What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama 6(...66)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama 6(...66)

For someone that claims to be so keen on constructive dialogue, you have a curious propensity for using divisive terminology. I suppose your response is that you didn’t start it, but I was so sure you’d simply be someone to not respond altogether.

Excellent advice. I shall start by not responding to this particular post of yours. :rolleyes:

But back to the stereotypes thingie - I've given it the same thought. Yet on that note, are you equally willing to accept the less than flattering stereotypes some have waged toward conservatives? If you're not sure what they are, I'm sure Rover could name some. :)

Oh that one's easy: neocon. They've been at it for 8 years now. Not sure exactly what it means or how a neocon is different than a benign conservative, nor do I really care. I just know it's derogatory in a liberal's mind.

And war-monger's always the classic standard. ;)

That's my point, though. "You DO love apple pie, don't you?!" becomes something very different when it's at the end of an argument that's degenerated.

As for the rest, much of it seems to be predicated on assumptions I wasn't making that you're simply a blind patriot. I was saying precisely that since you are NOT a blind patriot you can see that working to hold a country to its principles is a patriotic act.

As for the various fetishes of the left and right, pointing out one doesn't disregard the other. Personally I think all the talk about a supposed liberal fetish for Obama is either silly or ignores that the right has had a blue-veiner for Reagan for 30 years -- well beyond the warnings when you are supposed to consult your doctor.

The left's comparable fetish to the right's militaristic worship of "The Nation" is an utterly un-reflective guilt-ridden worship of either "The Underprivileged" when they want to be paternalistic (welfare, health care) or "Humanity" when they want a slice of that pie (the arts, environmentalism, feminism, gay rights).

A funny shared fetish is "The Working Man." When a righty says this he really means "The Tax Payer," and he's including Ken Lay. When a lefty says it he's really saying "The Proletariat" (though you can't say that outside of a sociology class without having your house egged).

Obviously both sides are equally full of BS and hypocrisy. We're all just part of "Humanity," after all. ;)

Well Kepler, you do have a point in that first paragraph of yours.

And I have no qualms whatsoever about admitting to being one of those guys that have had a woody for Reagan for the past 30 years lol. :D

Good observation about "the working man" fetish as well. And now I am way over my quota in daily usage of the word fetish. :eek:
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

None of the problems facing The One are so critical that he can't take 36 hours to lobby for the Olympics to be awarded to Chicago. And to argue otherwise strikes me as a cheap shot. Air Force One is a flying situation room in the event something does happen that requires his immediate attention. Since presidents are always facing some sort of crisis somewhere this argument logically takes you to asserting that the president not only can never leave the USA, he can't leave the White House. Full disclosure: I'm a suburban Chicagoan.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

My post things you responded to had nothing to do with the mission of the ACORN organization, it had to do with their employees. Two completely different things. The one comment about ACORN's mission I will make is that apparently their mission has nothing to do with having a workforce with high character and any semblence of integrity.

Other than that, I continue to have no interest in ACORN's mission. If you would like to address what I was actually talking about, you may try again at any point.

You're talking about ACORN's mission here. See above.

I'm allowed to bring up my own points right? You see, they became part of the discussion when I used them as a comparison to ACORN employees. So don't worry, you didn't miss anything. ;)

And once again.... I have been talking about the employees from the outset as opposed to ACORN's mission or voter registration drives in general or whatever it is that you're talking about. That's where your confusion lies. Knowing that, I'm sure you now understand why voter registration fraud cannot be ignored in any way about a discussion of ACORN's employees. HARDLY a "gotcha" moment when you're actually addressing what I'm talking about. (And I do believe I know what the label du jour is for me. ;) )

OK, that's a fair enough point and one I thank you for clarifying, us coming at this from different angles certainly didn't help the conversation too much. :p I guess it comes down to if you view the employees who got caught with the voter fraud or the prostitution stuff as representative of the entire organization or not. Certainly those employees, who would rather falsify registration or give advice to fake pimps, are not those willing to put their community or their country ahead of themselves and would more likely than not have a negative answer to your question. But I don't have any evidence that the vast majority of the organization would think in the same way, especially given the communities and people they're working with I'd say they'd have to have a pretty positive outlook to want to keep doing it. Just because they're not exactly the people I'd likely want to have a beer with and they might push for some political goals that I may not champion or may even disagree with doesn't mean I feel they have malice towards this country. In the end, though, I think we're each gonna see different ways on this, so who the hell knows?

EDIT: And I do sincerely thank you for editing out that diatribe there, with the name calling and accusations of screaming and whatnot....

No problem, keeping it civil helps us stay on topic and avoids getting off on tangents.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Full disclosure: I'm a suburban Chicagoan.

Out of curiousity, do you want the Olympics or not? On the one hand, I can see it would be cool nearby, on the other hand, it could also be an epic pain in the ***.

It's probably counter-productive for him too. They're not going to award them just because he shows up, if anything they would want to avoid seeming favorite towards him so it might even hurt them.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Checking historical records for the Weimer Republic.... Will have to get back to you.

Zimbabwe would be a good place to start. In October 1923 the Weimer Republic's worst monthly inflation was 29,500%. Note -- that's monthly. In November 2009, Zimbabwe's monthly inflation was 79,600,000,000%. That's an annual inflation rate of 89.7 Sextillion Percent.

Zimbabwe doesn't use their own currency anymore -- they use dollars and rands.

To be honest, I don't know why all basketcase countries don't just ride somebody else's currency. Yeah, you can't hyperinflate to pay your bills, but... you can't hyperinflate to pay your bills anyway -- that rate of inflation is the same thing as bankruptcy. So why even bother paying for the presses?
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

It's probably counter-productive for him too. They're not going to award them just because he shows up, if anything they would want to avoid seeming favorite towards him so it might even hurt them.

Obama going in person certainly won't be counter-productive. The IOC is ridiculously political and all about the pomp and circumstance. In-person lobbying is a huge factor. Blair lobbied for London, Putin lobbied for Sochi, and I believe all of the heads of state from Chicago's competitors will be on hand for the IOC's voting.

Obama being there certainly won't hurt, and has a great chance of helping.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Yeah because blowing off a couple national 5-alarm fires to take a couple days to inappropriately use the Presidency to hook up his hometown buddies with the Olympiad and do some Danish sightseeing isn't newsworthy at all. How petty for us to point out the indulgences of The One. Good point, buddy. :rolleyes:

There's a phone on the desk in the Oval Office, I saw it in a picture. Why can't the clown just make a call?

Didn't get the "now watch my drive" reference, did you?

All I'm saying is this: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. It's highly amusing to listen to people on the right talk about Obama's spending and his time away from the office, considering what was just in the office before him.

The whole thing is especially overblown, considering his itinerary (per the AP):

Obama's itinerary, allowing him only a few hours in Copenhagen, suggests he is aware he is walking a thin line. The president is flying overnight Thursday, making a presentation to the IOC members on Friday, and returning to Washington the same day. He may not even stick around to see the winning city announced.

Now, before you start, I'm not saying "don't criticize Obama". I'm saying that everyone out there who gave W. a free pass for stuff like this should really keep their traps shut this time around. Two days (or even three, if he actually stays longer) is peanuts compared to some of the lengthy sabaticals we've seen Presidents take in the past. Especially when you consider that W. hunting on his ranch for a few weeks or Clinton getting a rub and a tug in Martha's Vineyard are hardly the same as trying to court the Olympics.

At least have the decency to be consistent instead of staying within the lines drawn for you by partisan pundits.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

One has to wonder if knuckledraggers were so bent out of shape when, during the Cold War, Reagan personally lobbied to have the World Cup take place in the United States.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Out of curiousity, do you want the Olympics or not? On the one hand, I can see it would be cool nearby, on the other hand, it could also be an epic pain in the ***.

It's probably counter-productive for him too. They're not going to award them just because he shows up, if anything they would want to avoid seeming favorite towards him so it might even hurt them.

Oh I absolutely want it, even more because whatever disruptions result, I won't be affected by them. I agree with both your points. I don't think there's too much going on here that's hard to understand. He got his political start in Chicago and they've asked for his help and he's giving it. I've had the feeling that Rio's the choice here, except for their crime problem. Although the number of murders in Chicago lately has been monstrous.
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

One has to wonder if knuckledraggers were so bent out of shape when, during the Cold War, Reagan personally lobbied to have the World Cup take place in the United States.

...and the fanatical Obamapologists continue to roll....
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

How dare those dirty communists point out the double standards of those who actually love America?

RED DAWN!!!!

Interesting cinema reference. Not a particularly good movie, but many on the left detested it and said so. Why it's just not right that young American kids would fight back and shoot invading Commies in the azz. Particularly Commies from Cuba where they have good health care, don't you know.

Avenge me! Avenge me!
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Interesting cinema reference. Not a particularly good movie, but many on the left detested it and said so.

Some people worry too much (them not you). Not only did it seem to be fairly innocuous at the time, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster that took over the country. iirc it was more of a teenage cult film than anything. :)
 
Re: Obama 6(...66)

Some people worry too much (them not you). Not only did it seem to be fairly innocuous at the time, but it wasn't exactly a blockbuster that took over the country. iirc it was more of a teenage cult film than anything. :)

Go back far enough and there were some (many?) ACLU types who were very concerned about Dirty Harry and subsequent films. Every scumbag's entitled to Johnny Cochran, don't you know.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama 6(...66)

One has to wonder if knuckledraggers were so bent out of shape when, during the Cold War, Reagan personally lobbied to have the World Cup take place in the United States.

It makes it real hard to have a rational discussion when you lob insults, and use events from 2 decades ago for comparison, as a deflection away from having any substantive response.

And FWIW, had I been older then an elementary school kid, I would have in fact been upset at the sitting president neglecting his job for some shallow PR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top