some debatable order of events you think you recollect without specific references to back it up is not being "specific" enough to make the discussion 2 sided (worthwhile).

 

[sporty_carr]

Hope and change are not a strategy.

Sure they are. It's just not a very good strategy.

Come next election, Obama can hope to win.............he's just going to be really sad when the Presidency changes.

 

[Hot Mega]

Sure they are. It's just not a very good strategy.

Come next election, Obama can hope to win.............he's just going to be really sad when the Presidency changes.

It most certainly isn't a "very good strategy" because it was never a "strategy" to begin with...it was a slogan. In the entire history of presidential campaigns, Obama's is apparently the first time his opponents can't figure out the difference from a "strategy" and a slogan.

Here are John McCain's slogans from his campaign (he had them too).

"Country First"
"The Original Maverick"
"Best Prepared to Lead from Day One"
"Experienced Leadership, Bold Solutions"
"A leader we can believe in"
"Reform Prosperity Peace"

Where do you find a "strategy" among that??? How about a "strategy" in GWB's "Compassionate Conservatism" slogan?



How do you guys sit around listening to GOPer talking heads all day saying this and never stop to think for yourselves the difference between a slogan and a "strategy"?? I have to imagine it's just willful ignorance....sounds good so let's roll with it.

 

[monicasilver]

Another impasse. Again, if a person is going to hold a position on an issue the onus is on them in my book to be specific enough that examples of what they're talking about don't have to be fished for.

It's pretty silly to think someone is going to try and fish around only to come back asking, "is this what you're talking about, is this what you're referring to, is this what you meant, is this when, etc., etc., etc., etc.,....................................................................................................................................................."

That's silly and not intellectually honest.

Alleging a flip flop and chronicling some debatable order of events you think you recollect without specific references to back it up is not being "specific" enough to make the discussion 2 sided (worthwhile).

Now you are just name calling. You're just holding a position at this point and not having an intellectual discussion. If we were having an intellectual discussion it wouldn't be just to "prove me wrong". So, I can reference, I've spent lots of time and fully understand primary, secondary, and teriary sources and the proper way to cite them. I'm not interested in that. Once I fully cited a source, you would only disqualify it in some way.

I was hoping (on a porn board! lol!) for an open and intellectually honest discussion. If I wanted to see liberals or conservatives stick to their position and not consider both sides of an issues I would turn on MSNBC and Fox News.

Any way, I really don't care about winning points. My point was that he is human and has his own mistakes and predjudices, like every human.

I'll leave the battleground to you.

 

[Hot Mega]

Now you are just name calling. You're just holding a position at this point and not having an intellectual discussion. If we were having an intellectual discussion it wouldn't be just to "prove me wrong". So, I can reference, I've spent lots of time and fully understand primary, secondary, and teriary sources and the proper way to cite them. I'm not interested in that. Once I fully cited a source, you would only disqualify it in some way.

I was hoping (on a porn board! lol!) for an open and intellectually honest discussion. If I wanted to see liberals or conservatives stick to their position and not consider both sides of an issues I would turn on MSNBC and Fox News.

Any way, I really don't care about winning points. My point was that he is human and has his own mistakes and predjudices, like every human.

I'll leave the battleground to you.

'name calling'?? Where?? And the point of asking someone to reasonably back up their claim in a discussion wouldn't be for the sole purpose of dispelling it. Why get cynical?

Dispelling a point is just one option. Having overlooked or missed it...I could simply agree with you when you point it out. Or we could look at the same facts and simply disagree.:dunno:

There have been many times I've simply agreed or disagreed on this board.

I'm not asking of you any more than I would be willing to do to if I expected someone to view my reasoning of an issue as anything beyond emotional bluster.

If your ultimate point in any of these type threads is, "he is human....." why not just say that and leave it at that? I understand that neither one of us is beholden to convincing anyone on this board of anything nor vested in 'winning' some debate. At least I'm not. But why go through the haranguing of making some point then expecting someone else to go fishing around for the specific evidence of how you arrived at your point? Unless it really doesn't stand up to muster and leaving it at unknowable is a face saving mechanism.

 

[monicasilver]

'name calling'?? Where?? And the point of asking someone to reasonably back up their claim in a discussion wouldn't be for the sole purpose of dispelling it. Why get cynical?

Dispelling a point is just one option. Having overlooked or missed it...I could simply agree with you when you point it out. Or we could look at the same facts and simply disagree.:dunno:

There have been many times I've simply agreed or disagreed on this board.

I'm not asking of you any more than I would be willing to do to if I expected someone to view my reasoning of an issue as anything beyond emotional bluster.

If your ultimate point in any of these type threads is, "he is human....." why not just say that and leave it at that? I understand that neither one of us is beholden to convincing anyone on this board of anything nor vested in 'winning' some debate. At least I'm not. But why go through the haranguing of making some point then expecting someone else to go fishing around for the specific evidence of how you arrived at your point? Unless it really doesn't stand up to muster and leaving it at unknowable is a face saving mechanism.

It is not that you are wrong, but you missed my point. I'm not looking to argue. Enjoy the fights...I'm out!

:horse: :horse:

:wtf: :fight: :fight: :fight: :wtf:

:horse: :horse:

 

[Hot Mega]

It is not that you are wrong, but You Missed my point. I'm not looking to argue. Enjoy the fights...I'm out!

Doll...you just keep reading stuff I don't say. It never got down to who's right or wrong...actually it wouldn't even come down to that in the first place.

I'm trying to see if we agree or disagree on the specifics you cited.

Not that I care as much as it might sound but I just thought it worthwhile to look at the same information you used to come to your conclusion to see if I either missed something, agree or disagree.

Again, it's not that important....

 

[monicasilver]

Doll...you just keep reading stuff I don't say. It never got down to who's right or wrong...actually it wouldn't even come down to that in the first place.

I'm trying to see if we agree or disagree on the specifics you cited.

Not that I care as much as it might sound but I just thought it worthwhile to look at the same information you used to come to your conclusion to see if I either missed something, agree or disagree.

Again, it's not that important....

LOL! "Doll" is patronizing.

I gave you the source. As we were told in grad school "RTFB or STFU."

The only reason I responded was because you insulted me by calling me "Doll" in this context. I can understand that the game you play is just sit back and argue. I get how that can be fun. I was disappointed that you chose to insult me.

 

[monicasilver]

Hot Mega, Well, you did get me to take the book off the shelf again.

I flipped it open quickly to chapter 14. I'll type some of what I see:

"Reverend Wright shrugged, "Some of my fellow clergy don't appreciate what we're about. They feel like we're too radical. Others, we ain't radical enough. Too emotional. Not emotional enough. Our emphasis on African history, on scholarship-"…


The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel – the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting titled Hope."

That was a quick reference. The book popped opened to that page because I've read and re-read that part a few times. I'm sure you can understand why. There are other quotes from the book referring to the relationship, but this does show the affect Wright had on him. Obama doesn't deny this. This is the man who married the Obamas and baptized their children. (Note to others, Muslims don't typically baptise their kids)

 

[Hot Mega]

LOL! "Doll" is patronizing.

The only reason I responded was because you insulted me by calling me "Doll" in this context. I can understand that the game you play is just sit back and argue. I get how that can be fun. I was disappointed that you chose to insult me.

Wow. I wasn't trying to be Humphrey Bogart. Whenever I refer to a woman as a "doll" (as in she is a "doll") I mean it in the most complimentary terms. I didn't mean that to be patronizing nor insulting. I don't get personal per se on these type of things (message boards, etc.) but I meant it as a term of endearment in that I find you have redeeming qualities I personally like.

But I suppose that would be perfect examples of a couple of things, like how 2 people can look at the same thing different ways and how a person not understanding the context of an expression taking it the wrong way.

I gave you the source. As we were told in grad school "RTFB or STFU."

First mistake, this isn't a class and we're not in school. We were having a discussion. I've never met a person beyond some instructor, teacher or professor who assigned homework in order to make their point.

So in the real world if someone asked me to what do I attribute a point; assuming I've attempted some specific point or contention based on a statement I'm going to point them to some specific quote or statement in full context.

Hot Mega, Well, you did get me to take the book off the shelf again.

I flipped it open quickly to chapter 14. I'll type some of what I see:

"Reverend Wright shrugged, "Some of my fellow clergy don't appreciate what we're about. They feel like we're too radical. Others, we ain't radical enough. Too emotional. Not emotional enough. Our emphasis on African history, on scholarship-"…

The title of Reverend Wright's sermon that morning was "The Audacity of Hope." He began with a passage from the Book of Samuel – the story of Hannah, who, barren and taunted by her rivals, had wept and shaken in prayer before God. The story reminded him, he said, of a sermon a fellow pastor had preached at a conference some years before, in which the pastor described going to a museum and being confronted by a painting titled Hope."

That was a quick reference. The book popped opened to that page because I've read and re-read that part a few times. I'm sure you can understand why. There are other quotes from the book referring to the relationship, but this does show the affect Wright had on him. Obama doesn't deny this. This is the man who married the Obamas and baptized their children. (Note to others, Muslims don't typically baptise their kids)

I think we agree that Obama has acknowledged/discussed his long relationship with Wright as a Pastor, friend and mentor...Obama likened Wright to a paternal family member. I think he was consistent in his description of the relationship and I think he maintained the general nature of their relationship during his campaign until asked about some of Wright's controversial statements in some sermon circa 2001/2. Obama repudiated them while defending Wright the mentor, Pastor and friend. Obama made his 'race' speech..spoke candidly of his relationship with Wright among other things. Wright subsequently made some other statements once referring to Jews..Obama severed ties with Wright.

Going strictly from memory that's the way I remembered.

Wright made controversial statements in the wake of 9/11 and since we never had a 9/11 before, one of my questions would be is there not only evidence of Wright making similarly controversial statements prior to those but also is there evidence Obama was sitting there listening to it?

I thought Obama handled the issue as well as it could be. You believed he handled it not particularly good nor particularly bad....no problem. I was looking more for your reasoning behind saying he flip flopped...which would be a reason for me to grade him on it lower as well.

 

[monicasilver]

Wow. I wasn't trying to be Humphrey Bogart. Whenever I refer to a woman as a "doll" (as in she is a "doll") I mean it in the most complimentary terms. I didn't mean that to be patronizing nor insulting. I don't get personal per se on these type of things (message boards, etc.) but I meant it as a term of endearment in that I find you have redeeming qualities I personally like.

I think you do like me. I do like you. However, you've just been caught in a lie. You intended it to be patronizing. You're intent was to minimize my point of view. It is ok to admit when you are wrong.

First mistake, this isn't a class and we're not in school. We were having a discussion. I've never met a person beyond some instructor, teacher or professor who assigned homework in order to make their point.

So in the real world if someone asked me to what do I attribute a point; assuming I've attempted some specific point or contention based on a statement I'm going to point them to some specific quote or statement in full context.

Yeah, you didn't understand the reference. Bad communication on my part. It wasn't a reference to class, it was a reference to study groups - "If you didn't read the fucking book, than shut the fuck up." It sounds harsh, but the intention is to say (to the other students), you need to do your homework.

So, you don't get to dictate terms of discussions. That is real life. So, if you aren't knowledgable on a topic, you can't point to the other side and cry. You didn't understand the source. That is ok, but don't whine to me about it.

I think we agree that Obama has acknowledged/discussed his long relationship with Wright as a Pastor, friend and mentor...Obama likened Wright to a paternal family member. I think he was consistent in his description of the relationship and I think he maintained the general nature of their relationship during his campaign until asked about some of Wright's controversial statements in some sermon circa 2001/2. Obama repudiated them while defending Wright the mentor, Pastor and friend. Obama made his 'race' speech..spoke candidly of his relationship with Wright among other things. Wright subsequently made some other statements once referring to Jews..Obama severed ties with Wright.

Going strictly from memory that's the way I remembered.

Wright made controversial statements in the wake of 9/11 and since we never had a 9/11 before, one of my questions would be is there not only evidence of Wright making similarly controversial statements prior to those but also is there evidence Obama was sitting there listening to it?

I thought Obama handled the issue as well as it could be. You believed he handled it not particularly good nor particularly bad....no problem. I was looking more for your reasoning behind saying he flip flopped...which would be a reason for me to grade him on it lower as well.

I'll use this example, just because I know how much you respect the source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=779OGA9shAQ

However, I agree with John McCane, just because someone supports you doesn't mean that you support everything they do. Again, from your favorite source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ed1Tb-vrEww&feature=related

Obviously I'm just teasing you about Fox News. I've told you I'm not a fan of the network.

Obama, at this point has clearly distanced himself from Wright. The reference I gave you was showing the mentor type relationship that Wright had with Obama.

Now the question of flip flopping? Do I have a reference of Obama sitting through offensive dialog. No. Tough to prove or disprove a negative though. I can only draw a line from absolute support to complete distancing. I don't believe people change over night (I think they do change). So, the flip flop isn't what you are looking for.

This the statement I made you have been fussing over:
" It isn't a minimal issue. It is a significant one. It isn't the end of the world, but it needs to be addressed. That is why he gets a C- from me. He didn't fail, but he was a flip flopper."

So, there you go...he didn't handle the situation well. I don't think he could have. A spiritual mentor turns out to have some ugly points of view. I gave the guy a C-. You lose your scholarship for those grades, but you don't fail. I expect more from my president. I'm disappointed.

You may not agree with me, but that is ok. Calling me Doll, Silly, and Intellectually dishonest is mean, patronizing, lazy, and just picking a fight. If you still have a problem with this, I'll stand by my accusation that you are not objective.

Tell me something kinky instead of trying to pick a fight.

 

[monicasilver]

so i am pretty uneducated about all these topics, but what gets me the most is that all these people who found it so trendy to bash Bush, how do they feel? Bush had the war in Iraq, and the Patriot Act...Obama has Afghanistan and expanding taps to the damned INTERNET...so wtf, this is what you wanted...this is what you got...

If you bashed Bush, then where the hell is your voice now? You should be outraged...shouldnt you?

I'm not a supporter of Bush and I'm no longer a support of Obama's.

I agree with your statement. It isn't fair (...and balanced), but life isn't fair I guess.

When I read postings on the web (I'm not going to cite sources other than this discussion board) I see people bash one side and hold them completely accountable, but refuse to admit a problem on the other.:throwup: It is nothing but politics.

I'm taking online classed to get a degree in History as a hobby because it is something that interests me. I see similarities between the end of the Roman Republic and the end of the Roman Empire and what I read online.

I just want to be invited to Caligula's orgy! :love-smi::nannerf1:

 

[Hot Mega]

Now the question of flip flopping? Do I have a reference of Obama sitting through offensive dialog. No. Tough to prove or disprove a negative though. I can only draw a line from absolute support to complete distancing. I don't believe people change over night (I think they do change). So, the flip flop isn't what you are looking for.

This the statement I made you have been fussing over:
" It isn't a minimal issue. It is a significant one. It isn't the end of the world, but it needs to be addressed. That is why he gets a C- from me. He didn't fail, but he was a flip flopper."

So, there you go...he didn't handle the situation well. I don't think he could have. A spiritual mentor turns out to have some ugly points of view. I gave the guy a C-. You lose your scholarship for those grades, but you don't fail. I expect more from my president. I'm disappointed.

Well, I'm pretty much over the minutia of this. I think I get what you're saying and I think we disagree.

I know you were funning with the Fox clip but Fox calling Obama a flip flopper for committing to a person under one circumstance then severing ties with them under another is like calling someone a flip flopper for getting a divorce after the nature of their relationship changes.

I think you do like me. I do like you. However, you've just been caught in a lie. You intended it to be patronizing. You're intent was to minimize my point of view. It is ok to admit when you are wrong.

You may not agree with me, but that is ok. Calling me Doll, Silly, and Intellectually dishonest is mean, patronizing, lazy, and just picking a fight. If you still have a problem with this, I'll stand by my accusation that you are not objective.

"Doll" is not a term I use to belittle nor patronize. I can't speak for other men or what you expect but I absolutely meant no disrespect by that at all. I guess you'd have to know me. If I refer to a woman as "doll" as in "She's a doll"...the last thing I mean it as is an insult.:kiss::horse: Some of the other expressions you cite are intended to be somewhat pejorative though.

Tell me something kinky instead of trying to pick a fight.

Come closer.

 

[HELLRAISER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXxeiL8UV4U&feature=player_embedded



Transcript:

BILL MAHER: And finally, new rule: someone has to explain to me how it is that the Democrats can’t talk about their accomplishments while the Republicans actually campaign on their fuck-ups. Last week President Obama had the frankest town hall meeting I’ve ever seen, and a woman named Velma Hart took the mike and told the president, “I’m exhausted defending you.” Well, if you’re like Velma and you’re tired of making excuses for Obama, just imagine how tired he is of making excuses for you.

[Applause]

I know. Unemployment is high but you’re the one who’s not working, not him. He has a job. And part of it is stopping John Boehner from throwing you off unemployment.

[Applause]

Now, I’m — I am not here to carry water for this or any administration, but the facts of the coming election are Democrats have real accomplishments to run on. Like preventing a depression and forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions. Like stopping the banks from being the useless middle-man on student loans, and lowering taxes for non-rich people. Obama has passed a credit card bill of rights, he restarted stem cell research, and got our ass out of Iraq, and signed a nuclear treaty with Russia – not to mention the intangible of having a president who can pronounce “nuclear.”

[Laughter]

Why can’t the Democrats get props for what they’ve achieved? Oh, I know, I know. Obama is black. He’s used to being denied credit.

[Laughter]

And there’s nothing wrong with being hard on him. He is the president. It’s our job to keep him honest. But when it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you got to grow up and realize there’s a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy.

[Applause]

Of course, the Democrats are disappointing. That’s what makes them Democrats. If they were any more frustrating they’d be your relatives. But in this country, they are all that stands between you and darkest night. You know why their symbol is the letter D? Because it’s a grade that means good enough but just barely. You know why the Republican symbol is R? Because it’s the noise a pirate makes when he robs you and feeds you to a shark.

 

[Trident1]

Maher slips slowly into the dark leftist abyss. He's becoming more fanatic everytime I see him on his pulpit.