DC Tom Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Yes, and yes. Obama looks you squarely in the eyes and lies. Over and over and over. Clinton, Reagan, Johnson, Nixon, and Kennedy were incompetent, then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 I think there is a resistance here because you are willfully ignorant idiots. I mean listen to your assertion: The government is now using it's almost limitless resources to extort money from a bar. They need to do this because they are running out of money, even though they have almost limitless resources. Yes, that 2500 dollars is going to go a long way toward funding the entire government of NYC. Oh, and also they are doing it just because they can. You know, because they're the government... or some **** like that. Also, after you complete a sentence, there should be a space before you start the next one. Are you normally this confused as to what constitutes a straw man? I didn't say that proved him wrong. I said it proves he's didn't pay attention and that makes it hard to take him seriously. The assertion that I claim he is wrong about a fine constituting extortion because he missed the fact that the "fat ass" was a female came from you. You then proceeded to argue against the words you put in my mouth, a position that I don't hold. That is a straw man. Good night Captain Straw Man! So, you respond to me with a fabricated quote, pretending that's what I said? Your 13 year-old girly tactics won't work here. Go cry and have your tantrum someplace else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Serious question for anyone to answer... If Bush II, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Kennedy, Eisenhower, etc. had analogous (but perhaps, explainable)situations happen during the course of their presidencies, would that make them characteristically incompetent and duplicitous too? And if so, have we ever had a president, in your estimation, who was competent or ingenuous? I'm not sure how many of us are implicating Obama in this. It's just another example of big government running amok....which Obama just happens to be all for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 A little off topic but there is a good chance a illegal Canadian ends up with this job because the teeth look British. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Much like a Fox News anchor you guys seem to be under the impression that your forcefully stated opinion constitutes fact. A fine is not extortion. But please, tell me more about this government extortion racket that seems to be taking place now. I'd love to hear all about it. I see he's moved on to the "FOX NEWS!!!" portion of his 'argument'. Go ahead connor, let out all the hate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 "If?" Although I think Ike and Bush II were fundamentally honest (Bush II was just a dope, probably too much so to lie effectively). This, I think, is a little different from most examples, since it's "managing communication" to try to keep from looking stupid, which is compounding the stupidity of it. But note I'm not getting all up in arms about it, either. The world's an ambiguous place. My "if" was almost rhetorical. They've all demonstrated incompetence and (except maybe Bush II) talked out of 5 different sides of their mouth. I'm with you that Bush II was a principled guy and really thought he was making decisions that were honest and forthright. I just think he got talked into some bad situations and then was left on an island trying to explain his way out of the corners he was led into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juror#8 Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 (edited) Yes, and yes. Obama looks you squarely in the eyes and lies. Over and over and over. Which presidents in the last 75 years do you feel have been competent and ingenuous? I'm struggling to think of a single one who has been both but I can think of a few who have been neither. FDR, Nixon, Clinton and Reagan were brilliantly competent but were about as conniving and disingenuous as they come. Reagan and Clinton could lie to your face and make you feel good about yourself. Kennedy was largely competent and definitely cool under pressure, but he was only about as faithful as his options so sincerity was in short supply. Carter, Bush II, Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson (aside from trying to !@#$ Jackie O) were ingenuous but somewhat incompetent. Gerald Ford was neither but he was under a strong post-Watergate microscope. Bush I struggled with both competence and ingenuousness. I mean, who else can screw up a relatively good economy and a post Desert Storm euphoria? Just trying to figure out who you feel had both qualities... Edited May 7, 2013 by Juror#8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Which presidents in the last 75 years do you feel have been competent and ingenuous? I'm struggling to think of a single one who has been both but I can think of a few who have been neither. FDR, Nixon, Clinton and Reagan were brilliantly competent but were about as conniving and disingenuous as they come. Reagan and Clinton could lie to your face and make you feel good about yourself. Kennedy was largely competent and definitely cool under pressure, but he was only about as faithful as his options so sincerity was in short supply. Carter, Bush II, Eisenhower, and Lyndon Johnson (aside from trying to !@#$ Jackie O) were ingenuous but somewhat incompetent. Gerald Ford was neither but he was under a strong post-Watergate microscope. Bush I struggled with both competence and ingenuousness. I mean, who else can screw up a relatively good economy and a post Desert Storm euphoria? Just trying to figure out who you feel had both qualities... I don't believe Reagan was the liar you make him out to be. (Certainly not on the level as Obama) Bush ll was more competent than many think and Eisenhower was competent and pretty honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 I don't believe Reagan was the liar you make him out to be. (Certainly not on the level as Obama) Bush ll was more competent than many think and Eisenhower was competent and pretty honest. Iran-Contra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 FDR, Nixon, Clinton and Reagan were brilliantly competent but were about as conniving and disingenuous as they come. Reagan and Clinton could lie to your face and make you feel good about yourself. In my mind that is sometimes a great combination in a great leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Oh, it was a female? Well, someone grab some bacon and have it with the egg on my face. Totally didn't see that coming. The fact that it was a female COMPLETELY changes my point. Wait. No, it doesn't. Jesus. If your mind could cross a finish line, it would actually get hugged by a retard. LIke there aren't any fat ass female government workers? I put forth that the majority of female government employees have fat asses. No scientific way to prove it. Just going by observing for all these years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 7, 2013 Share Posted May 7, 2013 Iran-Contra. Debatable. It was never proven that he had knowledge beforehand and although he came out and denied anything had happened, he soon retracted that and took responsibility. Even if he was fully aware, his actions were done to get hostages back and to help the Contras, not for his own pure political reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 So, you respond to me with a fabricated quote, pretending that's what I said? Your 13 year-old girly tactics won't work here. Go cry and have your tantrum someplace else. Hey, be happy I gave you a response to begin with. You're not worth one. I see he's moved on to the "FOX NEWS!!!" portion of his 'argument'. Go ahead connor, let out all the hate! :w00t: :w00t: First off, I'm not connor, second, I love coming here to let out all the hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Hey, be happy I gave you a response to begin with. You're not worth one. :w00t: :w00t: First off, I'm not connor, second, I love coming here to let out all the hate. Is your dominatrix out of town causing you to all of a sudden come here for your daily beating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 I'm with you that Bush II was a principled guy and really thought he was making decisions that were honest and forthright. I just think he got talked into some bad situations and then was left on an island trying to explain his way out of the corners he was led into. One can be honest and forthright...and wrong. And I said it at the time, multiple times: the Bush II administration's biggest problem was marketing (okay...maybe second-biggest, after Rumsfeld). They simply couldn't deliver whatever message they were trying to deliver. Often didn't even matter if you agreed or disagreed with it...they just couldn't explain it to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 One can be honest and forthright...and wrong. And I said it at the time, multiple times: the Bush II administration's biggest problem was marketing (okay...maybe second-biggest, after Rumsfeld). They simply couldn't deliver whatever message they were trying to deliver. Often didn't even matter if you agreed or disagreed with it...they just couldn't explain it to the public. This, and not using the bully pulpit enough. If he had used that when Congress ignored him re bringing Fannie & Freddie under control maybe we wouldn't be in the shape we are in now. Regardless, if he'd would have made a big enough deal out of it, even if Congress did nothing we would not have got what came after him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 This, and not using the bully pulpit enough. If he had used that when Congress ignored him re bringing Fannie & Freddie under control maybe we wouldn't be in the shape we are in now. Regardless, if he'd would have made a big enough deal out of it, even if Congress did nothing we would not have got what came after him. :w00t: :w00t: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 :w00t: :w00t: "re" is common shorthand for "regarding", used by the kind of guys who don't have sociology degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 (edited) "re" is common shorthand for "regarding", used by the kind of guys who don't have sociology degrees. Darn. I was gonna ask "what is so hilarious about regarding"..... Edit: As far as the "scorekeeping" discussion? There is a giant difference between Iran Contra...and Benghazi: The first was done by...a massively competent president/admin that was trying to get something done in spite of idiocy. They achieved their goals, and only faced media trouble, not real trouble, many months later, when somebody opened their mouth. The second happened upon...a massively incompetent President/Admin who had no idea it could happen, and then spent the real time either ignoring it, or covering it up, and did such a poor job if it, that any rational person immediately knew it was a failure and a cover up, nobody had to tell us months later. Real trouble came in the form of Americans dying, and still exists in the form of: we haven't done schit about it. The circumstances, workflow, and outcomes of these two events...tell us all we need to know about what a competent presidency looks like, vs. what an incompetent one looks like. Edited May 8, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 8, 2013 Share Posted May 8, 2013 Darn. I was gonna ask "what is so hilarious about regarding"..... Edit: As far as the "scorekeeping" discussion? There is a giant difference between Iran Contra...and Benghazi: The first was done by...a massively competent president/admin that was trying to get something done in spite of idiocy. They achieved their goals, and only faced media trouble, not real trouble, many months later, when somebody opened their mouth. The second happened upon...a massively incompetent President/Admin who had no idea it could happen, and then spent the real time either ignoring it, or covering it up, and did such a poor job if it, that any rational person immediately knew it was a failure and a cover up, nobody had to tell us months later. Real trouble came in the form of Americans dying, and still exists in the form of: we haven't done schit about it. The circumstances, workflow, and outcomes of these two events...tell us all we need to know about what a competent presidency looks like, vs. what an incompetent one looks like. Got your back on this one OC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts