He’s sounded like that about Obama from early on. It might still be artificial, but it’s consistent, and consistently weird.
You mean because I’m a libertarian purist? One thing this board has taught me is that there will be no pure libertarianism in the United States (or any other place). Ever. It is an ideal only. You would be surprised, however, at just how libertarian the President is at heart. (Consider that his first and most trusted economic advisor is Austan Goolsbee.) You can call what He is doing spending, or you can call it giving us back our money. All my Tranxene does is calm me. It does not interfere with my intellectual evaluations.
Will you please stop that, with all due respect? Do you have some reason or evidence that you have heretofore not revealed that lends any credence to your suspicion that my admiration for the President might be “artificial”? And what is weird about it, honestly?
It’s so incredibly, naively, hysterically over-the-top that if it isn’t fake it’s too stupid for words.
Is that reason enough for ya?
Cite for the existence of same?
@ Vinyl Turnip
Correction:
“You can call what He is doing spending,”
should have read
“You can call what he is doing spending”
Please do not make anything more out of that than it is. It is a typo. I am concurrently working on my Aesthetical Jesus thesis, and the mistake was unintentional. (And I’m afraid, terribly unfortunate.)
I saw the “He” and ignored it out of an intense dislike for the cheap joke.
Admiration is one thing. What you seem to be doing is worshipping him.
And telling people they should be ashamed to be criticizing our president is disgusting, and goes against everything this country stands for. YOU should be ashamed to be making such a statement.
Your sentence is an interrogative imperative. You have a profound interest in the philosophy of Ayn Rand — metaphysics: objective reality; ethic: self-interest; epistemology: reason; politics: capitalism. You belittle and dismiss my relationship with Binswanger. Like Rand, you dislike classical lliberals, believing us to be “hippies of the right”. Don’t I have the gist of it?
Guin, my dear, with all due respect, what something may seem to be to you is in all likelihood something else. I do not worship the President. I define worship as “listening quietly for the voice of God”. I do not listen quietly for the voice of Obama. I know that he is not God. The fact that he is wiser than any of us at SDMB is no great feat. With the exceptions of Indistinguishable, SentientMeat, and sometimes Voyager, we are mostly just hacks. Look at your post count, for God’s sake. We just have nothing better to do, and we waste what we do by doing it here.
You should be ashamed for attributing to me something I never said. What I said was that a particular poster had not standing to oppose the president, and that s(he) should be ashamed for doing so.
No. It is not. You are simply misinterpreting what I am saying. I am not saying that we should fall in line like weebles and never on any occasion question anything the President says. I am simply saying that he has an agenda that he’d like to get done — an agenda formed by consultation with some of the world’s greatest minds — and that it would behoove us to support him in achieving it. That’s all. Why would there be any idea pecked out here by us that is better than the ideas he has already heard?
Post 186. I don’t like Carol Stream, but she has EVERY RIGHT to oppose Obama. You sound just like Rush Limbaugh and company telling people they were unAmerican for disagreeing with Bush. Your semantic nitpicking doesn’t change that. Should I have been “ashamed” to be against the war in Iraq, just because Bush was behind it? No.
Carol Stream has a lot to be ashamed for. Criticizing Obama ain’t one of them.
Okay, you say you don’t worship. Fine. You do, however, fawn and drool. To a degree that creeps quite a few of us out. You remind me of some of those Freeper-types who want to put Reagan on Mount Rushmore.
I’m not about to “get out of the way and let the President do as he will.” I’m going to pay attention to what my reps are doing in Congress. This is what voting is for.
THAT you will never have to worry about. I am sitting on his face, and that is how it should be.
So now this thread is about Liberal?
No. She has no standing. She voted. She lost. But I did not tell him/her that s(he) ought not to criticize the President. I said that she ought not to *oppose *the President.
This is a (bad) habit of yours, my dear, and I say this with the greatest respect: you do not read what is on the page; you read what is in your head.
I do not fawn and drool. And I am not suggesting lockstep mode. I am suggesting that he receives advice from the finest minds. I’m talkning Giga candidates. Any of our criticisms of his agenda are paltry and insignificant. Don’t you realize that in opposing him, you oppose the ideals that your hold dear? Philanthropic empathy. You can render him incapable of accomplishing his mission (enough of you, that is — dumbass Republicans who just want back in power, and dumbass Democrats that don’t know leadership from Star Trek Voyager) to vote in people who join you in your opposition to him. But you do so only at your great peril. Mark my word.
By a fascinating coincidence, twenty dollars is just about exactly how much drugs I will need to expunge that image from my brain. Please remit.
And what do you mean by that? What is the difference? Seriously, I’m not trying to criticize you.
Just curious. Are you ever capable of saying anything else when you toss in these stalkish one-liners? Am I not supposed to have my say? Are you the fucking hall monitor? You are a fucking idiot. All you can ever post is something about the thread being about me, when all the while your very post does itself present the thread as being about me. There is no “about Liberal”. What we are talking about is Obama, his agenda, and yes, the misunderstandings that some people have about my opinion of him. If that brings you in here to contribute nothing more than some self-fulfilling bumper sticker hag rag headline “have you stopped beating your wife” bullshit, then now that you have shat your contribution, are you done? Is there more?
Only after exchanging it for two tens.
The difference is in the man. It is right to oppose a president who makes up things to tell us in order to get us to support the preemptive attack against innocent nations. But it is wrong to oppose a president who is working to restore our reputation abroad, to relieve the financial burdens of the middle class, to free us from energy independence by using his bully pulpit and his photo ops to push alternative energy sources (not to mention creating jobs in related fields), to make the nation healthier through real health care reform, to make the nation smarter through investment in its education, and so much more. No ma’am. Carol Whatsit has no standing to oppose him because his agenda is the right one. His heart is in the right place. His God is personal to him. He reaches out to atheists, Muslims, and the people of Africa. He is intelligent. Sharp as a tack. Two steps ahead of all the talking heads. S(he) can criticize him all s(he) wants, but opposing him is wong. Morally wrong, especially for him or her, because s(he) presumes a respect for the office, if nothing else. And he occupies that office. Thank God. Oppose the “War President” and all his henchmen. But give this one a chance. He earned it in November. Let him see what he can do. And people like Carol Steam or whatever it is should not stand in the way. They are the Ann Coulters of the world, opposing him just in the hopes of making him fail. But neither should you oppose him. You should be a supporter. Not every detail of every plan can suit every person. We are squabbling over piddly shit, while he has consulted people of great economic, war-making, and scientific credentials. He has said that science will guide his decisions. Is this what you really want to oppose?