And then there was 1

[Martin]

Tell me...who's directly responsible for placing Summers and Geithner in power...Republicans or Democrats? Yeah...I know...this is probably a really tough question for you. Let me know if you need a hint.

The left thought it was a mistake then and they haven't changed their stance.

This thread aptly illustrates the problems Obama has been having. He tries to ingratiate himself to Republicans and makes decisions such as picking Summers or not pushing Single Payer Healthcare. In the process, he pisses off the left while the republicans still call him a marxist/socialist/nazi/muslim/some random stupidity.

Maybe after he looses the midterms, he'll understand that because republicans are largely all retarded, trying to work with them is a lost cause. A much better approach would be to take a hard-line stance and savagely attack them.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The left thought it was a mistake then and they haven't changed their stance.

This thread aptly illustrates the problems Obama has been having. He tries to ingratiate himself to Republicans and makes decisions such as picking Summers or not pushing Single Payer Healthcare. In the process, he pisses off the left while the republicans still call him a marxist/socialist/nazi/muslim/some random stupidity.

Maybe after he looses the midterms, he'll understand that because republicans are largely all retarded, trying to work with them is a lost cause. A much better approach would be to take a hard-line stance and savagely attack them.

Let me get this straight...the Democrats knew Larry Summers was a mistake all along...they just wanted to work with the Republicans to gain their favor. BTW...I wasn't aware that the Republicans were so enamored with him...do you have any facts that back this up?

So, the Dems appointed Summers...but it's actually the Reps fault because the Dems knew he was a mistake, really didn't want him, and only appointed him to appease the Reps. Got it.

I think I sprained a few synapses on this one...anybody got a couple aspirins?

 

[woolfe9999]

Another tall glass of coolaid brought to you by Craig. Keep up the good work there buddy.

His criticisms of the prior posts were pretty much spot on. Larry Summers a "marxist"? Lol wut?

- wolf

 

[Saint Nick]

Why is everyone quitting Obama's team?

 

[Bowfinger]

Let me get this straight...the Democrats knew Larry Summers was a mistake all along...they just wanted to work with the Republicans to gain their favor. BTW...I wasn't aware that the Republicans were so enamored with him...do you have any facts that back this up?

So, the Dems appointed Summers...but it's actually the Reps fault because the Dems knew he was a mistake, really didn't want him, and only appointed him to appease the Reps. Got it.

I think I sprained a few synapses on this one...anybody got a couple aspirins?

Because it's so incomprehensible that Democrats sometimes disagree with Obama on certain decisions or issues? Have you been in a cave for the last 18 months?

I'm not a Democrat, but one of my first big concerns about Obama was the way he so freely turned his economics planning over to Wall Street insiders, the same crooks who were key to creating the mess in the first place. I believe this concern was discussed in threads here, with criticisms (or at least reservations) expressed from all over the political spectrum.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Because it's so incomprehensible that Democrats sometimes disagree with Obama on certain decisions or issues?

Let me be clear. I'm cricizing Obama for choosing Summers as well as anyone (be it Republicans or Democrats) who supported and enabled this decision. Martin apparently wants to twist Obama's choice of Summers as somehow an appeasement to the Republicans...and I'm saying bullshit. Republicans voted overwhelming against Geithner (Summers protege btw) and would have done the same with Summers if given the chance.

 

[boomerang]

The left thought it was a mistake then and they haven't changed their stance.

This thread aptly illustrates the problems Obama has been having. He tries to ingratiate himself to Republicans and makes decisions such as picking Summers or not pushing Single Payer Healthcare. In the process, he pisses off the left while the republicans still call him a marxist/socialist/nazi/muslim/some random stupidity.

Maybe after he looses the midterms, he'll understand that because republicans are largely all retarded, trying to work with them is a lost cause. A much better approach would be to take a hard-line stance and savagely attack them.

Your reasoning is the root cause of the losses the Dems will experience this November. Your logic is so illogical that you think it's logical. And yes, I structured that sentence that way purposely.

Here's a quote that may or may not make sense to you.

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." - George Orwell

The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites

 

[Craig234]

Your reasoning is the root cause of the losses the Dems will experience this November. Your logic is so illogical that you think it's logical. And yes, I structured that sentence that way purposely.

Here's a quote that may or may not make sense to you.

"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them." - George Orwell

The Curious Logic of Our Governing Elites

You sound confused.

Martin is saying "Obama is doing something wrong; he should be a better Democrat."

You then say that Martin's view is why Democrats will lose in November.

Huh? Are you agreeing with Martin, and saying Democrats will lose because he's right about Obama? Doesn't sound like you are agreeing.

So are you saying Obama will lose because of what Martin says he SHOULD do?

Martin is saying he should be a stronger Democrat, and your argument is Democrats will lose because Martin thinks Obama should be a stronger Democrat and isn't?

It doesn't make much sense to say Dems will lose for something they should not do, and are not doing.

It's like someone saying 'Obama should become a Muslim', and you saying 'no me shouldn't, your logic is why he'll lose in November'.

Why would the logic he should be a Muslim cause him to lose when he's NOT a Muslim?

 

[Fern]

You sound confused.

Martin is saying "Obama is doing something wrong; he should be a better Democrat."

You then say that Martin's view is why Democrats will lose in November.

Huh? Are you agreeing with Martin, and saying Democrats will lose because he's right about Obama? Doesn't sound like you are agreeing.

So are you saying Obama will lose because of what Martin says he SHOULD do?

Martin is saying he should be a stronger Democrat, and your argument is Democrats will lose because Martin thinks Obama should be a stronger Democrat and isn't?

It doesn't make much sense to say Dems will lose for something they should not do, and are not doing.

It's like someone saying 'Obama should become a Muslim', and you saying 'no me shouldn't, your logic is why he'll lose in November'.

Why would the logic he should be a Muslim cause him to lose when he's NOT a Muslim?

FFS, even I get it.

Let's review what Martin posted:

Maybe after he looses the midterms, he'll understand that because republicans are largely all retarded, trying to work with them is a lost cause. A much better approach would be to take a hard-line stance and savagely attack them.

Now you have mischaracterized this as "Obama is doing something wrong; he should be a better Democrat." Seriously? Are you freakin kidding? Being a "good Democrat" is "taking a hardline stance and savagely attacking" repubs?

Maybe boomerang doesn't believe Obama and the Dems actually tried working with the Repubs.

Maybe boomerang believes people are fed up with "hard line stances" and ramming crappy bills through.

Maybe boomerang believes people are fed up with "savage attacks" in Washington DC.

So, maybe boomerang believes these things will lead to defeat for the Dems this November. So, to push for more of the same would be illogical and/or self-defeating

Fern

 

[Craig234]

FFS, even I get it.

No, you don't.

Let's review what Martin posted:



Now you have mischaracterized this as "Obama is doing something wrong; he should be a better Democrat." Seriously? Are you freakin kidding? Being a "good Democrat" is "taking a hardline stance and savagely attacking" repubs?

Maybe boomerang doesn't believe Obama and the Dems actually tried working with the Repubs.

Maybe boomerang believes people are fed up with "hard line stances" and ramming crappy bills through.

Maybe boomerang believes people are fed up with "savage attacks" in Washington DC.

So, maybe boomerang believes these things will lead to defeat for the Dems this November. So, to push for more of the same would be illogical and/or self-defeating

Fern

It doesn't matter if you like my summary of Martin's position. It's irrelevant.

Let's just call it "what Martin said" instead of any summary.

I laid out this so clearly you should not have been able to miss it, but again, Martin said Obama should do "what Martin said", but Obama did not do it.

Boomerang replied that the Democrats will lose because of the logic of Martin.

Now, how are the Democrats going to lose because of something they didn't do that Martin said they should do?

I'll repeat the analogy to help you: if Martin said Obama should become a Muslim, how can Boomerang say that will cost the Dems in the election, when Obama *didn't*?

Won't voters punish Dems based on what they DID do, or what they DIDN'T do (in which case Boomerang would be agreeing with Martin), not on their NOT doing what Martin says they should, and Boomerang says they shouldn't do? Voters are going to say, "Democrats, we agree with Boomerang that Martin is wrong when he says you should have done "what Martin said", and since you didn't do what Martin said, we'll vote against you?"

I wish I had reason to think you will get it the second time.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Now, how are the Democrats going to lose because of something they didn't do that Martin said they should do?

:facepalm;

Speaking for myself, I believe the Dems are already doing what Martin suggests. Looks to me like he just wants them to do it 'more'. I.e., your premise is incorrect (that Dems are not already doing it).

Fern

 

[JEDIYoda]

Bottom line would you want to bee associated with the last 20 months of garbage ideas, the execution of those ideas and the way they have handled it?


nope...

The true bottom line is would you want to still have a Republican president in office and be associaited with the catastophic last 8 years rookie leadersip by Bush??

 

[Craig234]

:facepalm;

Speaking for myself, I believe the Dems are already doing what Martin suggests. Looks to me like he just wants them to do it 'more'. I.e., your premise is incorrect (that Dems are not already doing it).

Fern

Wrong. You are simply ignoring what Martin said and what the issue is.

That's an entirely different issue you should just write your own post on, rather than misrepresenting Martin's position.

President Obama is doing some level of opposing Republicans. It doesn't matter whether you think that level is high (you) or low (sane people and Martin).

What matters is Martin thinks more is needed THAN NOW HAPPENING, and it doesn't make any sense for Dems to lose for what they're NOT doing that you think WOULD be a bad idea. But maybe if you facepalm yourself more and harder, which I encourage you to do, you will stop the nonsense.

 

[boomerang]

Maybe boomerang doesn't believe Obama and the Dems actually tried working with the Repubs.

That would be correct. I'll elaborate further later in the post.

Maybe boomerang believes people are fed up with "hard line stances" and ramming crappy bills through.

Absolutely

Maybe boomerang believes people are fed up with "savage attacks" in Washington DC.

Yes, very much so.

So, maybe boomerang believes these things will lead to defeat for the Dems this November.

Can there be any doubt at this point?

Martin says that the left felt Geithner and Summers were a mistake from the beginning. I don't know if that's true, nor do I know if Martin speaks for the left. Regardless, these points are immaterial. Mr. Obama picked these people. Twenty months into the term and the administration, the progressives and many on the left are still blaming everyone but themselves. The continual blaming of the right for every issue is childish behavior that I, personally, had hoped would be outgrown. I'd hoped that some level of maturity would be attained and we wouldn't have to listen to it anymore. It does not appear to be forthcoming.

The assertion that Mr. Obama has tried to ingratiate himself to Republicans is beyond absurd. The inference that he was doing this prior to assuming the office by the hiring of Summers and Geithner is, I can only guess, a desperate attempt at damage control. It may play well with the left, but the rest of us aren't buying it.

I now present the coup de grâce. Martin calling the right "retarded". That, my friends is why the agenda of the left always fails. Like children, their patience is short. Like children they want, want, want and they want it now. Like children, when they can't get their way, they resort to childish behavior - name calling.

The Republicans are referred to as "the party of no". Well hello - somebody, somebody, has got to be the adult in this relationship. Kids want, parents say no. It's been going on since the first humans walked the earth.

IMO Martin is probably misguided. My points above define my issue with his post. Logic needs to be based in reality to draw conclusions that are also based in reality. Craig stops in from time to time between trips of interstellar travel. To quote Captain Willard, "I don't see any method at all" in his posts.