Obama's job approval

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brian spencer

Well since you're on a big dictionary kick and failed to see the obvious hypocrisy of pretending to care about finance, but not acting worried about it for years until some Democrat was in office -- it seems that you understanding of the word is what's lacking, not mine, since your "actions" differ from your stated "beliefs," words I pulled directly from your awesome Ctrl-V in your post.

As for being disingenuous, as you're so enjoying the definition game "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere."

And you're being disingenuous with your knee jerk use of "Blame Bush" as your get out of jail free card. See, the problem is that for years, the Left had its fair share of over the top rhetoric...but the Right then began to realize that if they just shouted "Bush Derangement Syndrome" whenever any truly substantive criticism was lodged, they could avoid having to actually face the issue, instead just calling their opponents lunatics. It worked. You guys shout louder and more rudely, making that tactic work well.

Now, instead of facing the obvious issues -- like your sudden, dramatic interest in the nation's finances, you guys take any criticism of THAT as "Blame Bush," even when nobody is in fact, blaming Bush, but pointing out that your sudden interest in issues that were of no concern to you for nearly a decade is in fact, disingenuous. That way, you don't have to actually answer any of the criticism, because after all, it's just those same old BDS guys who can't let it go, right?!

It's a solid tactic, to be sure, and has actually worked for years and years now, casting all opposition as deranged Bush-haters. However, it doesn't make it intellectually honest. It doesn't make it genuine, and it doesn't change the fact that no matter how often you say it, your actions completely belie this faux impartiality that you so adamantly try to portray, with an entirely predictable, and laughable lack of success.

It's really inconsequential in the big picture to me, since I don't take you seriously at all on matters like this because you want to pretend to be one way, but are quite easy to count on to always act another.

You and anyone else can refuse to take me seriously because I'm a crazy Lefty, but at least that's the reason to not take me seriously, because you think my ideas would ruin the country -- not waffling about what matters to me depending on who's doing the talking like you've become so good at doing. You can think I'm crazy and not know what I'm talking about, but at least I'm consistent in my beliefs and posts and actions regarding those beliefs -- something you don't have the luxury of saying with a straight face.






OOPS!

Ohhh you got me with a tongue twister!

I would have to say your blather was well thought out at the very least.

However, you have taken liberties in that you have zero idea of what I have said about Bush's policies in the past here, in other forums or by actually talking to others. But the big issue that you seem to miss is that we aren't discussing Bush's policies anymore. If you or one of your compadres wants to discuss them simply bring them up. I would be glad to offer my input. The fact is that while i wasn't enamored with some of Bush's decisions, Obama has far exceeded what Bush did, especially in terms of wasteful govt spending in the so called stimlus package.

Your indictment(?) of the Blame Bush quote is laughable as it is still totally relevant because of the use of it by Obama. He is still blaming Bush at every opportunity.

And I hate to tell you this but us small business owners who pay taxes, employ people and basically carry this country have been paying attention to the nations finances and how it effects us for quite some time.

I think that it is hard to keep a straight face in saying that I am anything but consistent in my posts or views. You may not like those views but you are really stretching it to say that I am either hypocritical or disingenous in my political posts on Derbytrail. Your logic in trying to make that case is laughable.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Ohhh you got me with a tongue twister!

I would have to say your blather was well thought out at the very least.

However, you have taken liberties in that you have zero idea of what I have said about Bush's policies in the past here, in other forums or by actually talking to others. But the big issue that you seem to miss is that we aren't discussing Bush's policies anymore. If you or one of your compadres wants to discuss them simply bring them up. I would be glad to offer my input. The fact is that while i wasn't enamored with some of Bush's decisions, Obama has far exceeded what Bush did, especially in terms of wasteful govt spending in the so called stimlus package.

Your indictment(?) of the Blame Bush quote is laughable as it is still totally relevant because of the use of it by Obama. He is still blaming Bush at every opportunity.

And I hate to tell you this but us small business owners who pay taxes, employ people and basically carry this country have been paying attention to the nations finances and how it effects us for quite some time.

I think that it is hard to keep a straight face in saying that I am anything but consistent in my posts or views. You may not like those views but you are really stretching it to say that I am either hypocritical or disingenous in my political posts on Derbytrail. Your logic in trying to make that case is laughable.

No, you're just like the 90% or so of other conservative political commentators who remained utterly silent for years, all of the sudden are raising hell, and acting shocked that ANYONE even noticed how disingenuous of you it is, all while pretending that those calling your $hit are the ones who are deranged, dishonest, etc. Classic GOP pot kettle projection.

Sorry dude. You and rest of them are like peas in a pod. Full-fledged GOP'ers who so transparently pretend to be somehow different than them.

Fail.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Sorry dude. You and rest of them are like peas in a pod. Full-fledged GOP'ers who so transparently pretend to be somehow different than them.

Fail.

damn and to think I've missed every post you've made calling for the removal of troops from Afghanistan, still there for Bush's war. Brass on the ground THERE have called for more troops and Obama needs more time to what?

Oh that's right important things like subsidized health care never mind the health or lives he is ultimately in charge of with the deployed troops.

IMO very hard for a guy who never had any real friends (not all his fault as his parents were more transient than gypsy's) to understand 10 friends behind you in a fight instead of 7 is an advantage and ultimately safer but let's stress on the important things like cow farts.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

damn and to think I've missed every post you've made calling for the removal of troops from Afghanistan, still there for Bush's war. Brass on the ground THERE have called for more troops and Obama needs more time to what?

Oh that's right important things like subsidized health care never mind the health or lives he is ultimately in charge of with the deployed troops.

IMO very hard for a guy who never had any real friends (not all his fault as his parents were more transient than gypsy's) to understand 10 friends behind you in a fight instead of 7 is an advantage and ultimately safer but let's stress on the important things like cow farts.

Well you missed it, because I haven't posted it. I haven't posted it because I don't believe it...that's the difference between what's actually true and the point you think you just scored, but failed. I've always thought Afghanistan was a necessary war at the time, wasn't mad about it then, and haven't completely made up my mind about what I'd like to see happen, but generally have no problem with the reccomendations coming from the brass over there. Giving them what they need is good with me.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Well you missed it, because I haven't posted it. I haven't posted it because I don't believe it...that's the difference between what's actually true and the point you think you just scored, but failed. I've always thought Afghanistan was a necessary war at the time, wasn't mad about it then, and haven't completely made up my mind about what I'd like to see happen, but generally have no problem with the reccomendations coming from the brass over there. Giving them what they need is good with me.

so then I agreed with you AND Riot in one night?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

so then I agreed with you AND Riot in one night?

$hit happens, I guess.

With the caveat that I've been slowly coming around to the idea that I'd rather we just leave Afghanistan, because it seems nearly as pointless now as the Iraq war was two weeks before we started it.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

$hit happens, I guess.

With the caveat that I've been slowly coming around to the idea that I'd rather we just leave Afghanistan, because it seems nearly as pointless now as the Iraq war was two weeks before we started it.

we we're much more successful using Special Ops and the CIA recruiting Afghan friendlies. Much different terrain and situation than Iraq. I agree we need to pull out our rank and file troops. Just destroy their poppy fields year after year from drones and try to maintain good intelligence preventing their coward counter-attacks on our civilians here and abroad. Nonetheless this enemy (radical islamics) aren't going away anytime soon if ever.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

damn and to think I've missed every post you've made calling for the removal of troops from Afghanistan, still there for Bush's war. Brass on the ground THERE have called for more troops and Obama needs more time to what?

Oh that's right important things like subsidized health care never mind the health or lives he is ultimately in charge of with the deployed troops.

IMO very hard for a guy who never had any real friends (not all his fault as his parents were more transient than gypsy's) to understand 10 friends behind you in a fight instead of 7 is an advantage and ultimately safer but let's stress on the important things like cow farts.

If GW Idiot had invaded Afghanistan in the first place, or at least the region where the Taliban is snuggled up in, that would not have been in issue. It was his lies about Iraq and his ( and Rumsfeld, etc) deceptions about WHY were were going into Iraq that was unforgiveable. THAT was the war that needed ending...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

No, you're just like the 90% or so of other conservative political commentators who remained utterly silent for years, all of the sudden are raising hell, and acting shocked that ANYONE even noticed how disingenuous of you it is, all while pretending that those calling your $hit are the ones who are deranged, dishonest, etc. Classic GOP pot kettle projection.

Sorry dude. You and rest of them are like peas in a pod. Full-fledged GOP'ers who so transparently pretend to be somehow different than them.

Fail.

And you are the typical faux intellectual liberal who believes that only their voices and causes are important.

You are calling me out on what exactly? That I dont like Obama? How is this news?

What does anything I said or didnt say about Bush have to do with my feelings on Obama and his awful economic strategy?

There is a certain thought that must go through liberal minds, that equality is the golden rule. Everything and everyone must have equal time and equal space, equal praise and equal dissent. That is the only logic I can think of when you guys talk about why us Obama dissenters didnt bash Bush enough.

Maybe because we didnt think he was so bad? We liked a lot of his policies? We enjoyed his tax cuts? We dont buy all the global warming/kyoto nonsense?

So tell me Mr. Enlightened, exactly what social issues have I shifted far right on?
Abortion? no Gay rights? no Immigration? uh no Stem Cells? no

What else?

Need I say that you are a far more typical liberal way up in your ivory tower.

Feel free to cast more stones.

And I will continue to consistently and unabashedly express my right as an American citizen to point out all the errors and mistakes that Mr Obama is making.

[Cannon Shell]

I did appreciate the elevation to political commentator.

Thanks!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And you are the typical faux intellectual liberal who believes that only their voices and causes are important.

You are calling me out on what exactly? That I dont like Obama? How is this news?

What does anything I said or didnt say about Bush have to do with my feelings on Obama and his awful economic strategy?

There is a certain thought that must go through liberal minds, that equality is the golden rule. Everything and everyone must have equal time and equal space, equal praise and equal dissent. That is the only logic I can think of when you guys talk about why us Obama dissenters didnt bash Bush enough.

Maybe because we didnt think he was so bad? We liked a lot of his policies? We enjoyed his tax cuts? We dont buy all the global warming/kyoto nonsense?

So tell me Mr. Enlightened, exactly what social issues have I shifted far right on?
Abortion? no Gay rights? no Immigration? uh no Stem Cells? no

What else?

Need I say that you are a far more typical liberal way up in your ivory tower.

Feel free to cast more stones.

And I will continue to consistently and unabashedly express my right as an American citizen to point out all the errors and mistakes that Mr Obama is making.

Yes, because I've made a big issue out of your stand on social issues, so shifting the debate there is a good tactic to divert attention from everything I've said which makes perfect sense. That you're inconsistent and pretend to be somehow a free-thinker when you're lockstep all the way with the intellectual dishonesty that has pervaded the right, transparently so. I at least make no qualms about how far left I am and don't try to pretend I'm anything other than what I am. The whole "well I'm a conservative [when it suits me] but look, my thinking is so independant, really look, really, it is, I promise!" thing is well tread territory, and you're not the first to try it and you won't be the last to try to shift the debate to something irrelevant and away from the original debate when called on it. And good work trying to throw some Fairness Doctrine stuff in there about equal time, equal voices.

This post is one giant straw man.

As usual.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Yes, because I've made a big issue out of your stand on social issues, so shifting the debate there is a good tactic to divert attention from everything I've said which makes perfect sense. That you're inconsistent and pretend to be somehow a free-thinker when you're lockstep all the way with the intellectual dishonesty that has pervaded the right, transparently so. I at least make no qualms about how far left I am and don't try to pretend I'm anything other than what I am. The whole "well I'm a conservative [when it suits me] but look, my thinking is so independant, really look, really, it is, I promise!" thing is well tread territory, and you're not the first to try it and you won't be the last to try to shift the debate to something irrelevant and away from the original debate when called on it. And good work trying to throw some Fairness Doctrine stuff in there about equal time, equal voices.

This post is one giant straw man.

As usual.

No Brian I am trying to figure out what the hell you are referring to. You call names but dont have any actual references or examples to back those names up.

I am inconsistent? Where am I inconsistent? Give me one example. Just one.

You make generalized comments and then dont even have the balls to back them up. So you are further left than I am right. Why are you better or more relevant than me?

I dont try to paint myself as any kind of fiscal centrist. If you understood the financial topics you would already know that.

You are a radical liberal. You stand lockstep on every issue with the left. Good for you. That doesnt make you any better, smarter, or more honest than the vast majority of the country that lies somewhere right of your position.

Interesting you yap about shifting the debate and topic when that is exactly what your posts have done. You have made me the topic. You didnt contribute to the discussion about the topic, you got mad because I said you are still blaming Bush. Which apparently struck a nerve. LOL

I am going today to register as an independent just to try to make your head explode.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No Brian I am trying to figure out what the hell you are referring to. You call names but dont have any actual references or examples to back those names up.

I am inconsistent? Where am I inconsistent? Give me one example. Just one.

You make generalized comments and then dont even have the balls to back them up. So you are further left than I am right. Why are you better or more relevant than me?

I dont try to paint myself as any kind of fiscal centrist. If you understood the financial topics you would already know that.

You are a radical liberal. You stand lockstep on every issue with the left. Good for you. That doesnt make you any better, smarter, or more honest than the vast majority of the country that lies somewhere right of your position.

Interesting you yap about shifting the debate and topic when that is exactly what your posts have done. You have made me the topic. You didnt contribute to the discussion about the topic, you got mad because I said you are still blaming Bush. Which apparently struck a nerve. LOL

I am going today to register as an independent just to try to make your head explode.

THAT should DO it!

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by timmgirvan

THAT should DO it!

It sure would, if more than 10% of that post actually accurately represented anything I've said, I'd be more than happy to concede Timm.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No Brian I am trying to figure out what the hell you are referring to. You call names but dont have any actual references or examples to back those names up.

I am inconsistent? Where am I inconsistent? Give me one example. Just one.

You make generalized comments and then dont even have the balls to back them up. So you are further left than I am right. Why are you better or more relevant than me?

I dont try to paint myself as any kind of fiscal centrist. If you understood the financial topics you would already know that.

You are a radical liberal. You stand lockstep on every issue with the left. Good for you. That doesnt make you any better, smarter, or more honest than the vast majority of the country that lies somewhere right of your position.

Interesting you yap about shifting the debate and topic when that is exactly what your posts have done. You have made me the topic. You didnt contribute to the discussion about the topic, you got mad because I said you are still blaming Bush. Which apparently struck a nerve. LOL

I am going today to register as an independent just to try to make your head explode.

No, see, all you've done in post after post is change the subject and misrepresent what I'm saying, which is creating a straw man argument that is easy for you to counter.

That you liked Bush? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue.

That you dislike Obama? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue.

That you are a small business owner to whom I owe all my success and good fortune? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue. (See how creating a straw man works?)

Gay rights and abortion? Not the issue, and I am not making it the issue.

But when you just "read" (if you even are) everything I'm typing and then try to pretend that those are the points I'm making, then you can yap away and defeat those talking points, then you win. Congratulations. You've defeated the arguments I'm not making.

The point, which I'll say again, is not at all that you dislike what Obama is doing. I don't care. And then you say things like “I’m going to continue to use my right as an American to criticize the President.” Good for you…again not the point, but quite patriotic and a good way to once again shift the debate to make it seem like I’m trying to stop you from criticizing him. Hell, I’m not even trying to stop wackos on your side from bringing guns to public rallies about the President.

I’m not “mad” that you say I’m blaming Bush, because on several topics, I still do, and have no problems with that. The problem is that you’ve become so comfortable, as people did with shouting “Bush Derangement Syndrome” when people offered any substantive criticism of Bush to avoid having to deal with the issues, to saying “oh you’re just blaming Bush still,” even when NOBODY IS BLAMING BUSH.

It’s not deflecting from one issue to another to point out the obvious fact that you had little to no financial criticism offered up anywhere until Obama became President, even when Bush was spending plenty of money. (Now, before you go straw man crazy, as I’m sure you will, I’m not BLAMING BUSH for spending money, I’m saying you only care now.) And now that you’re posting like an incredible machine about Obama and money, one could reasonably believe that financial issues are of the utmost importance to you – which is exactly why it strikes me as quite odd that you didn’t seem all that interested in wasteful spending until Obama was doing it. You can offer up whatever you’d like in response to that, but it’s just simple observation of how you current posting seems to reflect a newfound importance of certain issues that were of no such importance 18 months ago.

Of course I stand on the Left. More left of the “Left,” actually. And that doesn’t make me smarter or more important (straw man #86, breaking records like Secretariat here!), it makes me honest.

I’m sure you feel like you’re wasting your time with this, as am I, because you won’t even accurately represent what I’m saying in your responses…again, a typical tactic employed with about an 80/20 split by your side rather than mine. Ie, socialized medicine = death panels. It’s easy to win arguments when you’re not even arguing them honestly and you’re not even arguing the points your opponents are making. That’s what a straw man argument is, which I’m sure you know, as you’ve become quite adept as using them with nearly unbelievable frequency.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

The problem is that you’ve become so comfortable, as people did with shouting “Bush Derangement Syndrome” when people offered any substantive criticism of Bush to avoid having to deal with the issues, to saying “oh you’re just blaming Bush still,” even when NOBODY IS BLAMING BUSH.

.

What? Your guy is still doing it at every turn.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...846099654.html

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And I hate to tell you this but us small business owners who pay taxes, employ people and basically carry this country....

Yeah, who needs soldiers or teachers or doctors or firefighters or the entire working class....they are all pretty unimportant.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Yeah, who needs soldiers or teachers or doctors or firefighters or the entire working class....they are all pretty unimportant.

Putting words in my mouth once again.

Those are all commendable professions that have about 1% of the economic impact of small business owners in this country. You know the people who employ the majority of that same working class?

Try to have relevant comments at the very least

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Putting words in my mouth once again.

Those are all commendable professions that have about 1% of the economic impact of small business owners in this country. You know the people who employ the majority of that same working class?

Try to have relevant comments at the very least

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You said that small business owners " basically carry this country" which is of course....one giant load of crap. No one group of people "carries" the rest of the country. Would this country function far differently if all of the small business owners in the country suddenly vanished tomorrow? Well....yeah of course. But the same is true for dozens of other professions. It isn't all about economic impact. But on that particular subject, in my opinion, your sugestion that teachers have minimal econominc impact on the country is taking such a narrow view of what "economic impact" means that it boggles the mind. Do they pay a lot of taxes or employ others? No. Does that mean they don't have a huge effect on the nation's economy? Absolutely not.

As for employing the working class, your argument is that small business owners "carry" the country because they employ the working class. Fine. But the same argument could easily be flipped. The working class carries the small business owners because without laborers and employees, most of those small businesses would fail. Does that mean that working-class people are actually the ones that "carry" the country? I imagine some on the left would say yes to that, while most of those on the right would scoff.
Personally, I don't see any one group of people "carrying" anything.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You said that small business owners " basically carry this country" which is of course....one giant load of crap. No one group of people "carries" the rest of the country. Would this country function far differently if all of the small business owners in the country suddenly vanished tomorrow? Well....yeah of course. But the same is true for dozens of other professions. It isn't all about economic impact. But on that particular subject, in my opinion, your sugestion that teachers have minimal econominc impact on the country is taking such a narrow view of what "economic impact" means that it boggles the mind. Do they pay a lot of taxes or employ others? No. Does that mean they don't have a huge effect on the nation's economy? Absolutely not.

As for employing the working class, your argument is that small business owners "carry" the country because they employ the working class. Fine. But the same argument could easily be flipped. The working class carries the small business owners because without laborers and employees, most of those small businesses would fail. Does that mean that working-class people are actually the ones that "carry" the country? I imagine some on the left would say yes to that, while most of those on the right would scoff.
Personally, I don't see any one group of people "carrying" anything.

Small business isnt a profession. Your argument is stunningly lame. To argue against the economic imact of small business in the USA is pure folly.