Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,084,813 times
Reputation: 3937
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Anybody with more than a brain stem knows why he said it. Except perhaps you and Aero.
There you go again, embracing the insanity of conspiracy theories rather than prosaic reality. It is among the traits that make your life so hard and you so personally unhappy.
I have. It was actually completely neutral regarding the President's agenda. Once again your response demonstrates that you live in an alternate reality suffused with imaginary things that are not there.
You asked a question. I answered it. And then you ran off into left field wailing and gnashing your teeth. All the time, the play was at first base.
One simply must be high on drugs to draw such a conclusion. You are also, by the way, confusing my comments with that of a completely different person.
Leave it to you to screw up even the simple things like that.
That said... I am fully in support of negotiating additional arms reductions with the Russians, no matter who the President is. I supported it under Reagan and Nixon, and I'll support it under Obama.
I see only your frantic attempt to spin a response that you otherwise want desperately to ignore. What I wrote was completely neutral and completely true, and you seem incapable of handling that. So instead you set up irrelevant straw men that frankly have nothing to do with the discussion.
What about that works for you?
You're right. It was someone else that said the project was "flawed." My apologies.
Just because you say your comments were neutral doesn't make them neutral. In fact, what you have said here confirms that what I said was correct indeed. You do rubberstamp Obama's position. How could I have come to that conclusion....that you just now confirmed.....if your words were neutral? Ooops!
They weren't neutral in the slightest. They ooozed support for Barack Obama's agenda. You can wrap it up in your previous support for arms reduction all you want. But you're being disingenuous when you do.
You can rant and rave all day long about me personally. I could care less. But the bottom line is that I have indeed called you for what you are.....a personal advocate for Barack Obama's agenda. Its quite easy to see.....afterall....I did get it right. Right? Yes I did.
So much for being "neutral!"
You're basically trying to make me wrong for being right. Now that' what you call "spin!" LOL
Anybody with more than a brain stem knows why he said it. Except perhaps you and Aero.
There you go again, embracing the insanity of conspiracy theories rather than prosaic reality. It is among the traits that make your life so hard and you so personally unhappy.
You can come down off that high horse now. You clearly are not the neutral (or informed) arbitor that you make yourself out to be. In fact, I just showed you how nuetral you're not. I called you for what you really are, and it bothers you immensely. So you resort to personal attacks.
To you it seems anyone not bullying someone else is kowtowing them.
The planned missile defense shield was a flawed project from the very start. And now the West doesn't know how to backpedal without loosing face.
Then why object to it so strongly. Remember it was once universally beleived that the bommer would always get thru too. Or the Battlehip culd not be sunk by aircarft.I certainly think its possible to have such a defense as I do guided missile air defenses
Just because you say your comments were neutral doesn't make them neutral.
True. But the fact that they actually are neutral by any rational measure does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
In fact, what you have said here confirms that what I said was correct indeed. You do rubberstamp Obama's position. How could I have come to that conclusion....that you just now confirmed.....if your words were neutral?
I have rubber stamped nothing other than approving negotiations. If that is a rubber stamp then I rubber stamped at least two conservative Republican presidents at the same time, and will continue to rubber stamp all future presidents regardless of their political stripe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
You can rant and rave all day long about me personally. I could care less. But the bottom line is that I have indeed called you for what you are.....a personal advocate for Barack Obama's agenda. Its quite easy to see.....afterall....I did get it right. Right?
Not being a partisan ideologue I certainly support some aspects of the President's agenda. I do not support them all. Of course, unlike you I actually know what his agenda is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
You're basically trying to make me wrong for being right.
I cannot make you wrong, Aero. That you are a prodigy of error is your gift. I had nothing to do with it.
By the way, Sanatorium, Rummy etc. would have to do the same thing after their election... What people say in front of the mob is not the same as what goes on behind the scenes on a more civilized, diplomatic level.
True. But the fact that they actually are neutral by any rational measure does.
I have rubber stamped nothing other than approving negotiations. If that is a rubber stamp then I rubber stamped at least two conservative Republican presidents at the same time, and will continue to rubber stamp all future presidents regardless of their political stripe.
Not being a partisan ideologue I certainly support some aspects of the President's agenda. I do not support them all. Of course, unlike you I actually know what his agenda is.
I cannot make you wrong, Aero. That you are a prodigy of error is your gift. I had nothing to do with it.
You have been a staunch advocate of Barack Obama and his Agenda on this forum for a long time. That you would now try to turn tail and make it into some sort of "I supported Republicans too!" argument is pure disengenuousness on your part.
The fact of the matter is that I called you out for what you really are. Running from it makes you the most typical of liberals. That I identified it and brought it to your attention bothers you immensely. I think it's hilarious.
You got all that out of a few sentences that make no sense. Maybe if we saw the whole conversation we could actually coment on it instead of thinking what it means.
Essentially every single component of the political agenda he was originally elected for. As we saw with Healthcare reform, the Republicans are willing to reject and attack even their own ideasif they are also supported by this President. They are willing to scuttle the economy if they believe it might help them defeat him this fall.
Freed of the need to worry about reelection, he can be more aggressive in essentially everything he does, from letting the Bush tax cuts expire to negotiating arms agreements.
This is obvious. What about it confuses you?
I think the point that you may be missing is, Obama should just do what he feels is right at the appropriate time and let him be judged at the polls. Rather, he is deferring everything he can until after the election, basically, saying he doesn't want his actions to get in the way of his coveted reelection.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gotta wait to rep ya
