Obama lacks decorum

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Progress, little by little? Tell that to Susan B. Anthony, Mary Church Terrell, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr.

No, you’re dead wrong and obviously haven’t read your history. Progress has come in fits and starts and, in some cases, huge upheavals. Progressivism, by its very name, is the antithesis of incrementalism.
[/quote]

That’s fine. I’m glad there are social activists such as those you listed above.

Activism of the part of citizens is not the same as the President being an activist agitating for broad social changes overnight.

The President’s job is to manage the country in an orderly manner and to ensure continuity and prosperity for us all, while guiding us in the right direction.

The President must also gauge the degree of legislative and popular support for his agenda.

Martin Luther King was an activist and, when he was alive, he was ahead of his time. He helped us progress but he wasn’t President.

MLK’s ideas were revolutionary for his time. History has shown that revolutionaries are terrible managers who cause painful economic recessions.

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…[/quote]

Pri: Nope, I don’t disagree with you at all. What I do take issue with, is the attempt to argue both sides of the issue and take credit for both. I also agree with your point on both semantics and punctilio, but, in order to truly espouse a position, I would think you’d need to understand it first. I find his positions to be regurgitated Leftist talking points and, while he doesn’t stoop to ad hominem as much as some posters, he does draw truly bigoted stereotypes in his writings.

Your comment about his youth struck me, especially when juxtaposed with his views on the fairer sex. He made a comment on another post about telling women to mind their business and essentially to know their place and I burst out laughing. Yeah, that is something that would come out of a younger, less experienced person’s mouth. Or, the “40 Year Old Virgin”. Talk about not knowing the other side! I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…[/quote]

Pri: Nope, I don’t disagree with you at all. What I do take issue with, is the attempt to argue both sides of the issue and take credit for both. I also agree with your point on both semantics and punctilio, but, in order to truly espouse a position, I would think you’d need to understand it first. I find his positions to be regurgitated Leftist talking points and, while he doesn’t stoop to ad hominem as much as some posters, he does draw truly bigoted stereotypes in his writings.

Your comment about his youth struck me, especially when juxtaposed with his views on the fairer sex. He made a comment on another post about telling women to mind their business and essentially to know their place and I burst out laughing. Yeah, that is something that would come out of a younger, less experienced person’s mouth. Or, the “40 Year Old Virgin”. Talk about not knowing the other side! I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…[/quote]

Pri: Nope, I don’t disagree with you at all. What I do take issue with, is the attempt to argue both sides of the issue and take credit for both. I also agree with your point on both semantics and punctilio, but, in order to truly espouse a position, I would think you’d need to understand it first. I find his positions to be regurgitated Leftist talking points and, while he doesn’t stoop to ad hominem as much as some posters, he does draw truly bigoted stereotypes in his writings.

Your comment about his youth struck me, especially when juxtaposed with his views on the fairer sex. He made a comment on another post about telling women to mind their business and essentially to know their place and I burst out laughing. Yeah, that is something that would come out of a younger, less experienced person’s mouth. Or, the “40 Year Old Virgin”. Talk about not knowing the other side! I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…[/quote]

Pri: Nope, I don’t disagree with you at all. What I do take issue with, is the attempt to argue both sides of the issue and take credit for both. I also agree with your point on both semantics and punctilio, but, in order to truly espouse a position, I would think you’d need to understand it first. I find his positions to be regurgitated Leftist talking points and, while he doesn’t stoop to ad hominem as much as some posters, he does draw truly bigoted stereotypes in his writings.

Your comment about his youth struck me, especially when juxtaposed with his views on the fairer sex. He made a comment on another post about telling women to mind their business and essentially to know their place and I burst out laughing. Yeah, that is something that would come out of a younger, less experienced person’s mouth. Or, the “40 Year Old Virgin”. Talk about not knowing the other side! I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=pri_dk]Allan, I’ve noticed the discussions here seem to get sidetracked on semantic points a lot these days.

Is it really a contradiction to be an “incremental progressive?” I’ve never heard the term, but I think if someone gave me that label I would not take issue with it. In fact, I think the entire history of our country could be described as incremental progressivism (e.g. full civil rights for blacks was a process that occured over centuries.)

Yeah, Brian says some odd things on these threads, but I don’t think he’s that much more clueless than the rest of us. (I agree that the phrase “conserving back in time” really doesn’t make any sense.) Perhaps he just needs to think a little before he writes — something we all should do (also, I suspect he’s younger than most of us). Plus, I’ve noticed that he seems to be better at refraining from ad hominem than some of his usual debate opponents.

What I find to more amusing is that we have posters who lack any sense of proportion in the issues at hand. In one thread we have the “debtocalypse” and then in the next we have breaches of decorum. The world is coming to an end, and we are worried about the details of protocol?

(And of course the President can disagree with the Supreme Court. Any junior-high civics student could tell you that’s how our government was designed to work.)

It’s too bad that the political discussions here are degrading in quality. But at least we have fun discussions about yurts…[/quote]

Pri: Nope, I don’t disagree with you at all. What I do take issue with, is the attempt to argue both sides of the issue and take credit for both. I also agree with your point on both semantics and punctilio, but, in order to truly espouse a position, I would think you’d need to understand it first. I find his positions to be regurgitated Leftist talking points and, while he doesn’t stoop to ad hominem as much as some posters, he does draw truly bigoted stereotypes in his writings.

Your comment about his youth struck me, especially when juxtaposed with his views on the fairer sex. He made a comment on another post about telling women to mind their business and essentially to know their place and I burst out laughing. Yeah, that is something that would come out of a younger, less experienced person’s mouth. Or, the “40 Year Old Virgin”. Talk about not knowing the other side! I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.[/quote]

Read the context of the thread.

A well-educated woman would not be the kind to agitate for her husband to buy her a big house that he would worry about paying. She would automatically go out and earn the money to contribute to purchasing the house; and she’ll make the decision concurrent with her husband. And she’ll know to live within her means.

Scaredcat, the OP, knows that also. I believe his thread is supposed to be humorous.

http://piggington.com/big_house

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.[/quote]

Read the context of the thread.

A well-educated woman would not be the kind to agitate for her husband to buy her a big house that he would worry about paying. She would automatically go out and earn the money to contribute to purchasing the house; and she’ll make the decision concurrent with her husband. And she’ll know to live within her means.

Scaredcat, the OP, knows that also. I believe his thread is supposed to be humorous.

http://piggington.com/big_house

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.[/quote]

Read the context of the thread.

A well-educated woman would not be the kind to agitate for her husband to buy her a big house that he would worry about paying. She would automatically go out and earn the money to contribute to purchasing the house; and she’ll make the decision concurrent with her husband. And she’ll know to live within her means.

Scaredcat, the OP, knows that also. I believe his thread is supposed to be humorous.

http://piggington.com/big_house

[briansd1]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]I cannot imagine any of the women I know, countenancing that crap for a moment. I have a good friend, who is Stanford educated and a business professional, and she would verbally disembowel poor Brian if he trotted that position out to her.[/quote]

Read the context of the thread.

A well-educated woman would not be the kind to agitate for her husband to buy her a big house that he would worry about paying. She would automatically go out and earn the money to contribute to purchasing the house; and she’ll make the decision concurrent with her husband. And she’ll know to live within her means.

Scaredcat, the OP, knows that also. I believe his thread is supposed to be humorous.

http://piggington.com/big_house

[Author]

Posts