The mark of a failed debate tactic is putting multiple "ha"s in lieu of coming up with an intelligently thought-out response.
Wait, what? How can we both be obstructionist? Only one side can be obstructionist, and right now it’s not me. And calling my position silly isn’t helping anything. Just vote for my proposal so this can end. Why are you continuing to drag this out? What do you have to gain? Are you trying to destroy this message board?
The mark of a failed debate tactic is repeating someone else’s mark of a failed debate tactic but trying to turn it around to include something they did. The correct response is, “no YOU are.”
No YOU are.
The student has become the grasshopper.
Thanks, I’ll have one with vodka, but don’t become in this one.
See, how hard was that? We all agree that obstructionism involves both parties, and won’t stop until voters become sufficiently bothered by it. Now we can move on to the next major issue plaguing our country.
Ego plays such a major role in politics that it’s hardly surprising pompous old fools will cling to their mistaken beliefs as long as they can get away with it.
Of course there are elements of obstructionism in both parties. But right now, the Republicans are taking it to an extreme.
When someone criticizes something that wasn’t mentioned or cited then it’s both a failed debate tactic and funny when done repeatedly. When someone tries to defend that debate tactic that’s just retarded.
If you mean me, I wasn’t defending anything. I was pointing out that you didn’t make your case with "ha"s.
I was laughing at the effort and then went on to explain why it’s a pointless debate effort to criticize something that wasn’t mentioned or cited.
We were so close to a resolution, then you had to go and change the terms. Obviously you have a vested interest in dragging this out.
Perhaps if we brought into a smaller sub-message-board we could come to an agreement.
You don’t always have to type everything. I just hiccuped but choose to leave that out.
Okay, you’re technically right, it’s admittedly the wrong way to put it. I should have said Obama’s leadership in getting bin Laden. Now, will you admit that you avoided the issue, which is Obama’s leadership? That you don’t acknowledge that Obama first had to make the tough decision to go ahead with the raid and, as Commander In Chief, was ultimately responsible for it? If the raid had gone badly, he would have suffered the blame for it, so maybe you owe him some credit for its success. It’s not like you’d betray your ideological brethren. Other Republicans had no trouble praising Obama for his role in it (I bolded the parts pertinent to your claim):
George W. Bush: “I congratulated him (President Obama) and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities…This momentous achievement marks a victory for America.”
John Boehner: “I also want to commend President Obama and his team…”
John McCain: “I commend the president and his team, as well as our men and women in uniform and our intelligence professionals, for this superb achievement.”
Tim Pawlenty: “I want to congratulate America’s armed forces and President Obama for a job well done.”
Even Sarah Palin: Sarah Palin gave passing praise to President Obama’s “decisive leadership” in the operation to kill Osama bin Laden…Palin’s words were a departure from last year, when she called President Obama’s approach to terrorism “fatally flawed”…
Howard Wasdin (former Navy Seal Team 6 member): Although a natural Republican, **Wasdin praises President Obama’s handling of the operation. **The Commander-in-Chief, he says, got it right on three counts: maintaining operational security by not informing Pakistan; having bin Laden buried at sea; and not releasing the photos for extremists to rally around.
After all that, can you not admit that Obama’s leadership was a key role in getting bin Laden? A reminder: The 9/11 attacks were directed at America, not at Republicans or Democrats. Obama made avenging the attacks a top priority not for just one party, but for all of America. Including you. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?
Cool. Today, US forces killed (apparently mistakenly) 24 Pakistani soldiers. Is Obama owed “credit” for this one?
Sure. Let’s see how many in the Tea Party get howling mad about Obama killing Muslims.
If the democrats have the nerve to do nothing, things might get better. Without any action, the Bush tax cuts will expire and the super committee failure will trigger spending cuts. The revenue to cuts ratio is even close to what the democrats have proposed. While the mix isn’t perfect, we are finally where the obstructionism could pay off.
Oh, good play. Avoid the issue by comparing apples and lemons.
We’re not talking about just one more raid in an overall campaign that Obama had little if anything to do with. In case you missed it, this is about a one-off chance, not on the border but deep inside Pakistan, to avenge the most despicable attacks ever on American citizens. Because the evidence on Abottobad wasn’t conclusive, it was up to Obama as Commander In Chief to make a series of critical decisions that were all on his shoulders, not the military’s. The outcome proved that he made the right decisions. **All I want to know is how that can be interpreted as “weak leadership”. It’s not a trick question. **
You’re confusing the congratulatory expressions of a successful military operation with the leadership of the President. Unless you can document that he personally restructured the military and CIA to accomplish this goal then it’s not his accomplishment to praise. It’s the CIA and trained military units that deserve the lions share of praise. His only role was to give it a thumbs up or down based on the information provided him so he get’s a pat on the back for making the decision since it was based on probability and not a signed autographed picture of OBL standing in front of the building. If I didn’t give props to that on this board I certainly did in discussion with other people. Kudos for that.
This whole topic is a derailment of the thread in an attempt to attach something that resembles leadership on Obama. He simply wasn’t there to facilitate a resolution regarding the super committees stalemate.
The ironic part is that President Obama is leaving congress to do their constitutional duty and is being criticized by people who say they want to get back to the founding fathers’ intent.