Well by not holding politicians to the same standard would be a double standard then right? and is an admittance to an inconsistent judgment on your part based on the person and not what they said.tuckergustav wrote:
But, you don't have to hold politicians to the same standards. If you find them generally likeable, you are probably more apt to let certain things go. If you find them irritating then you aren't.
lowing, does Obama have to be wrong on and bad at everything?
Can he do anything at all correctly in your eyes?
Can he do anything at all correctly in your eyes?
That's you assuming that I am making my judgement on the person and not the question. That is not the case. I've even said earlier in this thread that some of the Palin criticism is undeserving. If I were committed to bringing her down simply for who she is then why would I believe she is unfairly attacked?lowing wrote:
Shallow? no sir, shallow is basing your judgment on WHO said a thing, and not WHAT was said.Kmar wrote:
That's very shallow. A stated opinion is just that, an opinion. Despite what you may think you do have to look deeper in to the person sharing the opinion for meaningful context and yes, credibility. And yea, there is plenty of hatred for Obama. You can't honestly believe there isn't.lowing wrote:
Nope, not for me, the opinion is what it is, regardless as to who carries it. and I think that opinion is right or wrong based on just about everything EXCEPT who holds it. example. I was not for govt. bailouts regardless if Bush wanted it or Obama wanted it. I would not be for govt. healthcare regardless as to who was pushing it. There is an obvious and inconsistent hatred of Palin that does not exist for Obama even though the shit he has done and said is far worse. and yes, that goes to the credibility of the people that hold inconsistent judgements based on the person and not the facts.
The only reason you keep bringing Obama in to our discussion is for misdirection. Plain and simple. If Sarah Palin was able to be defended on her own merits you would be doing just that. Quite simply you're putting down other politicians to elevate her. That's very telling.
I do not feel there is a need to defend her, she hasn't done anything of consequence. you all are the ones trashing her and giving Obama the pass for worse shit. I challenge you to explain your different judgements for equivalent bullshit, and in most cases worse shit from Obama than Palin.
I did explain it. You don't understand. .. or you just ignored it. The content of the question does matter.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Yes he can and in fact did. Killing Bin Laden was one of them. NOT showing the pictures of the killing was another, and IF he made the right decisions based on my conservatives beliefs he would get praise for it. I do not hate Obama because it is Obama, I hate him for what I perceive he is doing to our country. I hate him for his opaque administration after convincing all of you that he is mr transparency and the god of hope and change.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
lowing, does Obama have to be wrong on and bad at everything?
Can he do anything at all correctly in your eyes?
yes the context does matter, and if Palin gave the 57 states answer, that would be used as proof of 'retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking" and not a gaffe. I think you know that however.Kmar wrote:
That's you assuming that I am making my judgement on the person and not the question. That is not the case. I've even said earlier in this thread that some of the Palin criticism is undeserving. If I were committed to bringing her down simply for who she is then why would I believe she is unfairly attacked?lowing wrote:
Shallow? no sir, shallow is basing your judgment on WHO said a thing, and not WHAT was said.Kmar wrote:
That's very shallow. A stated opinion is just that, an opinion. Despite what you may think you do have to look deeper in to the person sharing the opinion for meaningful context and yes, credibility. And yea, there is plenty of hatred for Obama. You can't honestly believe there isn't.
The only reason you keep bringing Obama in to our discussion is for misdirection. Plain and simple. If Sarah Palin was able to be defended on her own merits you would be doing just that. Quite simply you're putting down other politicians to elevate her. That's very telling.
I do not feel there is a need to defend her, she hasn't done anything of consequence. you all are the ones trashing her and giving Obama the pass for worse shit. I challenge you to explain your different judgements for equivalent bullshit, and in most cases worse shit from Obama than Palin.
I did explain it. You don't understand. .. or you just ignored it. The content of the question does matter.
I'm absolutely sure it would be also. Again, I point you back to my opinion of unfair criticism of her.lowing wrote:
yes the context does matter, and if Palin gave the 57 states answer, that would be used as proof of 'retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking" and not a gaffe. I think you know that however.Kmar wrote:
That's you assuming that I am making my judgement on the person and not the question. That is not the case. I've even said earlier in this thread that some of the Palin criticism is undeserving. If I were committed to bringing her down simply for who she is then why would I believe she is unfairly attacked?lowing wrote:
Shallow? no sir, shallow is basing your judgment on WHO said a thing, and not WHAT was said.
I do not feel there is a need to defend her, she hasn't done anything of consequence. you all are the ones trashing her and giving Obama the pass for worse shit. I challenge you to explain your different judgements for equivalent bullshit, and in most cases worse shit from Obama than Palin.
I did explain it. You don't understand. .. or you just ignored it. The content of the question does matter.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
and it is this inconsistency and thus lack of credibility that I address, Kmar. It is the very reason a comparison between Obama and Palin is a must in order to point that out. Those trashing Palin have no credibility because just as tucker said, they do not hold their politicians to the same standard and do not feel they have to. Well to me that is ridiculous, absurd and hypocritical.Kmar wrote:
I'm absolutely sure it would be also. Again, I point you back to my opinion of unfair criticism of her.lowing wrote:
yes the context does matter, and if Palin gave the 57 states answer, that would be used as proof of 'retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking" and not a gaffe. I think you know that however.Kmar wrote:
That's you assuming that I am making my judgement on the person and not the question. That is not the case. I've even said earlier in this thread that some of the Palin criticism is undeserving. If I were committed to bringing her down simply for who she is then why would I believe she is unfairly attacked?
I did explain it. You don't understand. .. or you just ignored it. The content of the question does matter.
lowing, I speak for myself. You're rehashing a point I already made several post ago.
*without bringing in Obama
*without bringing in Obama
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lowing, can you understand here that there are several people here with opinions that are very specific to themselves and that we are not all one big mob of left wingers? (and actually, pretty sure kmar leans a little to the right, yes?)
I think maybe the misconception here is that we all are blindly following the messiah. When in fact that type of generalization is what I think you are trying to argue against.
I also think it would be completely false if anyone ever tried to claim they did not have double standards. I have never personally claimed otherwise.
I think maybe the misconception here is that we all are blindly following the messiah. When in fact that type of generalization is what I think you are trying to argue against.
I also think it would be completely false if anyone ever tried to claim they did not have double standards. I have never personally claimed otherwise.
...
tuckergustav wrote:
(and actually, pretty sure kmar leans a little to the right, yes?)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It is because she has shown time and time again she is unable to respond in a way that makes her look much better than a contestant at a beauty pagent. Obama at least appears articulte and intelligent, thus the due to the differences in their character it's not hard to see why one is considered to have had a gaffe, and the other would be considered unknowledgeable. You know, this little thing called precedence.lowing wrote:
yes the context does matter, and if Palin gave the 57 states answer, that would be used as proof of 'retardation" and a "lack of critical thinking" and not a gaffe. I think you know that however.Kmar wrote:
That's you assuming that I am making my judgement on the person and not the question. That is not the case. I've even said earlier in this thread that some of the Palin criticism is undeserving. If I were committed to bringing her down simply for who she is then why would I believe she is unfairly attacked?lowing wrote:
Shallow? no sir, shallow is basing your judgment on WHO said a thing, and not WHAT was said.
I do not feel there is a need to defend her, she hasn't done anything of consequence. you all are the ones trashing her and giving Obama the pass for worse shit. I challenge you to explain your different judgements for equivalent bullshit, and in most cases worse shit from Obama than Palin.
I did explain it. You don't understand. .. or you just ignored it. The content of the question does matter.
Rightly so.lowing wrote:
I mean c'mon, this board spent YEARS trashing Bush for absolutely everything under the sun.
He hasn't unilaterally done anything stupid, all he's really done is try to recover the mess he took on.Obama is a continuation of those exact same polices yet he gets a pass and is largely ignored or forgiven or defended by those same people.
Fuck Israel
Unsuccessfully. You don't get too many points for trying.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rightly so.lowing wrote:
I mean c'mon, this board spent YEARS trashing Bush for absolutely everything under the sun.He hasn't unilaterally done anything stupid, all he's really done is try to recover the mess he took on.Obama is a continuation of those exact same polices yet he gets a pass and is largely ignored or forgiven or defended by those same people.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It could easily be argued that the situation has worsened. The debt for example. However, lets not excuse the people who actually make the laws and write the checks.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No doubt it has worsened. Downward trajectories do tend to trajectorise down.
Is it Obama's fault?
Is Palin the GOPs best and only hope to fix it?
Or is Obama still less made of fail than whoever leads the GOP into the election?
Also, lol mormons.
Is it Obama's fault?
Is Palin the GOPs best and only hope to fix it?
Or is Obama still less made of fail than whoever leads the GOP into the election?
Also, lol mormons.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-22 02:26:43)
Fuck Israel
Surely Obama bears some of the blame for worsening conditions.
Has yet to be determined.
no
Has yet to be determined.
A largely successful businessman who actually has experience in creating jobs. Romney WILL make the debate about the economy. That should be of concern for Dems.
Has yet to be determined.
no
Has yet to be determined.
A largely successful businessman who actually has experience in creating jobs. Romney WILL make the debate about the economy. That should be of concern for Dems.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Why? Its not as if he took a single step which caused any of them.Surely Obama bears some of the blame for worsening conditions.
Interesting how you phrase that, surely both sides should interested in doing the best for the country, not scoring cheap points.A largely successful businessman who actually has experience in creating jobs. Romney WILL make the debate about the economy. That should be of concern for Dems.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-22 02:35:23)
Fuck Israel
Cheap points?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That should be of concern for Dems.
Fuck Israel
Dilbert_X wrote:
Why? Its not as if he took a single step which caused any of them.
Kmarion wrote:
Surely Obama bears some of the blame for worsening conditions.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Are you not familiar with how an election campaign works?Dilbert_X wrote:
That should be of concern for Dems.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Like I said, the thing about downward trajectories is they're hard to reverse.Kmar wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Why? Its not as if he took a single step which caused any of them.Kmarion wrote:
Surely Obama bears some of the blame for worsening conditions.
Like a pilot putting a 747 into a vertical dive, killing the engines and then blaming the copilot for not instantly pulling up these whining Republicans just make themselves look colossally stupid.
Would McCain, or Palin, have done any better?
I'm familiar with how it works in your two-party plutocracyAre you not familiar with how an election campaign works?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-22 02:42:54)
Fuck Israel
Clinton left Bush in a downward trajectory. Granted it was not nearly as developed as what Obama inherited, but it could have been. The economy for the most part is cyclical. That's why we so often see the pendulum swing from left to right and vice versa. However, I will say, it does take a long time for massive economies to show the result of any government intervention.Dilbert_X wrote:
Like I said, the thing about downward trajectories is they're hard to reverse.Kmar wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Why? Its not as if he took a single step which caused any of them.Kmarion wrote:
Surely Obama bears some of the blame for worsening conditions.
Like a pilot putting a 747 into a vertical dive, killing the engines and then blaming the copilot for not instantly pulling up these whining Republicans just make themselves look colossally stupid.
Would McCain, or Palin, have done any better?
I don't support Palin, and I dont know what McCain could or couldn't have done with a Dem supermajority.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And if McCain had been President and had a supermajority as well as a hot MILF for VP?
Then its somewhat dumb to be saying Obama shares some of the blame.Clinton left Bush in a downward trajectory. Granted it was not nearly as developed as what Obama inherited, but it could have been. The economy for the most part is cyclical. That's why we so often see the pendulum swing from left to right and vice versa. However, I will say, it does take a long time for massive economies to show the result of any government intervention.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-06-22 02:54:00)
Fuck Israel
Yes two parties.. but there is however some diversity in those parties.. blue dog dems, rinos.. etc.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm familiar with how it works in your two-party plutocracyAre you not familiar with how an election campaign works?
Party platforms also shift. Dems were once perceived as the party of strong defense. Republicans were once largely seen as the party of civil liberties and individual rights.
Xbone Stormsurgezz