Obama for change?

[SEVERUSMAX]

I come from a family of conservative Republicans (some of whom held/hold office).

However, I keep the formation of my political views to myself--and I certainly wish we didn't have to suffer the gurgling over of your process and your running from one extreme to another and badmouthing yesterday's--and anyone else's--convictions. You'd make a great fundamental Christian megachurch groupie, I think.

Boy, you have a talent for judging and hypocrisy! You bad mouth everyone's viewpoints (which I haven't done, even when I indicate that I dissent from them) at every possible turn, and then have the nerve to accuse me of that.

And if you've changed your politics before, you have no basis for slamming me because I've changed mine for only the second time in my life.

And for the record, even when I was a fundamentalist, I was never a "megachurch groupie". Talk about painting folks with broad strokes!

My point was that I have only repudiated an ideology twice in my life, and then only for sound reasons of conscience. I wasn't "gurgling over" any process. I never "ran from one extreme to the other". I simply shed aspects of my parents' world-view in two stages. I didn't bring up my political conversion on this thread until I had to defend myself because you launched an ad hominem attack on me for switching my views.

With your vicious style of vitriolic attack, you're a perfect mirror image of those whom you claim to despise. When you do something, you consider it right. But when others do something even remotely similar, you jump down their throats. You're shockingly blind to your inconsistencies, which makes it even worse.

Consider your place on ignore to be permanent this time, because you have crossed the line from political attack to personal insult, and my patience with you has evaporated. I don't put up with such vicious slights and affronts. I would say "farewell", but I'm too honest to express well-wishing when I don't feel it.

I give up on you and attempt to make you see reason. I just don't care if you do. You're a vile, pontificating hypocrite.

 

[sr71plt]

And if you've changed your politics before, you have no basis for slamming me because I've changed mine for only the second time in my life.

Then I must have a basis for slamming you--because I nowhere here have said I've ever changed my politics.

My point was that I have only repudiated an ideology twice in my life, and then only for sound reasons of conscience. I wasn't "gurgling over" any process. I never "ran from one extreme to the other". I simply shed aspects of my parents' world-view in two stages. I didn't bring up my political conversion on this thread until I had to defend myself because you launched an ad hominem attack on me for switching my views.

As I noted (the "gurgling over"), you've subjected this forum ad nauseum to your pained ideology swings--each time indicating anyone who didn't follow your ideology of the hour was some kind of dunderhead who it was your mission in life to enlighten.

Consider your place on ignore to be permanent this time, because you have crossed the line from political attack to personal insult, and my patience with you has evaporated.

Gawd, if you'd only stop talking about doing it and just do it, that would be great. Then I could comment on your comments and you'd never know what I said and thus wouldn't come back ad naseum with your ideology of the hour that you mistakenly assume we all are interested in.

 

[Guest]

But what about the crackers?

I'm hungry.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Time for the USA to declare chapter 11. That would allow us time to restructure/reorganize, pay off our debts, and come back as a great power.

 

[rgraham666]

Good idea. After all Western Civilization is founded on the reneging of debt.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Good idea. After all Western Civilization is founded on the reneging of debt.

Well, the debt should be paid off, but on a reasonable schedule. But this way would give the USA a chance to breathe while repaying, not to mention providing debt relief for ordinary folks who are swamped with it. Personal responsibility is good, but allowing the economy to die of a principle makes no more sense than the Confederacy suiciding (as it did, which was predicted by Jefferson Davis) of a theory. Debts should be repaid, but a sort of national forbearance would provide a chance to stop the national hemorrhage.

But Solon had some good programs for his time. There are worse examples to follow.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I come from a family of conservative Republicans (some of whom held/hold office).

However, I keep the formation of my political views to myself--and I certainly wish we didn't have to suffer the gurgling over of your process and your running from one extreme to another and badmouthing yesterday's--and anyone else's--convictions. You'd make a great fundamental Christian megachurch groupie, I think.

Well, you are a fine one to complain. You probably do as much bad-mouthing - or bad keyboarding - as anybody else on the forum.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Things are moving along nicely, aren't they?

I'm quite pleased with the no bullshit/feet on the ground/prepared for battle attitude that the Obama camp has, two whole months before he'll be president.

It's quite a refreshing change from the reactionary unprepared crap we've had to deal with for so very long.

I hope you are right but, just as we should wait until he takes office before we pillory him, we should also wait the same length of time before we praise him.

 

[midwestyankee]

I hope you are right but, just as we should wait until he takes office before we pillory him, we should also wait the same length of time before we praise him.

What's the difference as long as we're talking about observable actions and not assumptions? I have no problem with someone who wants to criticize a choice that the President Elect makes for his staff or cabinet but I do have a problem with people being critical of him based on mere assumptions about how he'll act in office. Similarly, it makes perfect sense to praise the guy right now if he's doing worthwhile things.

 

[DesertPirate]

What's the difference as long as we're talking about observable actions and not assumptions? I have no problem with someone who wants to criticize a choice that the President Elect makes for his staff or cabinet but I do have a problem with people being critical of him based on mere assumptions about how he'll act in office. Similarly, it makes perfect sense to praise the guy right now if he's doing worthwhile things.

Based on who he has chosen, we are going back to Clinton. Time to cut the intelligence budget and gut the military again. That's how Draft Dodger Bill balanced the budget. Of course look at the great intelligence we had because of it, 9-11, Iraq ...

 

[midwestyankee]

Based on who he has chosen, we are going back to Clinton. Time to cut the intelligence budget and gut the military again. That's how Draft Dodger Bill balanced the budget. Of course look at the great intelligence we had because of it, 9-11, Iraq ...

So the choice is to choose people who are experienced in government or those who are inexperienced. Apparently you think it was a bad idea to pick people with experience.

If he's to pick folks with experience, then that experience can come from having worked in either Bush administration or with the Clinton administration. Just about anyone who worked for an earlier president would be too old.

So apparently you'd rather see Obama hire former Republican administration staffers than Democrats. Fine, but that's not a likely thing given that we're dealing with a two-party oppositional political system.

What's your point, then?

Or are you so sure of how people will apply themselves to complex future problems that you can judge their actions now, in advance?

 

[Guest]

Wise words, Sir Yankee, but you won't convince these folks.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertPirate
Based on who he has chosen, we are going back to Clinton. Time to cut the intelligence budget and gut the military again. That's how Draft Dodger Bill balanced the budget. Of course look at the great intelligence we had because of it, 9-11, Iraq ...

So the choice is to choose people who are experienced in government or those who are inexperienced. Apparently you think it was a bad idea to pick people with experience.

If he's to pick folks with experience, then that experience can come from having worked in either Bush administration or with the Clinton administration. Just about anyone who worked for an earlier president would be too old.

So apparently you'd rather see Obama hire former Republican administration staffers than Democrats. Fine, but that's not a likely thing given that we're dealing with a two-party oppositional political system.

What's your point, then?

Or are you so sure of how people will apply themselves to complex future problems that you can judge their actions now, in advance?

Choosing those of proven competency is good. Choosing those with a history of screwing up is not good. Just how much did Holder have to do with pardoning terrorists?

 

[midwestyankee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertPirate
Based on who he has chosen, we are going back to Clinton. Time to cut the intelligence budget and gut the military again. That's how Draft Dodger Bill balanced the budget. Of course look at the great intelligence we had because of it, 9-11, Iraq ...




Choosing those of proven competency is good. Choosing those with a history of screwing up is not good. Just how much did Holder have to do with pardoning terrorists?

Terrorists? By whose definition and in which specific cases?

And speaking of choosing people with a history...

Just how much did Dick Cheney have to do with protecting terrorists in order to further his own ends?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertPirate
Based on who he has chosen, we are going back to Clinton. Time to cut the intelligence budget and gut the military again. That's how Draft Dodger Bill balanced the budget. Of course look at the great intelligence we had because of it, 9-11, Iraq ...

Choosing those of proven competency is good. Choosing those with a history of screwing up is not good. Just how much did Holder have to do with pardoning terrorists?

Terrorists? By whose definition and in which specific cases?

And speaking of choosing people with a history...

Just how much did Dick Cheney have to do with protecting terrorists in order to further his own ends?

This describes what I referred to. I don't know just how unbiased the article. Even if they're biased, the facts might speak for themselves.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008...ey-general-helped-to-get-terrorists-pardoned/

The link you posted is to MSNBCNews, and quotes anonymous sources. It might be right, but I don't know how much credence can be put into it. If it is correct, maybe that would be the WMD smoking gun.

ETA: I didn't see any reference to Cheney but, even if he was involved, it was long after he became VP.

 

[midwestyankee]

This describes what I referred to. I don't know just how unbiased the article. Even if they're biased, the facts might speak for themselves.

http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008...ey-general-helped-to-get-terrorists-pardoned/

The link you posted is to MSNBCNews, and quotes anonymous sources. It might be right, but I don't know how much credence can be put itto it. If it is correct, maybe that would be the WMD smoking gun.

Exactly. There's more where that article comes from but it was mostly to counter the point that experience and credibility are all they're cracked up to be.

As for Mr. Holder, you might want to read a less biased story. The item that you linked is virtually all opinion with almost no factual content.

Try this from The Washington Post.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Exactly. There's more where that article comes from but it was mostly to counter the point that experience and credibility are all they're cracked up to be.

As for Mr. Holder, you might want to read a less biased story. The item that you linked is virtually all opinion with almost no factual content.

Try this from The Washington Post.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but the link you have there is also all spin and opinion. And, it is about a different, also bad pardon, not a pardon for terrorists.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, you are a fine one to complain. You probably do as much bad-mouthing - or bad keyboarding - as anybody else on the forum.

Oh? Pull everything I posted out and let's see if they aren't about the most balanced of anyone who has posted here. (Should be easy enough. Aren't all of my posts of some time available by clicking on my name here)?

No picking and choosing of just what pleases now--although I know that's your specialty.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by midwestyankee
Exactly. There's more where that article comes from but it was mostly to counter the point that experience and credibility are all they're cracked up to be.

As for Mr. Holder, you might want to read a less biased story. The item that you linked is virtually all opinion with almost no factual content.

Try this from The Washington Post.

I don't know if you noticed or not, but the link you have there is also all spin and opinion. And, it is about a different, also bad pardon, not a pardon for terrorists.

Here is a tape of Holder trying to defend the indefensible in front of Congress.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/11/eric-holder-caught-on-tape-defending.html

 

[Boxlicker101]

Oh? Pull everything I posted out and let's see if they aren't about the most balanced of anyone who has posted here. (Should be easy enough. Aren't all of my posts of some time available by clicking on my name here)?

No picking and choosing of just what pleases now--although I know that's your specialty.

According to the numbers under your AV, you have over 5,000 posts here. No way am I going to pull all of them up to analyze them. However, here is a thead that I started and that is still active. Some of your ten posts on it are neutral and some are unbalanced attacks on me.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=627497

 

[sr71plt]

According to the numbers under your AV, you have over 5,000 posts here. No way am I going to pull all of them up to analyze them. However, here is a thead that I started and that is still active. Some of your ten posts on it are neutral and some are unbalanced attacks on me.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=627497

Well, gee, if you didn't take all of my posts my posts, how could you make any sort of judgment as you did on the balance of my posts?

I don't think you could.

As usual, I think you started with the conclusion you wanted and made your assertions fit it.

 

[DesertPirate]

What about Holders part in the stormtrooper raid to change the custody of a child? Remember Elian Gonzales?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, gee, if you didn't take all of my posts my posts, how could you make any sort of judgment as you did on the balance of my posts?

I don't think you could.

As usual, I think you started with the conclusion you wanted and made your assertions fit it.

I said : "Well, you are a fine one to complain. You probably do as much bad-mouthing - or bad keyboarding - as anybody else on the forum.

I made that judgement from personal observation, mostly the posts you aimed at me. I will add the most recent one to the score. I have no intentions of taking the time to prove what I already know to be true, and what any other interested person could find out for themselves.

 

[sr71plt]

Ino intentions of tsking the time to prove what I already know to be true, and what any other interested person could find out for themselves.

I'm quite comfortable with that, thanks.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

One source of revenue that would be better than an income tax hike is to impose an excise on plastic bags of one cent each.