He does it again.
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wow, thanks yet again for those profound knowledgeisms.
Next you'll be saying 'It is what it is.'
No, i haven't.
As I said, I can't explain why he engages in these selective deep bows. I can't tell you why or what he's trying to communicate consciously or unconsciously.
However, the image is powerful and it does project an image of the President that isn't strong.
Just last week, Iran's president said this:
"Mr. Obama, you are a newcomer. Wait until your sweat dries and get some experience. Be careful not to read just any paper put in front of you or repeat any statement recommended," Ahmadinejad said in the speech, aired live on state TV. "(American officials) bigger than you, more bullying than you, couldn't do a damn thing, let alone you."
But, like every story about this administration, it's not an isolated incident. It's not JUST that he bows to leaders of ugly communist regimes. It's everything that is taking place. So much that it's basically
impossible to keep track of it.
You make an interesting statement here. You say the country will survive long after this President is a distant memory.
Why do you think that it's a guarantee that the country, as we know it, will survive regardless the actions of the Presidents?
-your implication is that because someone comments on Obama's bizarre gesture that they aren't interested in the destructive economic course our country is headed? That's absurd.
We've been talking about that here, relentlessly, since before the 2008 election.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I bolded the contradiction for you.
Or were you making a mountain out of a mole hill by calling it 'doomed?'
This is the type of reasoning to expect of high school student. Again, you can believe anything you want if you dismiss any opposing view as illegitimate.
If this is, in any way, meant as a counter to my point about the rule of law then you have no clue what the concept is.
Apparently you are too ignorant to even grasp what I am saying and are only interested in dismissing me.
This is like arguing with an exceedingly experienced mechanic that what is wrong with is car is that the muffler bearings are out.
You should be embarrassed...
Bob Hubbard
Dedicated LVC Member
I bolded the contradiction for you.
Or were you making a mountain out of a mole hill by calling it 'doomed?'
Foss, It doesn;t take a rocket scientist to see where the economy is going.
Under this administration, it is doomed unless someone with some integrety steps up to the plate and begins to dig us out from this mess.
It will take years to accomplish, but there has to be an imediate reversal of the policiec that pushed us to this point.
I remember not so long ago, some wanted to impeach G.W.B. for starting the Iraq war.
I, like many others was a bit skeptical about the wmd's that were the reason for G.W."S decision to take on Iraq, but the end result proved somewhat, that it was a right decision.
When presidents take the oath, they swear to protect the constitution, and the nation, and failure to do so could end up in an impeachment.
Obama is dangerously close to an impeachment with his policies that tread dangerously close to going against the oath he took to defend the nation.
Defending the nation is not simply defending it against foreign powers, but keepingt he nation solvent as well.
It is a reckless road he has us on with all these bail outs, and this astronomical burden he has signed into law in the form of health care for the nation.
He IS NOT doing a good job of defending the nation.
Government spending had more than quardrupled since he took office.
I feel these are impeachable offenses because this reckless spending does not take into account how to pay for them.
Even if this administration had a payment plan on the table, it will reach far into the future .
The future of your grand children.
I just don't see that as protecting the nation as was sworn too in the oath he took when he became president.
He is about to bankrupt this country with the policies he has put forth.
I think the newly organized tea party would do well to call for his impeachment.
Bob.
Wow, thanks yet again for those profound knowledgeisms.
Next you'll be saying 'It is what it is.'
Well as Bill Clinton once said, that of course depends on what is, is LOL
You make it easy to poke some fun
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ok thanks Forrest. Stupid is as stupid does.Well as Bill Clinton once said, that of course depends on what is, is LOL
You make it easy to poke some fun
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Just in case you forgot, it was a movie. You know - fiction.Forrest was a happy guy who enjoyed his life
So then if you're being sarcastic using fictional characters it follows you're argument is based on fiction?
Well now that makes sense...
Just because I'm of the opinion that you can over intellectualize things is not a dismissal of your views as illegitimate.
I'm sure you could write volumes on the meaning of rule of law, but to me rules follow laws and not laws follow rules.
Laws can be passed that violate conservative or democratic principles because those are opinions based on some facts.
When new laws are enacted there can be some new rules.
Besides who lives up to their own rules?
I don't understand your mechanic example.
To me you might as well say you can't land on a fraction as an argument.
If it is not an excuse to simply dismiss anything I say that you don't like, then what is it? Why even mention it?
If you are not going to apply informed, honest critical thought to these things ("intellectualize" them), then all you are left with is emotion. Not reasonable conclusion can be reached through emotion...
you can not simply redefine ideas as you see fit.
That is like saying that, in your opinion, an engine is completely unnecessary for a car to move under it's own power. It is ignorant foolishness.
Again, you need to learn what the rule of law is and what I am saying. Your "response" in no way relates to what I am saying.
It would be like saying that 2+2=purple. It makes absolutely no sense if you have even the most basic understanding needed to comprehend the idea.
I would explain it too you but you have already shown that you will simply dismiss anything I say. I see no reason to waste my time on fools.
The problem is, I (and the rest of society) suffer for your foolishness. If you are actually going to engage in the voting process, you have a duty to educate yourself, apply critical thought and reach a rational conclusion; something you clearly refuse to do.
I think we could end right there, all in agreement.
But I would add, our international image and projected strength is critical when it comes to national security and international stability. Without going too deeply into this, we're looking at international economic instability. Adding that to the other destabilizing factors , the world is a much more volatile place that in recent years past. The perception of weakness is seen as an opportunity.
While I agree that he has no respect for the constitution and I'm sure that he views it as an obstacle, you can't impeach a President for being a bad President. Especially when his party holds majorities in the Congress.
Furthermore, he's technically not spending a dollar.
The congress is.
In fairness, there's a widely embraced philosophy held by almost all Democrats and far too many Republicans that essentially disregards the limits of the constitution for a national form of government that is very involved in our lives. Obama hasn't bankrupted the country alone, though he has expanded that debt like nothing we've seen before.
There is no "Tea Party." Just like minded people getting together. It's the kind of organic, spontaneous expressions from regular Americans that the left never achieves but misrepresent their political activities as having.
And efforts for impeachment are neither legal or likely.
The best answer is for the Republican party to actually become a party that really stands for limited constitutional government. It hasn't. And then we need to kill this federal entitlement culture and cut taxes, because what we have now is completely unsustainable.
The World Justice Project, an organization specializing in the promotion of Rule of Law, bases its definition as, consisting of 16 factors and 68 sub-factors, organized under the following set of four principles, or bands:[19]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Protecting fundamental rights including security of persons and property is open to opinion as to what is a fundamental right and how you define security of person and property.
1. The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law;
2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property;
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient;
4. Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
There are other views as well. They include the minority view that the rule of law implies a guarantee of democracy.[16]2. The laws are clear, publicized, stable and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property;
3. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered and enforced is accessible, fair and efficient;
4. Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Protecting fundamental rights including security of persons and property is open to opinion as to what is a fundamental right and how you define security of person and property.
Shag -04 is correct - you "studiously over intellectualize" and create an atmosphere of elitism.
Your response, Shag...
You are dismissing '04 because you view his reasoning to be at a high school level.... so therefore he isn't worth discussing this with?
You often decry 'elitism' and are quick to label many on the left as elitist. However, I have noticed lately that you shag have started to bury yourself within layers and layers of hubristic nonsense. You don't care if anyone understands your blithering, just so long as you can throw out a few big words, hide behind a Hayek quote or two and then refuse to discuss a point because 'we the masses' don't understand it.
Shag, I believe that is the very definition of 'elitist'.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Now there's an example of irony. The Alinskyite calling the kettle black. What's the matter, fox, is 'Aunt Flo' visiting? Or did she retire a few years back, and you're just cranky today? Maybe you should go buy some more ultra-expensive shoes that cost more than Shag makes in 2 weeks. That'll make you feel better.