pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 Clearly you don't understand: 1. Politics 2. The old media 3. The new media 4. My point 5. The Oprah-fied, "everybody is a victim" culture that many are trying to force on us. and therefore, I am done with you on this topic. The second you get a clue about 1-5, will be the same second you understand what I am saying. Although, I am glad that you don't understand #5. If only more people didn't understand/rejected it as well. I completely understand d-bag. I just don't believe that the attacks against her will help her out in the long run no matter how much spin and PR her came does. Sorry.
1billsfan Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 No Democrat could win against Palin? I hope you are not serious. Best way to beat her in an election would be to have open debates with her. She clearly does not know what she is talking about.. if she goes off her talking points even a little bit she be crushed. Big problem for Obama is that he can't lie his way into a second term as president no matter who he's debating in 2012. Then there will also be the problem of that first term turd he'll be trying to polish to no avail. There are a whole lot of Americans who are very angry at being duped by a slick talking, but completely full of s___t, clueless liberal professor.
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 Big problem for Obama is that he can't lie his way into a second term as president no matter who he's debating in 2012. Then there will also be the problem of that first term turd he'll be trying to polish to no avail. There are a whole lot of Americans who are very angry at being duped by a slick talking, but completely full of s___t, clueless liberal professor. It is a known fact that politicians exaggerate what they will do on the campaign trail. To call him an outright liar, I think is wrong. I also wouldn't classify this term as a turd until it's over. There's a long way to go.
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 It is a known fact that politicians exaggerate what they will do on the campaign trail. To call him an outright liar, I think is wrong. I don't necessarily agree - I'm not uncomfortable calling him a liar, but I wouldn't consider him any worse than any other politician out there. More accurately, though...I'd call him naive. Lots of idealism in his campaign and first year of his administration, largely untempered by practicality.
Magox Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I don't necessarily agree - I'm not uncomfortable calling him a liar, but I wouldn't consider him any worse than any other politician out there. More accurately, though...I'd call him naive. Lots of idealism in his campaign and first year of his administration, largely untempered by practicality. I honestly believe that he didn't have the intention of not living up to his promises, or lying to the American Public. He bought into the idea that he could change the way things work in Washington, and I'm sure that had alot to do with his handlers. I also believe that he thought he could make some powerful speeches and change foreign policy, the reality is that these things don't just "change", they evolve and it takes many years for these things to morph into something different. It is exactly as you stated, naivete'
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 I don't necessarily agree - I'm not uncomfortable calling him a liar, but I wouldn't consider him any worse than any other politician out there. More accurately, though...I'd call him naive. Lots of idealism in his campaign and first year of his administration, largely untempered by practicality. Probably the best way to put it.
1billsfan Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 It is a known fact that politicians exaggerate what they will do on the campaign trail. To call him an outright liar, I think is wrong. I also wouldn't classify this term as a turd until it's over. There's a long way to go. That is true, at least he's talking nuclear energy plants. Hmm...wonder were he got that idea from? As for the first part, he was and still is a liar. Just like the classic liberal politician, he had no intention of living up to his high standards which got him elected in the first place. Americans took a big chance on a guy with virtually no record or experience and they got burned. The evidence of the anger towards Obama is the last three elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. If it's so hard to live up to what you say then he should have never run in the first place. For the first time in history, the people are holding their politicians accountable, there are no excuses. Especially with an excuse starting out like "It is a known fact that politicians exaggerate..."
LeviF Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 That is true, at least he's talking nuclear energy plants. Hmm...wonder were he got that idea from? As for the first part, he was and still is a liar. Just like the classic liberal politician, he had no intention of living up to his high standards which got him elected in the first place. Americans took a big chance on a guy with virtually no record or experience and they got burned. The evidence of the anger towards Obama is the last three elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. If it's so hard to live up to what you say then he should have never run in the first place. For the first time in history, the people are holding their politicians accountable, there are no excuses. Especially with an excuse starting out like "It is a known fact that politicians exaggerate..." Fixed that for you.
DC Tom Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I honestly believe that he didn't have the intention of not living up to his promises, or lying to the American Public. He bought into the idea that he could change the way things work in Washington, and I'm sure that had alot to do with his handlers. I also believe that he thought he could make some powerful speeches and change foreign policy, the reality is that these things don't just "change", they evolve and it takes many years for these things to morph into something different. It is exactly as you stated, naivete' Lots of people, including elected officials, don't realize that the federal government is a great stinking behemoth of a bureaucray that, like every great stinking behemoth of a bureaucracy, exists almost solely to perpetuate it's own existence. Pretty pretty words (teleprompter or no) and some snappy hand gestures twice a week aren't going to get the behemoth's attention, and it's not going to change direction if it doesn't want to. Clearly, though, feeding it an extra trillion or so dollars is going to make it more responsive.
pBills Posted February 16, 2010 Author Posted February 16, 2010 That is true, at least he's talking nuclear energy plants. Hmm...wonder were he got that idea from? As for the first part, he was and still is a liar. Just like the classic liberal politician, he had no intention of living up to his high standards which got him elected in the first place. Americans took a big chance on a guy with virtually no record or experience and they got burned. The evidence of the anger towards Obama is the last three elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. If it's so hard to live up to what you say then he should have never run in the first place. For the first time in history, the people are holding their politicians accountable, there are no excuses. Especially with an excuse starting out like "It is a known fact that politicians exaggerate..." And yes, we were burned? I laugh when you state that you are holding politicians accountable, yet you bask one side... classic liberal blah blah blah. You actually meant to say classic politician right?
IDBillzFan Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 I honestly believe that he didn't have the intention of not living up to his promises, or lying to the American Public. He bought into the idea that he could change the way things work in Washington, and I'm sure that had alot to do with his handlers. I also believe that he thought he could make some powerful speeches and change foreign policy, the reality is that these things don't just "change", they evolve and it takes many years for these things to morph into something different. It is exactly as you stated, naivete' it goes back to my argument that Obama does a great job walking the line between "imply" and "infer." For all the talk about "hope and change," he never made a true effort to "define" what he meant. Like most everything significant he's tried to do this year, he threw out some ideas and let everyone fill in the blanks. Exactly what kind of hope? What kind of change? What do you mean by "fundamentally change" the way Washington works? Here's a great article (you've probably already read). Tucker was right, the bastardBy Paul Begala 02/09/10 at 12:10 pm He saw it coming, I’ve got to admit it. We are as different as we can be, Tucker Carlson and I. He is a Protestant, libertarian, elitist conservative. I am a Catholic, communitarian, populist Democrat. And yet I have to tip my hat to him. Tucker predicted the winter of our discontent more accurately than all the president’s pollsters and all the president’s men. Tucker and I have engaged in hundreds —actually, thousands—of debates since we first squared off on a now-defunct show called “Crossfire” in 2002. When we’d finished hurting America through vigorous debate on afternoon cable, we took our show on the road. From time to time we would debate—before civic organizations, trade associations, corporate meetings, weddings, bar mitzvahs, prison release parties, you name it. And throughout 2008, when tens of millions of Americans were chanting, “Change!” Tucker saw the collision coming. He would invariably point out that when most Americans—especially independents—use the word, “change,” what they really mean is incremental improvement. “Shorter lines at the DMV,” he’d say, “or a FEMA that shows up within six months of a hurricane.” He cautioned that the Obama administration risked pushing too much fundamental change too quickly, which would alienate the independent voters who really just wanted things to get a bit better. At the same time, he warned, there were some people for whom “change” meant radical restructuring: throw open the Bastille, cancel all the debts, declare a Jubilee. These people, Tucker warned, required a pace of change exponentially faster than the steady incrementalism of the independents. Case in point: Tucker and I debated at a gathering of thousands of young people the day before the Obama inaugural. I opened with a joke about the new president walking across the Reflecting Pool to the Lincoln Memorial. No one laughed. In fact, several of them whipped out their cellphones to text each other with the news that The One would be walking on water, as usual. Health care? If we but touch the hem of His garment, they figured, we shall be healed. It would be, Tucker predicted, impossible to reconcile those two visions of change. And he was right, the bastard. Sure, most of the problems facing our president and my party are due to the crappy economy. And it is certainly true that Barack Obama is essentially the same person, in word and deed, whom he pledged to be in the campaign. Moreover, the president has world enough and time—indeed, he looks to be on a long-term arc resembling Reagan’s and Clinton’s: mid-term setback, third year comeback, fourth year landslide re-election. And yet it is also true that, for now, the attitudes of both the incrementalists and the radicals have soured. Incrementalists, stunned by what they see as overly broad and rapid change, are looking for the brakes. Radicals, depressed about the snail’s pace of progress, are looking for the exits. And Tucker Carlson is looking like an oracle.
Magox Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 it goes back to my argument that Obama does a great job walking the line between "imply" and "infer." For all the talk about "hope and change," he never made a true effort to "define" what he meant. Like most everything significant he's tried to do this year, he threw out some ideas and let everyone fill in the blanks. Exactly what kind of hope? What kind of change? What do you mean by "fundamentally change" the way Washington works? Here's a great article (you've probably already read). What's most amazing about that article is that Begala admitted that Carlson was right. But in all seriousness, there is alot of truth to what Carlson says, and it is almost impossible to please both sides when the word "hope" and "change" are used, specially when it isn't specifically defined. Good find LA
1billsfan Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 And yes, we were burned? I laugh when you state that you are holding politicians accountable, yet you bask one side... classic liberal blah blah blah. You actually meant to say classic politician right? Obama took it to a whole new level with his "hope" and "change" mantra. Somehow he convinced Americans to put their faith in someone who was so inexperienced and someone who had so many red flags in his background. Once in office, he tabbed Rohm Emanuel as his chief of staff thus ending any hope of keeping his pledge to change the way Washington does business.
Alaska Darin Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 What's most amazing about that article is that Begala admitted that Carlson was right. But the liberals are the self-appointed intellectuals and Carlson's the dork in the bow tie.
John Adams Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 But the liberals are the self-appointed intellectuals and Carlson's the dork in the bow tie. Tucker Carlson is a witty bastard. I hear him weekly on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show on Sirius.
IDBillzFan Posted February 16, 2010 Posted February 16, 2010 Tucker Carlson is a witty bastard. I hear him weekly on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show on Sirius. His new website (DailyCaller.com) is pretty cool. It's kind of like the Huffington Post for conservatives and independents, without the hate. Though I have to admit one of my favorite indulgences there is the person who gives weekly updates on Keith Olbermann's show. "We watch because we're paid to." Funny stuff.
pBills Posted February 17, 2010 Author Posted February 17, 2010 His new website (DailyCaller.com) is pretty cool. It's kind of like the Huffington Post for conservatives and independents, without the hate. Though I have to admit one of my favorite indulgences there is the person who gives weekly updates on Keith Olbermann's show. "We watch because we're paid to." Funny stuff. Without the hate? Yeah that Huffington Post is full of hate. Personally I do not mind Tucker Carlson. Sometimes he can come across as a smug little guy, borderline elitist.
RkFast Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Without the hate? Yeah that Huffington Post is full of hate. Stupid and unable to comprehend stuff is bad enough...but CHOOSING to be ignorant is on a whole 'nother level...and Ive NEVER seen anyone who is as purposely ignorant as you.
pBills Posted February 17, 2010 Author Posted February 17, 2010 Stupid and unable to comprehend stuff is bad enough...but CHOOSING to be ignorant is on a whole 'nother level...and Ive NEVER seen anyone who is as purposely ignorant as you. Wow, dick statement this early in the morning. Your man love must not have come last night huh? Really Huffington is no more hate driven than the drudgereport. Even to say that is hate driven is just stupid.
Magox Posted February 17, 2010 Posted February 17, 2010 Tucker Carlson is a witty bastard. I hear him weekly on the Bubba the Love Sponge Show on Sirius. I listen to Bubba the Love Sponge just about every day on my way to the office, well that and NPR. Funny guys, some of the songs are a little over the top and when they get to talking about wrastling, that's usually my cue to switch stations.
Recommended Posts