Obama Mocked Commissions, Then Established Four

[Zyphlin]

I think the ant-Obama attacks were about as equally empty and rhetoric-like.

I'm not talking about attacks, talking about supporters and campaign rhetoric. Specifically the empty, non-policy focused, slogan type rhetoric. Which, in the last election, was "Hope and Change" on th Democrat side and "Maverick" on the Republican. Again, you tell me which of those two you heard repeated more and more fervantly by their supporters.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Sadly, for America, and for you, the Anti-Obama attacks are proving they were far more on the mark then the rhetoric of the Obama Campaign.

In your opinion. For the most part, I'm pretty OK with what Obama has done so far.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I'm not talking about attacks, talking about supporters and campaign rhetoric. Specifically the empty, non-policy focused, slogan type rhetoric. Which, in the last election, was "Hope and Change" on th Democrat side and "Maverick" on the Republican. Again, you tell me which of those two you heard repeated more and more fervantly by their supporters.

And I'm not talking about the "Maverick" moniker. I'm talking about the "anti- Hope and Change" stuff on the Republican side. Heard that about as much as I heard the "Hope and Change" crap.

 

[Zyphlin]

And I'm not talking about the "Maverick" moniker. I'm talking about the "anti- Hope and Change" stuff on the Republican side. Heard that about as much as I heard the "Hope and Change" crap.

What "anit-hope and change" stuff? What rhetorical non-policy related slogan or theme specifically are you talking about? Vague "rhetoric negative about the other guy" isn't anything that's even debatable because its completely nebulous. Specifics CC, cause I can give you specifics concerning Obama's promises concerning post partisanship, change from politics as usual, etc.

 

[Renae]

In your opinion. For the most part, I'm pretty OK with what Obama has done so far.

A "Progressive" that supports a "Progressive" President? CC... that's... shocking man.

 

[obvious Child]

A "Progressive" that supports a "Progressive" President? CC... that's... shocking man.

You mean like continuing the war in Afghanistan? Keeping Guantanmo bay open? Further expanding military spending? Keeping the domestic spying program Bush had in place?

Progressive you say. Huh. I'd like to see your dictionary.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

A "Progressive" that supports a "Progressive" President? CC... that's... shocking man.

And a conservative that doesn't support a "progressive" President... if that's what you want to call him. MrV... that's... shocking... NOT. :2razz:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You mean like continuing the war in Afghanistan? Keeping Guantanmo bay open? Further expanding military spending? Keeping the domestic spying program Bush had in place?

Progressive you say. Huh. I'd like to see your dictionary.

I've already been down this road on two seperate threads. Don't say I didn't warn you.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

What "anit-hope and change" stuff? What rhetorical non-policy related slogan or theme specifically are you talking about? Vague "rhetoric negative about the other guy" isn't anything that's even debatable because its completely nebulous. Specifics CC, cause I can give you specifics concerning Obama's promises concerning post partisanship, change from politics as usual, etc.

Zyph, if we are talking about partisan attacks or support... which is what I think we are discussing, then I disagree. It was pretty equal on both ends. If you want a snapshot of it go read some threads at DP between September and November of 2008. If you are talking about the fullfillment of campaign promises that were based on partisan rhetoric, that is an irrelevant position to take since we do not know what McCain would have or would not have done.

 

[Renae]

You mean like continuing the war in Afghanistan? Keeping Guantanmo bay open? Further expanding military spending? Keeping the domestic spying program Bush had in place?

Progressive you say. Huh. I'd like to see your dictionary.

He wanted to stop all that, reality > ya'lls fantasies about the War on Terror.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

He wanted to stop all that, reality > ya'lls fantasies about the War on Terror.

So, you're saying that he had a plan before being elected and when he became President he saw the reality of the situation and altered his plan so it would be appropriate. Sounds like pretty good management of a situation to me.

 

[obvious Child]

He wanted to stop all that, reality > ya'lls fantasies about the War on Terror.

So you think he's progressive purely because what he wanted. The fact that he didn't do it is irrelevant?

I guess Churchill was a pacifist loser because he didn't want a war. Oh wait. He actually fought it. By your criteria, what a leader does is irrelevant as to what he is. What matters is what he wants. What kind of bat**** crazy ass logic is that?

 

[jujuman13]

No. That if you believe the campaign promises of a politician, you're a fool.

If that were applied in every election, then what would be the point of electing anyone.
Obviously we know absolutely that Obama and his Chicago administration are simply a bunch of crooks.
But the electorate does need to be able to believe that at least some of these crackers are speaking the truth.

 

[jujuman13]

So you think he's progressive purely because what he wanted. The fact that he didn't do it is irrelevant?

I guess Churchill was a pacifist loser because he didn't want a war. Oh wait. He actually fought it. By your criteria, what a leader does is irrelevant as to what he is. What matters is what he wants. What kind of bat**** crazy ass logic is that?

When you have read up on the type of person that Winston Churchill was, then you can pontificate on that subject.
No sensible Politician actually wants a war, Churchill was no different.
Where he was different, was that he knew a war was coming, he endeavored to prepare England for the war as much as he was able.

 

[hazlnut]

Obama Mocked Commissions, Then Established Four - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

I hear he established this position on Commissions from a Commission.

Wow, you far-righties will find your attack pieces wherever you can... CBS??? GASP!!

 

[obvious Child]

When you have read up on the type of person that Winston Churchill was, then you can pontificate on that subject.
No sensible Politician actually wants a war, Churchill was no different.
Where he was different, was that he knew a war was coming, he endeavored to prepare England for the war as much as he was able.

Um you might want to read the post I was responding to before commenting. I was merely pointing out how Mr. V's logic is insane.

 

[Renae]

So, you're saying that he had a plan before being elected and when he became President he saw the reality of the situation and altered his plan so it would be appropriate. Sounds like pretty good management of a situation to me.

You "could" see it that way. I think however it shows not so much good management, but rather no clue what was really going on nor how to deal with it. 17 months in, 5 months past due, Gitmo is still there taking prisoners. I for one applaud this, but doesn't that show piss poor judgment the claims Obama made prior too, and just after being elected? Does it not show the WISDOM of the previous Administration that much of Bush's plans and methods are still intact?

You see good management, I agree, by Bush.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You "could" see it that way. I think however it shows not so much good management, but rather no clue what was really going on nor how to deal with it. 17 months in, 5 months past due, Gitmo is still there taking prisoners. I for one applaud this, but doesn't that show piss poor judgment the claims Obama made prior too, and just after being elected? Does it not show the WISDOM of the previous Administration that much of Bush's plans and methods are still intact?

You see good management, I agree, by Bush.

Shows good management by both.