Obama lacks decorum

[Anonymous]

Good laughs here.

I’m scratching my head trying to imagine how someone could not pick and choose what they like.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the Supreme Court if you don’t like the decisions.

The conservatives have railed against Roe v. Wade for years and have worked hard to overturn it. I’m glad that their energy has been wasted in vain.

The Supreme Court justices makes wrong decisions, but in time, they recognize their errors.

If you’re progressive, it’s only a matter of time ’til you’re on the right side of history.[/quote]

Um, Brian, by your own admission, you’re not a Progessive. You’re an incrementalist, remember?

Talk about eating one’s cake and having it, too. You cannot claim safe and steady politics AND Progressivism at the same time. Again, long on rhetoric and short on facts.

For someone who loves being on the right side of history, perhaps you should read some? History, that is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the Supreme Court if you don’t like the decisions.

The conservatives have railed against Roe v. Wade for years and have worked hard to overturn it. I’m glad that their energy has been wasted in vain.

The Supreme Court justices makes wrong decisions, but in time, they recognize their errors.

If you’re progressive, it’s only a matter of time ’til you’re on the right side of history.[/quote]

Um, Brian, by your own admission, you’re not a Progessive. You’re an incrementalist, remember?

Talk about eating one’s cake and having it, too. You cannot claim safe and steady politics AND Progressivism at the same time. Again, long on rhetoric and short on facts.

For someone who loves being on the right side of history, perhaps you should read some? History, that is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the Supreme Court if you don’t like the decisions.

The conservatives have railed against Roe v. Wade for years and have worked hard to overturn it. I’m glad that their energy has been wasted in vain.

The Supreme Court justices makes wrong decisions, but in time, they recognize their errors.

If you’re progressive, it’s only a matter of time ’til you’re on the right side of history.[/quote]

Um, Brian, by your own admission, you’re not a Progessive. You’re an incrementalist, remember?

Talk about eating one’s cake and having it, too. You cannot claim safe and steady politics AND Progressivism at the same time. Again, long on rhetoric and short on facts.

For someone who loves being on the right side of history, perhaps you should read some? History, that is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the Supreme Court if you don’t like the decisions.

The conservatives have railed against Roe v. Wade for years and have worked hard to overturn it. I’m glad that their energy has been wasted in vain.

The Supreme Court justices makes wrong decisions, but in time, they recognize their errors.

If you’re progressive, it’s only a matter of time ’til you’re on the right side of history.[/quote]

Um, Brian, by your own admission, you’re not a Progessive. You’re an incrementalist, remember?

Talk about eating one’s cake and having it, too. You cannot claim safe and steady politics AND Progressivism at the same time. Again, long on rhetoric and short on facts.

For someone who loves being on the right side of history, perhaps you should read some? History, that is.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]It’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the Supreme Court if you don’t like the decisions.

The conservatives have railed against Roe v. Wade for years and have worked hard to overturn it. I’m glad that their energy has been wasted in vain.

The Supreme Court justices makes wrong decisions, but in time, they recognize their errors.

If you’re progressive, it’s only a matter of time ’til you’re on the right side of history.[/quote]

Um, Brian, by your own admission, you’re not a Progessive. You’re an incrementalist, remember?

Talk about eating one’s cake and having it, too. You cannot claim safe and steady politics AND Progressivism at the same time. Again, long on rhetoric and short on facts.

For someone who loves being on the right side of history, perhaps you should read some? History, that is.

[Anonymous]

Once again I find it funny that anyone could defend his attack on the Supreme Court. What is the question here isn’t should he have his opinion, whether right or wrong by us with our own opinions, but should Obama try to intimidate the Supreme Court by calling them out at the Address (of which I don’t think any President has done?). He can and should say in a public venue (press, talking head shows, etc…) that he doesn’t like the outcome but not at the State of the Union Address. When all three branches of government are in a room they should respect each other not gang up and intimidate the other.
AS far as agreeing or disagreeing with the decision (once again separate question from the first) I don’t exactly like it but if unions and special interest groups can donate millions to candidates I suppose everyone should be able to, up to and including big businesses. If it were up to me no one, special interest groups, unions, big business, no one but individuals would be able to. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

Once again I find it funny that anyone could defend his attack on the Supreme Court. What is the question here isn’t should he have his opinion, whether right or wrong by us with our own opinions, but should Obama try to intimidate the Supreme Court by calling them out at the Address (of which I don’t think any President has done?). He can and should say in a public venue (press, talking head shows, etc…) that he doesn’t like the outcome but not at the State of the Union Address. When all three branches of government are in a room they should respect each other not gang up and intimidate the other.
AS far as agreeing or disagreeing with the decision (once again separate question from the first) I don’t exactly like it but if unions and special interest groups can donate millions to candidates I suppose everyone should be able to, up to and including big businesses. If it were up to me no one, special interest groups, unions, big business, no one but individuals would be able to. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

Once again I find it funny that anyone could defend his attack on the Supreme Court. What is the question here isn’t should he have his opinion, whether right or wrong by us with our own opinions, but should Obama try to intimidate the Supreme Court by calling them out at the Address (of which I don’t think any President has done?). He can and should say in a public venue (press, talking head shows, etc…) that he doesn’t like the outcome but not at the State of the Union Address. When all three branches of government are in a room they should respect each other not gang up and intimidate the other.
AS far as agreeing or disagreeing with the decision (once again separate question from the first) I don’t exactly like it but if unions and special interest groups can donate millions to candidates I suppose everyone should be able to, up to and including big businesses. If it were up to me no one, special interest groups, unions, big business, no one but individuals would be able to. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

Once again I find it funny that anyone could defend his attack on the Supreme Court. What is the question here isn’t should he have his opinion, whether right or wrong by us with our own opinions, but should Obama try to intimidate the Supreme Court by calling them out at the Address (of which I don’t think any President has done?). He can and should say in a public venue (press, talking head shows, etc…) that he doesn’t like the outcome but not at the State of the Union Address. When all three branches of government are in a room they should respect each other not gang up and intimidate the other.
AS far as agreeing or disagreeing with the decision (once again separate question from the first) I don’t exactly like it but if unions and special interest groups can donate millions to candidates I suppose everyone should be able to, up to and including big businesses. If it were up to me no one, special interest groups, unions, big business, no one but individuals would be able to. Just my two cents.

[Anonymous]

Once again I find it funny that anyone could defend his attack on the Supreme Court. What is the question here isn’t should he have his opinion, whether right or wrong by us with our own opinions, but should Obama try to intimidate the Supreme Court by calling them out at the Address (of which I don’t think any President has done?). He can and should say in a public venue (press, talking head shows, etc…) that he doesn’t like the outcome but not at the State of the Union Address. When all three branches of government are in a room they should respect each other not gang up and intimidate the other.
AS far as agreeing or disagreeing with the decision (once again separate question from the first) I don’t exactly like it but if unions and special interest groups can donate millions to candidates I suppose everyone should be able to, up to and including big businesses. If it were up to me no one, special interest groups, unions, big business, no one but individuals would be able to. Just my two cents.

[briansd1]

I’m a progressive who doesn’t want to upset the apple cart too much to achieve my social goals.

I don’t support unrest that would shrink the economy and cause us all to become poorer. We need to keep the economy expanding.

I don’t see the contradiction in wanting wealth and social progress at the same time.

When you save a small percent of your salary every year, year after year, you end up with a substantial amount of money to bequeath onto the next generation. That’s the steady progress that I’m talking about.

Mark my words, we will have universal health care eventually in some form or another. It may not happen this year or next, but we will have it.

Sure, I’ve read history. The Supreme Court has reversed bad decisions in the past. They’ll do so again in the future. Or Congress can step in and pass a new law or constitutional amendment. That’s what President Obama was calling for.

How do we get to enjoy the society we have today? It was progress little by little.

[briansd1]

I’m a progressive who doesn’t want to upset the apple cart too much to achieve my social goals.

I don’t support unrest that would shrink the economy and cause us all to become poorer. We need to keep the economy expanding.

I don’t see the contradiction in wanting wealth and social progress at the same time.

When you save a small percent of your salary every year, year after year, you end up with a substantial amount of money to bequeath onto the next generation. That’s the steady progress that I’m talking about.

Mark my words, we will have universal health care eventually in some form or another. It may not happen this year or next, but we will have it.

Sure, I’ve read history. The Supreme Court has reversed bad decisions in the past. They’ll do so again in the future. Or Congress can step in and pass a new law or constitutional amendment. That’s what President Obama was calling for.

How do we get to enjoy the society we have today? It was progress little by little.

[briansd1]

I’m a progressive who doesn’t want to upset the apple cart too much to achieve my social goals.

I don’t support unrest that would shrink the economy and cause us all to become poorer. We need to keep the economy expanding.

I don’t see the contradiction in wanting wealth and social progress at the same time.

When you save a small percent of your salary every year, year after year, you end up with a substantial amount of money to bequeath onto the next generation. That’s the steady progress that I’m talking about.

Mark my words, we will have universal health care eventually in some form or another. It may not happen this year or next, but we will have it.

Sure, I’ve read history. The Supreme Court has reversed bad decisions in the past. They’ll do so again in the future. Or Congress can step in and pass a new law or constitutional amendment. That’s what President Obama was calling for.

How do we get to enjoy the society we have today? It was progress little by little.

[briansd1]

I’m a progressive who doesn’t want to upset the apple cart too much to achieve my social goals.

I don’t support unrest that would shrink the economy and cause us all to become poorer. We need to keep the economy expanding.

I don’t see the contradiction in wanting wealth and social progress at the same time.

When you save a small percent of your salary every year, year after year, you end up with a substantial amount of money to bequeath onto the next generation. That’s the steady progress that I’m talking about.

Mark my words, we will have universal health care eventually in some form or another. It may not happen this year or next, but we will have it.

Sure, I’ve read history. The Supreme Court has reversed bad decisions in the past. They’ll do so again in the future. Or Congress can step in and pass a new law or constitutional amendment. That’s what President Obama was calling for.

How do we get to enjoy the society we have today? It was progress little by little.

[Author]

Posts