- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Kobie has quite a bit of emotional investment in this president.
Why is he E-yelling at you anyway? :lol: Are some of these people SO invested in Obama? He's just another crappy politician, and people need to come to terms with that.
OK, I'll explain it AGAIN.
"Hope and Change" is a SLOGAN. It looks nice on a t-shirt, or a bumper sticker, or a campaign banner.
"I'll run the most transparent administration in history" or "I'll close Guantanamo Bay" is a campaign PROMISE. Ones he didn't live up to. How is this not clear?
Don't disagree. The lack of cooperation is not entirely his fault as the Reps are largely to blame, but at the same time I'm not so sure he's an easy person to work with, either.
No, not necessarily. A slogan *can be* innocuous, yes, as "I Like Ike" was. All it was was a way to keep Ike's name relevant, and all it meant was a person indicating their support of the candidate, nothing more. A slogan such as "Hope and Change" has meaning, and is more of a promise. Words have meaning regardless of whether they're in a speech or on a bumper sticker.
Goodness, all of those things are included in the "hope and change" speeches he made. Like you've been told, words have meaning. He promised to "change" things, did he not?
No, not necessarily. A slogan *can be* innocuous, yes, as "I Like Ike" was. All it was was a way to keep Ike's name relevant, and all it meant was a person indicating their support of the candidate, nothing more. A slogan such as "Hope and Change" has meaning, and is more of a promise. Words have meaning regardless of whether they're in a speech or on a bumper sticker.
Kobie has quite a bit of emotional investment in this president.
He DID "change" things, did he not? Just maybe not the things each specific voter wanted "changed."
By this absurd rationale, even one broken campaign promise means the overall "Hope and Change" SLOGAN was somehow "broken." I put that in quotes because you can't break a campaign slogan. I seriously cannot understand why you're having so much trouble differentiating between the two. This has nothing to do with being "invested in Obama," as you so absurdly claimed earlier in the thread. This has to do with understanding the fundamental difference between types of political rhetoric.
Yes, words have meaning. And "slogan" and "promise" do not mean the same thing.
Yup, sure, he is an AWESOME president. AWESOME!!! If there is a hall of fame for POTUSes, he needs to be there!!! :lamo
It is nice to see the Liberals on here struggling with Obamas broken promise of "Hope and Change".
Agreed.
For example, the sitting President has pretty much zero influence over gas prices, but they still get the credit if prices go down or the blame if prices go up.
The sitting President has a little more influence over the economy in general, but not near the influence that most people seem to think. It's a minor influence and usually delayed in effect.
It's nice to see another person who doesn't know the difference between a campaign slogan and a campaign promise.
Like I said, it sure is fun watching Liberals struggling with the broken promise of "Hope and Change". They are still clinging to the LIAR in CHIEFS broken promise.
I'll never forget when he said to John McCain, something on the idea of "well, I'm the president, not you." It just struck me as EXTREMELY arrogant, in bad taste for a sitting president, and very juvenile.
To be clear, this was during his first term when there were some televised arguments about health care. The republicans were trying to introduce their plan at the time.
Inexperience maybe? After all his total experience in government was just 2 years as a senator. But he was right, during his first two years in office and when Obamacare was first passed, he and the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote. That is until Brown took over Kennedy's seat. Perhaps Obama thought the Democrats would always maintain those huge advantages.
Inexperience maybe? After all his total experience in government was just 2 years as a senator. But he was right, during his first two years in office and when Obamacare was first passed, he and the Democrats didn't need a single Republican vote. That is until Brown took over Kennedy's seat. Perhaps Obama thought the Democrats would always maintain those huge advantages.
Yes, I'm so emotionally invested in him that when 2012 rolled around, I voted third party. Maybe you should pay more attention to what I actually post, rather than what you want to see.
You are a strong defender of Obama. Its no secret.
Well, his first two years in federal government, anyway.
And actually, the Dems didn't have enough votes to break cloture until Franken was seated, which took until July 7, 2009.
Well, his first two years in federal government, anyway.
And actually, the Dems didn't have enough votes to break cloture until Franken was seated, which took until July 7, 2009.
Aren't Saturdays suppose to be no clown days on the DP unless the topic is about how politicians are elected to office by voter fraud ?
I like how you got around that by saying "seated" instead of elected.
Don't disagree. The lack of cooperation is not entirely his fault as the Reps are largely to blame, but at the same time I'm not so sure he's an easy person to work with, either.
Obama has never had to prove himself until he was elected President. He was nothing more than a community organizer. People fell in love with his speeches. He has proven over and over that NONE of his speeches has any substance at all. Obama is not only a liar but a proven hypocrite over and over again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?