Since you don't bother to address the points in the OP, why don't you just not respond at all. That would save even more time!
The OP is a list of inaccurate accusations and straw men. There are no "points" raised. It deserves derision, nothing more.
That is the gretest irony of all. Bush "The Dummy" didn't fall apart until harriet meyers and Katrina, well into his second term. Took him more than 4 years to crash and burn while this idiot's done it in 18 months
And nothing less. It would be grossly irresponsible not to deride the original post. Time for Bock to change his meds again.
RD, Liet: Let's start with China - make it easy. Are you saying China is a humanitarian paradise and Arizona's governor deserves to be sent to the Hague to be tried for crimes against humanity? OK. I'll admit that may be an exaggeration of your position. Tell me how the author got that point wrong. I"ll wait. I know you really think Obama's going to give you a real answer. <snicker>
Sorry Bock this is nothing more than whining about a president you don't like. The fact is that a president can be effective and a good president whether you (or I) like him or not. I didn't agree with a lot of things Ronal Reagan did and some of the ideas he set in motion have been bad for the country in my opinion. That doesn't change the fact that he governed effectively and was highly respected by the great majority of the country. Your list of "particulars" is about the equivalent of not liking Reagan because he had rich friends, remodeled the White House, made movies with a monkey or used hair dye. You don't like Obama, fine. There are plenty of reasons to dislike any president, but dismissing their time in office as a failure over such nonsensical style points doesn't cut it. It's not even debatable since it's all about opinion and perception. It also comes across an awful like whiny, temper tantrums from a sore loser. Let's put it another way, your list of complaints is a lot like dismissing you as a bad person because of all the many posts you've made that I disagree with. That's a pretty bullshit way to judge someone's worth, because the character traits that I regard as important are not always easily discerned on a message board. I never have figured out what the Hell the point is of someone saying a particular politicians isn't a good leader because they are not nice or are self-centered or arrogant. I have two reactions to that: 1) effective leadership is not necessarily judged by personal interactions (By all accounts I've read Warren G. Harding was as likeable a person as we've ever had in the White House. I'm reminded of General Patton, who once admonished a colleague "I don't want these mean to love me. I want them to fight for me! 2) You look at what it takes to become president in this day and age and the kind of person who can survive and thrive in that environment is not likely to be what any of us would consider a "regular" guy.
It is always best to attempt to promote the former; and battle to prevent the latter from becoming necessary.
I must've misread that because that's just plain dumb. Can you explain that better so it doesn't sound like you're excusing the Chinese and threatening an American governor?
Mind you, I pretty much hate all politicians so I have no horse in this race. But, a lot of people put up with that from a lot of people on this very board during the eight years of the Bush Administration . Anyone that denies it is a dog faced liar. Remember the mistake when Bush pulled on a locked door? The stupid grin he had on his face? Remember when he said that he was the "Decider?" Oh how I'd love to have those threads right about now. Turn about is a bitch, ain't it?
Although I don't think I'd like this president on a personal level, I don't think my personal feelings for him have too much to do with my judgment of his policy on China / Arizona for instance (see my post immediately preceding yours here). That and his presiding over the absolute worst fiscal policy in the history of the United States has nothing to do with how he parts his hair or his skin color if that's what you're implying my feelings about him might be based on. He's screwing up and doing so on some very important issues. Yes, this author has some pretty personal points he's making. But he's also made some very valid points of substance that no one in opposition here has refuted, including you.
Not disagreeing. I didn't like GWB as a president, but I tried to make those disagreements about what I thought were wrong or idiotic policies, not about his personality. Didn't always work, so I certainly was guilty of it at times, but I tried not to make that an argument for persuading somebody else that they should dislike him or regard him as a failure.
I'd never say you did. Also, it doesn't get "us", as a country, anywhere. But, it amuses me greatly to see certain people squeal when the shoe is on the other foot.
Sorry, there are NO substantive points to discuss in that article. Everyone of them is a style over substance complaint or a complaint that Obama isn't doing things the way you think he should. That's not the basis for any kind of discussion. It's like a kid folding his arms, pouting and saying "I just don't like him!"
Well, if that's the way you feel, then there's definitely no way there's going to be any discussion, is there?
I do not know Mr. Obama personally, so my opinion is based entirely on his actions and policies, and my opinion is that he sucks.
and so fuckin' what? I don't think any of the presidents I've lived through were the kind of people I'd want to buddy up to. I think Ronald Reagan was a decent person and probably a pretty good boss. The rest of 'em, you can have 'em. On second thought, I give Gerry Ford good marks on that score as well.
Fuck TNZ. Does that answer your question, douche nozel? Funny, I don't remember you being a such an angry little bitch before. Maybe you've invested a little too much in Saint Barack. How's that hope and change thing going for you?
