Skip to content
The Browns Board
  1. Home
  2. Political Discussion
  3. Obama takes one step forward

Obama takes one step forward

Political Discussion
78 10 3.7k

  • I just hold the belief that smart people value personal ideology over some antiquated, pre-fab "party."

    There are people who identify with a party b/c that party tends to think like they do and then there are those people who think like the party they identify with for whatever reason.

    You can tell who those guys are here.

  • ? Guest

    I just hold the belief that smart people value personal ideology over some antiquated, pre-fab "party."

    There are people who identify with a party b/c that party tends to think like they do and then there are those people who think like the party they identify with for whatever reason.

    You can tell who those guys are here.

    mz. said:

    I just hold the belief that smart people value personal ideology over some antiquated, pre-fab "party."

    There are people who identify with a party b/c that party tends to think like they do and then there are those people who think like the party they identify with for whatever reason.

    You can tell who those guys are here.

    I think we can. And I say that animosity toward one guy or the other is a stronger force a lot of the time.

    But it's natural to root for the guys you work for.

    We all have a little pack animal in us.

    WSS

    www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons

  • "And Heck, you can repeat the incorrect ad hominem until you get it right.

    Ask yourself if the Priest believes what he does because he's a Priest OR he believes what he does so he became a Priest?

    Get the nuance?

    I might guess that had the Bush people come up with an acceptable salary way back when you'd be preaching the neocon party line with equal indignant zeal."

    I enjoyed how you pretend that your ad hominem attack was really nuance, and then followed it (unknowingly, it would seem) with another ad hominem attack - that one should dismiss what I say because I'm only in it for the money.

    Come on. Make me work for it at least. This is too easy.

    As for who employs me and pays my salary, it's a really big corporation, not a candidate or party or even a political movement. So in addition to being ad hominem, it was also completely off the mark.

    But please, don't let that stop you.

    Are you going to produce an instance of me shilling, or is this just another thing you believe but can't substantiate?

    And don't you think this is beyond boring for everyone else? Isn't it enough that you lose these arguments all the time?

    W 1 Reply

  • I guess you're that simple. Heck

    **********************************

    So, that in itself is an ad hominem attack. Not that I care.

    But you called Steve "simple" instead of addressing the issue Steve put forth.

    And, you changed the subject with a personal attack, avoiding the issue.

    I say - is there anything you disagree with about Obama's actions to date,

    and were there any actions Bush took that you agreed with?

    Don't call ME "simple", it's a simple set of questions - no need to revert

    to a personal attack.

  • "I say - is there anything you disagree with about Obama's actions to date," Sure. We were just talking about one.

    "and were there any actions Bush took that you agreed with?" Sure. We've mention them before as well.

  • I don't see it. Maybe it's just me.

    Care to point it out? You know, you were just talking about it....

    help me out here. I don't have much time to be online right now...

  • For one, I disagree with Obama's stance on gay marriage. It's what this thread is about.

    I just believe it to be a political stance. He's even admitted that his stance might be wrong. And the more states legalize gay marriage, and the more politicians (like the governor of Maine today) take the position I believe Obama shares but wasn't willing to take in the campaign, the harder it will be for Obama to maintain his current position. He's either going to have to admit he was wrong and go against a campaign platform, or he's going to have to go on pretending he thinks marriage is an institution that can only exist between a man and a woman.

    But as I noted above, this is the position that I expected Obama to take, and the one I wanted him to take.

    That doesn't mean I agree with it. It means that it was more important for me for Obama to win the election than to take the correct stand on gay marriage. Because marriage is not the only issue important to the gay community, and Obama is/was light years ahead of McCain/Palin on gay issues.

    Much in the way you may disagree with how your boss is running the company, but you bite your tongue because it's more important to keep your job.

    People make political decisions all the time, whether or not they're in politics. You do. I do. It's not necessarily a character flaw.

    Or as Steve says, it makes him a "power-hungry liar."

    Oh, the animus.

  • Okay, I actually missed that. maybe... but you agree that he should take the stance because you wanted

    him to lie about what he really believes so he could win the election, and you agree with what he really

    believes, though he said the opposite during the campaign.

    But, you expected him to ...eh...lie?, and you wanted him to ...lie? But you don't agree with it,

    but it's okay because you figure he obviously didn't mean it, he only said it to get elected....

    Okay, I buy your explanation. But I sure the heyl don't get it. @@

    *********************************************************************

    For one, I disagree with Obama's stance on gay marriage. It's what this thread is about.

    I just believe it to be a political stance. He's even admitted that his stance might be wrong. And the more states legalize gay marriage, and the more politicians (like the governor of Maine today) take the position I believe Obama shares but wasn't willing to take in the campaign, the harder it will be for Obama to maintain his current position. He's either going to have to admit he was wrong and go against a campaign platform, or he's going to have to go on pretending he thinks marriage is an institution that can only exist between a man and a woman.

    But as I noted above, this is the position that I expected Obama to take, and the one I wanted him to take.

    That doesn't mean I agree with it.

  • Wait, if I say I have a PHD from Harvard, and I get a professorship there....

    but I never graduated from high school...

    will they think I was just being very brilliant in my job search?

    Or would I get my but fired and sent packing?

    BTW, keeping quiet and not vocalizing at your job is not the same thing.

  • H heckofajobbrownie

    "And Heck, you can repeat the incorrect ad hominem until you get it right.

    Ask yourself if the Priest believes what he does because he's a Priest OR he believes what he does so he became a Priest?

    Get the nuance?

    I might guess that had the Bush people come up with an acceptable salary way back when you'd be preaching the neocon party line with equal indignant zeal."

    I enjoyed how you pretend that your ad hominem attack was really nuance, and then followed it (unknowingly, it would seem) with another ad hominem attack - that one should dismiss what I say because I'm only in it for the money.

    Come on. Make me work for it at least. This is too easy.

    As for who employs me and pays my salary, it's a really big corporation, not a candidate or party or even a political movement. So in addition to being ad hominem, it was also completely off the mark.

    But please, don't let that stop you.

    Are you going to produce an instance of me shilling, or is this just another thing you believe but can't substantiate?

    And don't you think this is beyond boring for everyone else? Isn't it enough that you lose these arguments all the time?

    @heckofajobbrownie said:

    "And Heck, you can repeat the incorrect ad hominem until you get it right.

    Ask yourself if the Priest believes what he does because he's a Priest OR he believes what he does so he became a Priest?

    Get the nuance?

    I might guess that had the Bush people come up with an acceptable salary way back when you'd be preaching the neocon party line with equal indignant zeal."

    I enjoyed how you pretend that your ad hominem attack was really nuance, and then followed it (unknowingly, it would seem) with another ad hominem attack - that one should dismiss what I say because I'm only in it for the money.

    Ahh again you try to change the subject.

    Your assumed forte.

    It isn't "just the money" it's the opportunity.

    Terry Bradshaw is a Steeler.

    Had he been drafted and successful in Cleveland he'd be a Brown.

    He's in it for the football.

    You're in it for the bickering.

    Come on. Make me work for it at least. This is too easy.

    As for who employs me and pays my salary, it's a really big corporation, not a candidate or party or even a political movement. So in addition to being ad hominem, it was also completely off the mark.

    But please, don't let that stop you.

    Why should bullshit stop me?

    Are you going to produce an instance of me shilling, or is this just another thing you believe but can't substantiate?

    Just about every post Heck.

    (As you recall the only thing I didn't produce was an actual quote in which you said you personally swooned. But you did say it was an acceptable and natural reaction to an Obama speech)

    This one.

    You hate Christians BUT Obama's OK.

    You hate recism but Obama's camp's cool

    Those who oppose gay marriage are bigots.

    But you're glad Obama did it.

    You denounced Bush's cronyism bat when Obama assigns un vetted political hacks it's cool.

    You bitch like hell how Bush defied the constitution then pimp the appointees who promise to dismantle it.

    If I list pitffalls to cap and trade you ONLY sanp "Well you don't even know what it is!"

    When it's clear I do you STILL avoid refuting the pitfalls I listd.

    THEN you admit you don't even know how the Obama plan will work.

    "But, by God" you tell us, "It'll be damn good buddy boy. Mark my words!!"

    That's what I'd call shilling, Curt.

    And don't you think this is beyond boring for everyone else? Isn't it enough that you lose these arguments all the time?

    I haven't lost any Heck.

    You just grumble something like that statement and demur.

    But in the end I expect "everyone else" can read or not read as they wish as most will have a winner or loser in the box before they do.

    Whaddya think?

    WSS

    www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons

  • Uh, this is so tiresome.

    Your claim was that I was drinking the Obama Kool-Aid, and that I swooned and fell for everything he said. And when pressed, you couldn't find an example of me doing that. Not one.

    But you can find me noting that people are inspired by Obama, which is clearly true and hardly controversial. So now that's your evidence that I'm swooning - because I noted that some people find him inspiring. Even though they're two different things.

    And then you think you've won something.

    Well, congratulations.

    And then we pretend that you've somehow poked all sorts of holes in the arguments for a cap and trade system by presenting bizarre scenarios that have no real world application and make no point. Then you suggest it's some big offense that I admitted that I don't know what the particulars of the administration's plan will turn out to be. Maybe that's because the plan is still being drawn up and considered, and no one knows what shape it will take. Maybe that's because we're arguing the broad strokes. Maybe if you'd read any of the reports in the thread that Tupa started, or the one I started a few weeks ago, you'd see me disagreeing with one approach that the Obama administration is currently considering, which I think will be a disaster. But you don't, because those reports are long and involved and seemingly over your head.

    So congrats again on showing me up on cap and trade. I really hope this is doing wonders for your ego.

    Then come the slurs: I hate Christians (I should inform my wife and family), Obama's camp is racist. And I'm not aware of one political hack appointment, or evidence of cronyism, in the Obama administration. It doesn't seem like you know what the terms mean. Much like "quota." And I don't know who these appointments are who are supposedly dismantling the Constitution. Where are you getting this, from T? Rush?

    There's not a single thing you just wrote that's honest or thoughtful. It's all animus. And all your evidence of me supposedly shilling is baseless, and all your suppositions are wrong.

    But again, congrats.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to hate Christians and remind Tupa what a bigot he is because he doesn't agree with me on gay marriage. And that I hate his Christian ass too.

    W 1 Reply

  • Note to Heck:

    I posted a very legit response, and challenged your analogy about Obama lying about what he

    really believes to get elected (which you clearly said you agreed with) -

    And you smart off to Steve and you run and hide.

    And THAT, is the problem. With all the put downs from you,

    Steve and I have tried to get you to explain yourself, and

    all that times is "ad hominem" or "Why do I bother to try"...

    Trrrrrry to talk about the issues, and trrrrrrry to answer questions instead

    of dishing out more slightly veiled putdowns referring to your imagined

    superiority in the discussion.

    We could actually converse about real substance. Try it, really, it works.

    ? 1 Reply

  • Cal, what I wrote wasn't an ad hominem attack. It was a personal attack. It was my opinion. They're two different things.

    And I've learned long ago that having a discussion with you about issues is a complete waste of time. Plus, I answered your question. You wanted an example of where I disagreed with Obama and I gave you one. You wanted an example of me agreeing with Bush. Well, I didn't agree with Bush very often because he was a really lousy president who shared virtually none of my views. But I did have a bunch of posts on his good work in Africa, and with AIDS in Africa, which I remember you posting on. He set aside two enormous marine sanctuaries, one off the coast of Hawaii and another off the Marianas, that I was very happy about. I thought the first few weeks of the war in Afghanistan were executed very well. I liked his appointment of Robert Gates. I can think of some others, but mostly I thought his decisions ranged somewhere from poorly-considered to ill-advised to tragically inept an even un-American. I think he was a really shitty president, and left the nation in a sizeable hole when he left.

  • As for Steve, I'd like to know which appointments Obama has made are "un vetted political hacks" and examples of cronyism. You know, since you accused me of ignoring all of them because I'm so partisan.

    Maybe it's that I think Bush appointed a bunch, and as of yet I don't see any evidence that Obama has. Maybe it's because I believe these two unlike things are not the same.

    So names please. Who are these crony appointments and hacks in the Obama administration?

  • Okay, Heck. I'll grant you the Bush agreements, but I really didn't remember any.

    As far as putting me down for wasting time "discussing" with me -

    I don't think Al and I were "wasting our time" talking about the Mideast.

    Perhaps you should try being legitimately responsive more often.

    You know... communication is a two way street.

    And, you divert to "ad hominem" complaints in avoiding legit questions.

    That is what I said. What I meant.

    But, you once again ignore the truth - you don't disagree with Obama on

    anything. You give an example of disagreeing with his saying what he believes about

    "gay marriage", but you agree that he said it because it's good to lie to get

    elected if your favorite politician lies.

    So, in affect, you agree with Obama again, regardless.

    Trying to get you to stop skirting around pointed questions that

    you just change the subject in avoiding... is a waste of time.

    But, a challenge none the less.

    BTW, ad hominem whining doesn't make you look like you answered the

    posts by others. Just so ya know (my helpful hint for the day)

    ? 1 Reply

  • Who are these hacks in the Obama administration? Heck

    **********************************************

    ROF,LMAO !!!! For the first time Heck was hilarious !!!!!!!!!

    (or... was it unintentional..... hmmm....)

  • Name one.

  • Trinity United or St John's? (But like I said I;'m willing to accept your argument that Obama's merely a power hungry liar.)

    Also, they have the same positions of gay rights. Got that too.

    Sorry. What gay rights are being denied?

    Thanks for clearing that up. Where would we all be without this insight?

    And thanks again for mischaracterizing a comment when you are unable to respond.

    And thanks for proving once again you're nothing more than a flack.

    And where would the conversation be without me?

    It'd be you shilling for the empty suit ad infinitum.

    Glad to help.

    WSS

    Everyone once in a while you say something intelligent and I begin to think, maybe Steve's not just a blubbering vagina moron.

    Then you post something like this.

    xxxxing idiot

  • C calfoxwc

    Note to Heck:

    I posted a very legit response, and challenged your analogy about Obama lying about what he

    really believes to get elected (which you clearly said you agreed with) -

    And you smart off to Steve and you run and hide.

    And THAT, is the problem. With all the put downs from you,

    Steve and I have tried to get you to explain yourself, and

    all that times is "ad hominem" or "Why do I bother to try"...

    Trrrrrry to talk about the issues, and trrrrrrry to answer questions instead

    of dishing out more slightly veiled putdowns referring to your imagined

    superiority in the discussion.

    We could actually converse about real substance. Try it, really, it works.

    @calfoxwc said:

    We could actually converse about real substance. Try it, really, it works.

    Reading this over and over used to make me chuckle. Then it made me angry. Now it just makes me sad.

    CAL - as heck said and as I've been saying for awhile now, there is a reason nobody actually "converses about real substance" with you.

  • C calfoxwc

    Okay, Heck. I'll grant you the Bush agreements, but I really didn't remember any.

    As far as putting me down for wasting time "discussing" with me -

    I don't think Al and I were "wasting our time" talking about the Mideast.

    Perhaps you should try being legitimately responsive more often.

    You know... communication is a two way street.

    And, you divert to "ad hominem" complaints in avoiding legit questions.

    That is what I said. What I meant.

    But, you once again ignore the truth - you don't disagree with Obama on

    anything. You give an example of disagreeing with his saying what he believes about

    "gay marriage", but you agree that he said it because it's good to lie to get

    elected if your favorite politician lies.

    So, in affect, you agree with Obama again, regardless.

    Trying to get you to stop skirting around pointed questions that

    you just change the subject in avoiding... is a waste of time.

    But, a challenge none the less.

    BTW, ad hominem whining doesn't make you look like you answered the

    posts by others. Just so ya know (my helpful hint for the day)

    @calfoxwc said:

    Okay, Heck. I'll grant you the Bush agreements, but I really didn't remember any.

    As far as putting me down for wasting time "discussing" with me -

    I don't think Al and I were "wasting our time" talking about the Mideast.

    Perhaps you should try being legitimately responsive more often.

    You know... communication is a two way street.

    And, you divert to "ad hominem" complaints in avoiding legit questions.

    That is what I said. What I meant.

    But, you once again ignore the truth - you don't disagree with Obama on

    anything. You give an example of disagreeing with his saying what he believes about

    "gay marriage", but you agree that he said it because it's good to lie to get

    elected if your favorite politician lies.

    So, in affect, you agree with Obama again, regardless.

    Trying to get you to stop skirting around pointed questions that

    you just change the subject in avoiding... is a waste of time.

    But, a challenge none the less.

    BTW, ad hominem whining doesn't make you look like you answered the

    posts by others. Just so ya know (my helpful hint for the day)

    Cal, do you realize that every one of your posts starts out with getting your ass handed to you, and instead of admitting it.... you "don't remember"

    How the hell do you people even survive day to day

Log in to reply