'Obama Deceives the Public'

[ReverendHellh0und]

Or.. perhaps it tells you that you taunted for no reason.

This is the Good Reverend you speak of. No reason is an awesome reason.


(or it could be my other thread proving the fedgovs role by law in the bp oil clean up was avoided like the plague by our more enthusastic true believers and my dismay spilled over i to this one.) :shrug:

 

[Slartibartfast]

Or.. perhaps it tells you that you taunted for no reason.

I have to agree with CC on this one. Most of the time when I look at these types of threads, I just think "meh, more nitpicky I hate Obama crap from yet another Conservative" and go about my business. The way I see it, Conservatives are going to find a way to rail against Obama, no matter what he does, good or bad, so why even bother responding :shrug: (in most cases, I ran out of other stuff to read and its not time to go to work yet.)

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Hmm seems to me the wheels may be coming off the bus. With the likes of charlie rengel critisizing obama and other leftwingers dissatisfied with the man, that his chances or re-election will be pretty slim imo.

He doesn't sound like he knows something that people haven't been talking about here and there, right now. . . unlike in 1971 where his information changed the way things worked.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I have to agree with CC on this one. Most of the time when I look at these types of threads, I just think "meh, more nitpicky I hate Obama crap from yet another Conservative" and go about my business. The way I see it, Conservatives are going to find a way to rail against Obama, no matter what he does, good or bad, so why even bother responding :shrug: (in most cases, I ran out of other stuff to read and its not time to go to work yet.)

It could be that, or it could be that there has been a significant falling out in regards to the fawning over Obama. Do you deny this? I've pointed out two, we can add Carville to this as well... Why is this considered "nitpicky"?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have to agree with CC on this one. Most of the time when I look at these types of threads, I just think "meh, more nitpicky I hate Obama crap from yet another Conservative" and go about my business. The way I see it, Conservatives are going to find a way to rail against Obama, no matter what he does, good or bad, so why even bother responding :shrug: (in most cases, I ran out of other stuff to read and its not time to go to work yet.)

Actually, my point was a different one, to some extent. Reverend's comment implied the following: "Gee, I wonder why no liberals have come here defending Obama? Could it be that they recognize that his support is dwindling and they don't want to admit that "their man" is not doing well?" I propose another possibility. Perhaps, liberals think that Ellsberg was wrong and agree with what Obama is doing, even though some of these things are not what one would think that a liberal President would do. Are extreme liberals unhappy with Obama? I'm sure, and since their voices are the loudest... as are most extremists, their voices are the ones being heard. Moderate liberals can see that the things that he is doing around the war is appropriate. But this also brings on another issue that I agree with mega on. Wouldn't matter what Obama did. Some conservatives would attack him, anyway. Consider this, when Obama wanted to set a time frame on the wars, conservatives were screaming that this wasn't appropriate. Now that he has abandoned his time frame because he sees it wasn't appropriate, conservatives are screaming that he didn't keep his promises. This is hypocrisy at it's best, and folks who do that are demonstrating their partisan hackery. I'm not saying that Reverend is doing that, because I think the point of his thread was around why liberals weren't posting, but may no mistake. Any conservative who complained about the time frame and now complains about the not keeping of that promise is a hack and is not interested in the country, but just interested in slamming Obama.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Actually, my point was a different one, to some extent. Reverend's comment implied the following: "Gee, I wonder why no liberals have come here defending Obama? Could it be that they recognize that his support is dwindling and they don't want to admit that "their man" is not doing well?" I propose another possibility. Perhaps, liberals think that Ellsberg was wrong and agree with what Obama is doing, even though some of these things are not what one would think that a liberal President would do. Are extreme liberals unhappy with Obama? I'm sure, and since their voices are the loudest... as are most extremists, their voices are the ones being heard. Moderate liberals can see that the things that he is doing around the war is appropriate. But this also brings on another issue that I agree with mega on. Wouldn't matter what Obama did. Some conservatives would attack him, anyway. Consider this, when Obama wanted to set a time frame on the wars, conservatives were screaming that this wasn't appropriate. Now that he has abandoned his time frame because he sees it wasn't appropriate, conservatives are screaming that he didn't keep his promises. This is hypocrisy at it's best, and folks who do that are demonstrating their partisan hackery. I'm not saying that Reverend is doing that, because I think the point of his thread was around why liberals weren't posting, but may no mistake. Any conservative who complained about the time frame and now complains about the not keeping of that promise is a hack and is not interested in the country, but just interested in slamming Obama.

I must admit, I have been known to throw out the "18 months" thing, but that's more sarcasm than hypocrisy. :ssst:



:mrgreen:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I must admit, I have been known to throw out the "18 months" thing, but that's more sarcasm than hypocrisy. :ssst:



:mrgreen:

That's fine, Reverend... and I think I've noticed that in your tone. Just pointing out the importance of consistency. Wasn't directed at you.

 

[Glinda]

Moderate liberals can see that the things that he is doing around the war is appropriate. But this also brings on another issue that I agree with mega on. Wouldn't matter what Obama did. Some conservatives would attack him, anyway. Consider this, when Obama wanted to set a time frame on the wars, conservatives were screaming that this wasn't appropriate. Now that he has abandoned his time frame because he sees it wasn't appropriate, conservatives are screaming that he didn't keep his promises. This is hypocrisy at it's best, and folks who do that are demonstrating their partisan hackery. Any conservative who complained about the time frame and now complains about the not keeping of that promise is a hack and is not interested in the country, but just interested in slamming Obama.

BINGO. Give that man a cigar!

I'm not saying that Reverend is doing that, because I think the point of his thread was around why liberals weren't posting

1. The main point of this thread is a failed attempt at conservative trolling.

1a. The complaints about "not enough liberals posting" is Rev's needy ego crying out for attention.

2. You've clearly identified the reason liberals aren't posting in this thread (something reasonable people recognize immediately):

It wouldn't matter what Obama did or didn't do; some conservatives would attack him, anyway. :doh​

Essentially, offering a reasonable response in these troll threads of Rev's is useless and foolish. Big waste of time.

Just like the OP.

So, no. I have nothing to say about the actual topic because it is obvious trollery. I mean, the guy admits his goal is "taunting" people. As a mod, isn't such trolling something you should be issuing infractions for?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

BINGO. Give that man a cigar!



1. The main point of this thread is a failed attempt at conservative trolling.

Actually it wasn't, however I did admit to "taunting" in a friendly manner in order to see what some of our left wing posters thought of this seemingly growing wave of disatisfaction with president Obama.

1a. The complaints about "not enough liberals posting" is Rev's needy ego crying out for attention.

If you want to get with playa shorteh, just ask... impdaddy:


The ego is needy, because it is large, huge actually, the Greatness that is the Good Reverend quite fond of himself..... As obviously you are as well.

2. You've clearly identified the reason liberals aren't posting in this thread (something reasonable people recognize immediately):

Nah, he offered an opinion. Sorta like my other thread where I outlined by law how the federal government was responsible for cleanup. While that thread had no play, some of the bigger mouth foamers on your side were spending pages blaming bush as usual.

It wouldn't matter what Obama did or didn't do; some conservatives would attack him, anyway. :doh​

I've applauded several of his decisions. Feel free to use the search feature.

Essentially, offering a reasonable response in these troll threads of Rev's is useless and foolish. Big waste of time.

Just like the OP.

yet here you are shorteh, just can't leave playa alone.... .:ssst:

So, no. I have nothing to say about the actual topic because it is obvious trollery. I mean, the guy admits his goal is "taunting" people. As a mod, isn't such trolling something you should be issuing infractions for?

I pay him REALLY REALLY well. eace

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Firstly, I've already said my peace on the issue of the thread and why I think liberals haven't posted. As a liberal, I agree with Obama not sticking to the time frame in Iraq and Afghanastan. I could care less whether he kept this promise or not. Things changed and he needed to alter his position. Good for him for seeing that. My issue is more with the conservative response to things like this.

So, no. I have nothing to say about the actual topic because it is obvious trollery. I mean, the guy admits his goal is "taunting" people. As a mod, isn't such trolling something you should be issuing infractions for?

Moderator's Warning:

If you have concerns about moderation, do NOT address them publicly.

 

[jujuman13]

Completely off subject.

Moderator's Warning:
If you have concerns about moderation, do NOT address them publicly.

Why not?

 

[Slartibartfast]

It could be that, or it could be that there has been a significant falling out in regards to the fawning over Obama. Do you deny this? I've pointed out two, we can add Carville to this as well... Why is this considered "nitpicky"?

I don't think its anything you said in particular and I will admit that sometimes I lump you in with the hacks, whether it is deserved or not. But after a while it just feels like that conservatives just want to slam Obama no matter what he does, they will find a reason why whatever he does it is bad and they will believe any lie, nutjob, conspiracy, or bend any logic to its breaking point to achieve their desired conclusion. Its just annoying and makes me often feel like that have no vision for the country beyond "Obama sucks, liberals suck" and anyone with an attitude like that is simply not worth responding to unless I am in a mood to shut them down. And of course they never learn their lesson and they are right back at it in the next thread spreading their hate and lies and basically doing nothing positive for the country itself.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Completely off subject.

Moderator's Warning:
If you have concerns about moderation, do NOT address them publicly.

Why not?

Moderator's Warning:

Please read rule 6A and ONLY address issues regarding moderation via PM.

 

[Boo Radley]

Firstly, I've already said my peace on the issue of the thread and why I think liberals haven't posted. As a liberal, I agree with Obama not sticking to the time frame in Iraq and Afghanastan. I could care less whether he kept this promise or not. Things changed and he needed to alter his position. Good for him for seeing that. My issue is more with the conservative response to things like this.

Moderator's Warning:

If you have concerns about moderation, do NOT address them publicly.

On Iraq, I agree. Once the Iraqis set a timeline, that was fine. We're going in the right direction.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't think its anything you said in particular and I will admit that sometimes I lump you in with the hacks, whether it is deserved or not. But after a while it just feels like that conservatives just want to slam Obama no matter what he does, they will find a reason why whatever he does it is bad and they will believe any lie, nutjob, conspiracy, or bend any logic to its breaking point to achieve their desired conclusion. Its just annoying and makes me often feel like that have no vision for the country beyond "Obama sucks, liberals suck" and anyone with an attitude like that is simply not worth responding to unless I am in a mood to shut them down. And of course they never learn their lesson and they are right back at it in the next thread spreading their hate and lies and basically doing nothing positive for the country itself.

You can ask CC, I have started probably a dozen threads on Obama that were supportive. When he does something I agree with, I say so. I also have defended him against morons who thinks he's a kenyan muslim who smokes crack and does the gay sex....


My point however in this thread, is that a thread on the above topics will go on for 10 pages at times, while my thread, highlighting the responsibility of the federal government per the 1994 law, and Obama's imo failures in dealing with the gulf spill will get 3 responses....



Furthermore it's a two way street. You have morons on your side who think that Palin really stated she could see her house from her front porch, and that her grand child is really hers... It's simply not a one sided affair, heck, remember when we had that guy Bush in office? :shock: