repeter
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2009
- Messages
- 3,445
- Reaction score
- 682
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
He's already too agressive. I dislike Obama simply because I see him as trying to impose beliefs to our society that are 180 degrees opposite of our founding laws and principles, but I did vote for socialization and high taxation as being two of the issues I dislike about him as they are not based in the natural rights we have as U.S. citizens and they are symptoms of bigger restrictions to come.Title says it all. I personally dislike him because he is too moderate, and level-headed. He needs to be more aggresive.
Title says it all. I personally dislike him because he is too moderate, and level-headed. He needs to be more aggresive.
What? No birth certificate option?
Hypothetically speaking, is it okay to dislike him because he's a smoker, or is that a no-no?
I mean, is it PC to dislike him for that reason? I wouldn't want to get myself in trouble with the anti-smoking Nazis.I guess you could put that under "other"
To my mind, "dislike" is the wrong word. "Disdain" is much more appropriate, or perhaps "contempt".
The singular problem with Dear Leader is not that he failed to take the right stand on Iran (and failed again on Honduras), is not that he fails to grasp the basic dynamics of capitalist economics, is not that he persists in an inane delusion that government is ever a solution and never the problem, but simply that Dear Leader is the singularly most clueless, visionless, directionless, artless, and careless politician ever elected to the Oval Office.
He is possessed of no defining principle. He illuminates no moral foundation. In all of his many ponderous pontifical speeches will you find anything that defines his ethic or his creed. Of a certainty you will find nothing that speaks to the defining ethic of American governance--namely, the rule of law. When he speaks, he vomits forth a volume of words that serves no purpose but to obscure the fact that he says little, and nothing of significance or of merit.
Dear Leader is a failed leader because in order to lead, one must be willing to stand. One must be willing to declare who and what one is. That is the one thing Dear Leader has scrupulously avoided the entirety of his pseudo-adult life (unless one facetiously counts his persistent refrain of "it's not my fault").
He is a latter day Lepidus....a slight, unmeritable man, meet to be sent on errands.Yes, but how do You really feel about the man?
I mean, is it PC to dislike him for that reason? I wouldn't want to get myself in trouble with the anti-smoking Nazis.
I dislike him because he is a liar and he purposely misrepresents the truth.
He arguments for specific policies are filled with so many logical fallacies that it boggles the mind.
To my mind, "dislike" is the wrong word. "Disdain" is much more appropriate, or perhaps "contempt".
The singular problem with Dear Leader is not that he failed to take the right stand on Iran (and failed again on Honduras), is not that he fails to grasp the basic dynamics of capitalist economics, is not that he persists in an inane delusion that government is ever a solution and never the problem, but simply that Dear Leader is the singularly most clueless, visionless, directionless, artless, and careless politician ever elected to the Oval Office.
He is possessed of no defining principle. He illuminates no moral foundation. In all of his many ponderous pontifical speeches will you find anything that defines his ethic or his creed. Of a certainty you will find nothing that speaks to the defining ethic of American governance--namely, the rule of law. When he speaks, he vomits forth a volume of words that serves no purpose but to obscure the fact that he says little, and nothing of significance or of merit.
Dear Leader is a failed leader because in order to lead, one must be willing to stand. One must be willing to declare who and what one is. That is the one thing Dear Leader has scrupulously avoided the entirety of his pseudo-adult life (unless one facetiously counts his persistent refrain of "it's not my fault").
In all fairness, he is a politician. I think that's a qualifying attribute :unsure13:
Ohh I know but he is a bit more repugnant to me.
I ended a psychology class about a month and a half ago, what I have learned has left me a bit scornful of all politicians.
I disagree. Both Presidents Bush spoke from clear moral conviction. You might disagree with their positions, but there was no doubt that they had a defined position and were willing to defend it. The same was true for President Reagan. Even Jimmy Carter possessed at least a moral core if not the backbone to go with it.I think you just described nearly all politicians of every category in America, and beyond.
That could go under black.
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?