Romney Spokesman makes terrible mistake... by mentioning one of his accomplishments.

So continuing the policies set by his predecessor makes him "arrogant." I see. Then would you say that he's as arrogant as his predecessors, or more arrogant than his predecessors and, if the latter, why?

Arrogant that he campaigned against them and went went further because he obviously thinks he's untouchable and can do no wrong. Like how he openly defied the War Powers Act in Libya, or how he's covering for Holden.

I also don't need to prove "more or less" to you because that was never the point I was making, which is only that Obama is hardly immune to that criticism. Actually, to be completely frank, not only is it intellectually dishonest to claim "arrogant = uppity", but it's actually pretty racist in itself in how it's being used. It's suggesting that because a man is of a certain race that he can not be criticized.

So he's arrogant because, just like every president since they were passed, he has violated the war powers act by asserting that it didn't apply to the particular circumstance? Did the others think they were untouchable in this regard, too? And since all the others also invoked executive privilege, what sets the bar for arrogant executive privilege? It appears to me, that you are describing traits that are, for better or worst, best termed as Presidential. Is it arrogant these days to behave as President when that is in fact your job?

The issue is that people are labeling Obama as arrogant for actions that are consistent with the behavior of other presidents. The implication in this, is that he is somehow not fit to behave as though he is the President of the United States, his election not withstanding. Back in the day, a black man who held a position normally seen as privileged, or above his place, was called uppity. That's the logical connection being made -- we have a black man doing the same thing as his white predecessors, and for this he is being called arrogant, much the way black men used to be called uppity for such behavior.

(A) There isn't a politician born who hasn't promised one thing and delivered another

and

(B) I doubt you can name any position in either the public or the private sector where the actual parameters of the job are an exact fit with the job description. IOW, what you think you're going to do when you're offered the job, and the information you acquire once you're at the desk, are almost always two different things. In the instance of high-security jobs (and I think we'd agree POTUS qualifies as such), need-to-know means that, no matter how well you're briefed before the fact, there are a whole lot of things you'll be read into once you take office that you had no way of knowing beforehand. Anyone who thinks those have no effect on actions is delusional.

So I'll take that as "as arrogant" not "more arrogant."

Can you name the posters here who have said he should be "above criticism," as opposed to those of us who are commenting on the nature of the criticism?

Wow, talk about dishonest. You might as well be defending Nixon for breaking the law while you're at it.

And it's only an issue because racist assholes are making it an issue. And yes, I'm including people who are pulling the race card in this fashion as racist because only racists are concerned with race and think double standards should apply because of it.

It's obvious you're going to keep trying to make an argument out of nothing or steer the argument away from what it was actually about to begin with.

Not sure why you think I'm defending it.

And it's only an issue because racist assholes are making it an issue. And yes, I'm including people who are pulling the race card in this fashion as racist because only racists are concerned with race and think double standards should apply because of it. [/QUOTE]

It's an issue because people aren't backing up the claim of arrogance. The claim is made, the evidence presented is that he behaves like other presidents. There's a disconnect there, and lacking a better argument from the claimant, I'm led to wonder if there is something else going on. If you call him arrogant, it's up to you to explain why, and so far you haven't.

Actually they are, but you're just ignoring it because it doesn't fit your argument.

The only disconnect here is that you apparently don't view arrogant behavior as arrogant when it's coming from a President.

And it's obvious that you're just going to keep repeating this^ under the unfounded belief that repetition makes it true, then lapse back into posting smilies again, neither of which does much to showcase your intelligence.

This^.

No, the disconnect here is your contention that "the same as" is somehow "more than."

Well, then, there's your problem.

Now, post some more smilies. That'll make you feel better.

Where were these claims of arrogance with other presidents? It is a wide spread complaint about Obama, whereas it was not with regard to his predecessors. The evidence you've presented is that he behaves as did other Presidents. Why then, is it arrogant when he does it, whereas it was not previously.

It's been there - you've simply ignored it along with anything else inconvenient for you.

Only in the sense that he's in office now so there is more focus on it. Apparently some people are like goldfish and forget everything that's not right in front of them.

I never made that argument, genius. Oh, look, yet another lib-tard has claimed that I said something I didn't in order to make an argument against me.

Now do it again.

And yet you can't seem to find a single instance of it anywhere on the internetz.

You never refuted it, either:

Go for those smilies now...

Google "George Bush Arrogance" and see what you find. There was actually an editorial in the LA Times called "Bush the Arrogant". If you think Obama is the first President to have this type of criticism thrown at him, then you're either stupid, or you've been in a coma for most of your life.

No one here is saying anything even remotely resembling the bolded part.

Really?

Oh look, Captain X is assuming that because I pointed out that one particular criticism of Obama involves the use of racist tinged code language that everyone who criticizes him is guilty of racism. What shit.

Yes, really.

This ^is about Bush. The bolded part says "Obama."

Can you find an instance anywhere in the Red Room where any poster is claiming "Obama is the first President to have this type of criticism thrown at him"?

You mean besides gul and yourself reacting with skepticism that any other president was widely accused of arrogance? If you didn't intend to imply that cries of arrogance are uniquely directed at Obama, then why ask for proof to the contrary?

And yes I can find proof of a poster in the Red Room claiming that Obama is the first president to receive this kind of criticism. Right here in this thread. You actually repped the post.

Please link to at least one of those posts.

That wasn't what I was asking. I specifically asked for a link to a reference about Bush.

Again, you misunderstand. This post:

Was specifically addressed to Captain X's posts about Obama's arrogance being somehow simultaneously the same as every other president's (as well as that of "other rich assholes"), and yet somehow different. Please read the entire exchange.

I read the exchange and I do not agree with your interpretation of gul's post. Perhaps that is the point you were trying to make, but his post explicitly questions whether claims of arrogance were ever made towards other presidents. He states as fact that claims of arrogance are widespread with Obama but not his predecessors. What other way is that supposed to be taken?

And I don't agree with your interpretation of gul's post. So since I've got plans for the evening, what say we both wait for gul to let us know whose interpretation is more accurate?

No point in me saying which of you got it right, as the claim will be rejected by the other. I'm sure plenty of people called Bush arrogant, for what it's worth, so add that in to your calculus Ash.

I accused you of calling everyone racist if they call Obama arrogant and they happen to not be the same race as him - get it straight, because that's what you've done.

I like how you keep claiming this, because I never said anything like that. All you're doing is illustrating just how much you like to make shit up in order to suit whatever argument you think you're making. Actually it's pretty amusing to see you make the claim seeing as the point of my posts has always been that Obama should be treated the same as the previous arrogant asshole and not be immune because of his race.

You keep saying what you didn't say. Apparently you're unable to clarify what you did say.

Now post another smilie.

Put up or fucking shut up. If I said what you claim, it should be extremely simple to find the posts in question and quote them.

So I'll take that as "as arrogant" not "more arrogant."[/quote]

Unless you say otherwise, silence betokens consent.

Didn't notice it when you posted it - thanks for letting me know a second time!

Marked on my calendar!