Word count isn't the issue. The first time is happened, I laid out my position. When Obama continued it, the issue wasn't to repeat myself, it was to indicate whether my position had changed. Had there been reason for it to - differencs in the policy, differences in the circumstances, something justifying it - I've had said so. It wasn't the case, and so I indicated I feel the same as before.
You should realize that it's ridulous on *your* part to take the fact that I took one position on Bush, took the same position on Obama, and instead of accepting that, to go hunting for nit picking you could try to use to make a non-issue up - like 'oh, the first time you commented, you used more words, and when you updated your position, you just said you were diaappointed Obama continued the same mistake', and then to use that to try to argue as if I'd somehow done a 180 on Obama for no reason. It's not honest.
Want more words? Go re-re-read the posts, the original or the quote in this thread, and apply them to Bush and Obama, and you have the same word count, the same issues.
That's what i see - you guilty of the bias you are trying to imply.
Now, having said all that, I will add one thing in Obama's favor - I trust his motives more, but not entirely. There were occassiona I'd defend Bush legally, even if I had reservations about his intent; and I tend to see Obama in some cases as reaching the same legal conclusions but with better intent, not the pawn of ideologues out to transform our political system into one with a 'unitary presidency'. You don't see Obama championing any of that garbage about a 'unitary presidency', that he's above the law.
Having said THAT, there are cases of Obama adopting, IMO *too much* of Bush's bad positions - and in at least one case, going beyond Bush in the wrong direction, as I have posted before. I've started threads about those issues and concerns, in fact. So in short, your insinuations are wrong, and foolish, and shameful. Not the mea culpa you expected, perhaps - I'm happpy to give one when warranted - but maybe you will get some better understanding than you had when you posted.
Anoither idiot, parroting the first, so a cut and paste:
But I want to ask now that we have two idiots aligned:
What is it you *think* the post you quoted showed?
I see four quotes from y posts that stand up just fine. You imagine something else. I can't begni to tell what you *think* it shows.
The only hint was Doc's comment trying to make an issue of the number of words the first time I commented on the issue and now with Obama continuing it. I answered him.
Was that it? Ask your parent or an adult for help if you need to, to try to say something coherent about what aogt you hot and bothered.
I don't equate the Bush and Obama administrations. While I equally am in favor of these logs being public under both, the Bush administration had more sinister motives, IMO.
So, no, you can't simply swap 'Bush' and 'Obama' in all my editorial comments about the Bush administration, but you can swap them in my position on the logs being public.
For example, take the whole Jack Abramoff situation - where he was found close to top Republican leadership, and the leadership tried to lie and say he had just about no connection at all to the White House - until the logs showed hundreds of visits, contradicting them. There's no Obama 'Jack Abramoff' known.
Or take the mole phony reporter. Jeff Gannon, who would ask Bush softball questions, attacking Democrats, who was found to have had 'special treatment' to get into the White House press conferences as a reporter, and the way that they wanted to try to use the visitor logs to do some detective work on how that dishonesty by the adminstration happened. There's no Obama 'Jeff Gannon' known.
There was a massive 'culture of corruption' with the Repulbican; obama has done some, but not enough IMO, to improve transparency.
So, no, you can't change my quote to refer to the "Obama problem with Jack Abramoff".
You can just say I'm for the logs being public under each.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Obama is a politician ergo he owes people big time and is the pockets of various interests... that's our politics.
The last president that tried to buck the 'interests' got executed in broad daylight.
The last president that tried to buck the 'interests' got executed in broad daylight.
You're an idiot, Corn - said that for years, and you have done nothing but reinforce it.
Note your complete lack of response to nearly all the points against you in a post.
IMO, Bush had a more sinister agenda behind his wanting to hide the logs than we know or have reason to believe Obama has. That doesn't make Obama's motives 'pure'.
If I felt Obama's motives justified his position, I'd say so, but I said the opposite.
Frankly, I'm suspicious of Obama's 'motives' on this, but the range I expect is likely is from 'less sinister' to 'mush less sinister', but they're all 'mistaken', in my opinion.
Politicians would like to have everyone's vote; because not everyone agrees, that's not possible. The low-hanging fruit of unity is not too available, either; apple pie and puppies are supported by both parties. When a politician can get both sides on an issue, it's hekpful to him. In fact, it's hard to beat, and is why so many winning politicians do it so much.
Remember 'compassionate conservatism'? A lie of a slogan that told his right-wing supported 'ignore this, it's to get elected' but made it easier for 'moderates' to support him.
Obama had to dinstinguish himself to win, to provide a unique branding - he picked to appeal to the people who were fed up with a lot of what Bush was doing.
SO, he ran on things like an anti-lobbyist platform - but there's a reason politicians work with lobbyists, and if Obama could have it both ways, it'd help him politically.
He has made some real efforts to reduce the role of lobbyists - but not as much as the people who supported him on that would like. There's been some fudging on it.
I'm not sure of his motives on the logs. A better reason could be a strict legal interpretation, without a political agenda. A worse motive could be wanting to avoid the sort of scrutiny I discussed previously - even if he has a lot less to hide than the Bush White House had. But yes, it's my opinion that while I disagree with both administrations on the policy, I have a worse view of the Bush motives on it. I don't expect you to understand that, and do expect you to see it as 'partisan'. But, that's to be expected.
That would be your total lack of conviction and rage when Obama does the same fucked up things Bush did just a few years ago -- when comparing your written reactions to both instances.
What happened? Did you suddenly realize that they're both fallible and power hungry? No, wait, that's not it... the (D) in front of his name has made you timid? Nope, that ain't it either.
I'm guessing that it's due to that warm feeling climbing up your leg...
So you're saying it's a tonal issue - while I have the same position for Bush and Obama, I had 'conviction and rage' in expressing it on Bush, but not Obama.
I think that's true about what I wrote, if a little exaggerated.
I'll say more on that but first, let's put a reminder here, that you are being awfully picky about my 'tone' in the posts withthe same position on both, while you completely ignore the fact of how not a single right-winger here criticized Bush on this before criticizing Obama. Not just your tone on it, but you just ignore the much larger issue. Let's keep the hypocrisy of that difference clear.
So why is it on my tone?
A few reasons.
- Becaise with Bush, it was a broad assault on the constitution. He was pursuing a radical anti-American agenda - so there was more conviciton an outrage because of that context.
Obama has not continued that broad agenda - though he has continued too many pieces of it.
- Part of it has to do with overall opposition to the president. While my positions are the same on a specific issue, the fact that I was strongly against Bush being president while I supported Obama being president means that this is 'one more reason to vote out Bush and Republicans', while it's a negative thing about Obama that I do not want to see result in the election of Republicans because he's so much better overall.
- Part of it is the degree of wrongdoing involved with the logs, per my previous post citing couple of examples such as Abramoff and Gannon.
- Part of it as I explained earlier is that I was laying out my position in fuller detail the first time, and just adding an update that it was the same the secondtime.
I do have more 'conviction and rage' against the effort to hide the logs when the motive is to hide so much more wrongdoing and to further the radical ageda of the 'unitary presidency', than I do when it's for lesser reasons that are not entirely clear yet, which could be less severe wrondoing, could be simply 'preserving his power', could be his interpreation of the consitution. And I think it's right to have more conviction and rage against the Bush context than the Obama context.
You would have a beef if I were inconsistent on the principles. I'm not. There are differences between Bush and Obama.
You might not agree with my opinions, but that's a far cry from a double standard for Obama on the principles.
Now, where are the right-wingers at least now admitting they were wrong during Bush and should have opposed this under him, too?
Edit: to be clear -
On this specific issue, I did not have all that much 'conviction and rage' with Bush, either. The stronger sentiments were about the larger issues with him.
The 'conviction and rage' are the same for both of them on this issue, which is that I prefer the public have this information, that it's a deterrent to wrongdoing. Same for both.
My opinion differs on Bush and Obama when it comes to other issues, such as the known abuses that they'd like to hide by restricting these logs. My opinion differs on larger issues.
So, what's your issue? The same treatment they get on the specific issue? Or that I oppose Bush and support Obama overall for reasons I've laid out in hundreds of posts?
Your logic seems to be as bad as 'you opposed Bush's re-election and he did this, but you support Obama's re-election and he did this.' That's not a contradiction. It's a fact that there are more than just this issue, and so while I have the same position for both of them on the logs, I don't have the same preference for them on other issues.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Agree...word count isn't the issue here...never said it was. The issue is your outrage when Bush did it and your 'disappointment' when Obama does exactly the same thing. He who lives in glass houses shouldn't throw 'hypocrisy' stones. Capeesh?
That aside, I agree with you that transparency is needed. I share your 'disappointment' based on the principle of the matter...but will spare him (or any past or future presidents for that matter) any partisan outrage to avoid hypocritical accusations of hypocrisy as you have done.
Not Capeesh. I don't know if you read my comments abov regardng the issue - that the issue on the logs is the same but other issues are not the same - but there's no glass house here. You are commenting the same as if I had been hypocritical in saying 'I think Obama is right to restrict the logs, because he's a Democrat'. You are now trying to prop up 'tonal' changes that are about other issues are are justified, as I said.
So, no, you can't pretend you made some 'hypocrisy' case you did not make.
The question is, how determined are you to try to make that case just to you can try to attack, how far will you assault the truth to do that? Hopefull, you wll accept the facts.
It won't kill you to deal with the truth and to stick to the many areas we might actually disagree to look for something to argue, you have no place inventing hypocrisy charges.
IMO, you would do all of us inclucing yourself a favor to stick to your point of agreement that we both are for the logs being public, and drop the phony attacks.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,406
- 9,601
- 136
I believe you, of course, what are you doing to do if he keeps the logs private, protest Obama by voting Republican? Hah!
Like with us and Bush, you're stuck with your party leader doing anything he wants regardless of how those actions betray your stated values.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Look?you were the one who started with allegations of hypocrisy?I found it ironic and responded accordingly. I'll make a deal with you?how about you drop the phony attacks and I won't respond to them. Deal?
Nice 'deal' that reflects a lack of recognizing the facts on your part.
I accurately noted the shortage of righties who are now hopping on the 'visitor log' bandwagon against Obama, but who did not do so under Bush while the rest of us raised the issue, and you don't respond honestly to that fact, you don't say anything to admit it, but instead you make a phony attack of hypocrisy, and then instead of admitting THAT error, you offer to 'trade' that if I'll just stop telling the truth, you will stop with a lie.
I didn't ask Bush supporters to say they'd vote against him over the issue - merely to say that they were opposed to his policy on it. And that was too much to ask.
Many believe that Obama is doing the exact same thing, albeit with his own version of an "anti-American agenda." I am not one of those people, but maybe you can begin to see that your blind loyalty to your party may be identical to those who blindly supported Bush...maybe?
At exactly what point do the scales tip toward "sinister"?
duh.
Is he? That's still TBD. Again, blind loyalty FTL. After all, he's only a few months into his reign. Give him time. That is, if your Obama-scale even has a "sinister" setting. I'm guessing not. Something tells me that "dissappointing" is about as bad a label as you'll ever give him, regardless of his actions. Right Keith?
How do YOU know that what Obama is hiding is any less "wrong"? You got secret squirrels on the whitehouse lawn?
*cough*bullshit*cough*
...and you know Obama's not doing this how?
...or it could be that he's just as power-hungry, secretive, and corrupt as his republican counterparts?
of course you do. we're back to the 'blind loyalty' thing again.
My bet is that they have more things in common, in terms of secrecy and a lust for power, that they have differences.
uh huh.
I wouldn't know. I'm not a "right-winger." I'm consistently very much opposed to Obama and Bush both on this and many other issues - particularly those that smell like fascism and corruption of every sort.
I'm a huge fan of the U.S. Constitution. Neither one of our fucked up parties properly or accurately represents me.
I'm not blind.
You shouldn't repeat yourself so often. It smacks of desperation,degrees of hypcrisy, and obvious back-pedaling.
nobodyknows
Diamond Member
- Sep 28, 2008
- 5,474
- 0
- 0
I think this thread is great! it shows EXACTLY which obama supporters will blame anything bad Obama does on Bush. It's freaking hilarious.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter