On these very boards!? :eek: Yeah, of course. Are you saying that those people don’t also look like fools? Or are you hunkered down in trench warfare where my point sailed over your head? Oh, and thanks for proving it for me. My point, I mean, not your head.
edit: I didn’t respond to the last part of your post because I assumed it was addressed to the thread at large rather than me specifically, but if that assumption was incorrect, your interpretations are so off-base that they discredit themselves better than I could anyway.
[QUOTE=Rolken;10946549I didn’t respond to the last part of your post because I assumed it was addressed to the thread at large rather than me specifically, but if that assumption was incorrect, your interpretations are so off-base that they discredit themselves better than I could anyway.[/QUOTE]
No they’re not. How the hell can you say that?
Name one President that didn’t have a significant amount of
detractors throughout their term.
There always are, were, and will be those who jump all something a President does or says. Regardless if that President is right in what he/she does or says, regardless if that President is otherwise very popular.
Because what you’re saying has nothing to do with what I was saying. You’re just ranting at and about everyone and nobody in particular, and there’s no reason to complain to me about it, and no reason to expect me to defend against your ravings. When did I claim that Presidents have never had detractors? Are you unable to differentiate the perspectives of the people marked as your opponents? That is what I meant by your interpretations being off-base.
For the record, my position is that there is plenty of silliness on all sides, and all of it should be treated dismissively. In spite of all your seething at how Obama supporters supposedly get upset and can’t take the heat, you’ve made more unhinged posts in this topic than anybody else. There is value in conversation about politics that doesn’t devolve to name calling and specious superficial argument, and the existence of people who don’t hold to that standard is not reason to abandon it wholesale and rush to the bottom, nor is criticism of that devolution somehow indicative of thin skin or lack of balls.
Note also that the problem isn’t just that this kind of political shenanigans exist. The issue is that they’re increasingly all that’s left of the Republican Party, and so they gain more prominence by default. There was a time when it was more than sloganeering and pure politics.
Oh, come on. Just look at, say, the National Review of 50 years ago versus today.
If you’re not interested in substantive conversation, why are you here? There’s plenty of places on the Internet to share your contempt with like-minded people with no expectation of thoughtful responses.
A hell of a lot more independents would be willing to vote for a candidate endorsed by George Will than by Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately, Limbaugh seems to have a lot more influence than Will these days.
I always thought it was because in the early days, he was concerned that with the atmosphere the way it was after he was elected, he would be expected to wave a magic wand and solve every single problem in the first hour of his Presidency. He wanted to make it clear to people that it would take a lot of effort, on his part and everyone else’s, to get things done, and that it wouldn’t be painless or easy.
But, as I said in the OP, there was a lot of concern that he was going a little too far with it, and depressing the economy by doing so, so they decided to brighten up the message a bit.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were going on a tangent instead of supporting the OP’s complaint that changing his message is getting the Obama sneered at.
I’m not here to defend anything specific from any “conservative source”, but from my own perspective the problem with Obama is that his message changes in a self-serving manner.
During the campaign it served his interests to trash the economy as much as possible, because he could then blame it on “Bush-McCain”. Now that he’s in charge, he suddenly wants to alleviate the panic, because he gets the credit if things improve and blame if they don’t.
If you don’t think the media is in love with this guy right now, you just aren’t paying attention - or your political stance makes you disinclined to notice.
I can include a snarky emoticon if you think it would somehow help you understand, but I usually try politeness first.
The confusion, I’d guess, isn’t from the claim that the media is pro-Obama (it easily could be) but that it was, to any significant degree before the end, anti-Bush.
From which particular alternate universe are you posting?!