- This topic has 195 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by
Allan from Fallbrook.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 23, 2009 at 9:25 PM #461706September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM #460902
briansd1
Guest[quote=Zeitgeist]Who’s your daddy? This explains a lot…
“Referencing Obama as “my son,” Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president. Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the next four years, but I’m afraid we may go back to square one.”Qaddafi Lauds Obama, Then Launches Into Rambling Attack on U.N.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554327,00.html%5B/quote%5D
Zeitgeist, and you believe Qaddafi? Who’s the gullible one here?
September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM #461096Guest[quote=Zeitgeist]Who’s your daddy? This explains a lot…
“Referencing Obama as “my son,” Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president. Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the next four years, but I’m afraid we may go back to square one.”Qaddafi Lauds Obama, Then Launches Into Rambling Attack on U.N.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554327,00.html%5B/quote%5D
Zeitgeist, and you believe Qaddafi? Who’s the gullible one here?
September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM #461437Guest[quote=Zeitgeist]Who’s your daddy? This explains a lot…
“Referencing Obama as “my son,” Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president. Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the next four years, but I’m afraid we may go back to square one.”Qaddafi Lauds Obama, Then Launches Into Rambling Attack on U.N.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554327,00.html%5B/quote%5D
Zeitgeist, and you believe Qaddafi? Who’s the gullible one here?
September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM #461507Guest[quote=Zeitgeist]Who’s your daddy? This explains a lot…
“Referencing Obama as “my son,” Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president. Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the next four years, but I’m afraid we may go back to square one.”Qaddafi Lauds Obama, Then Launches Into Rambling Attack on U.N.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554327,00.html%5B/quote%5D
Zeitgeist, and you believe Qaddafi? Who’s the gullible one here?
September 23, 2009 at 9:29 PM #461711Guest[quote=Zeitgeist]Who’s your daddy? This explains a lot…
“Referencing Obama as “my son,” Qaddafi said: “We are happy that a young African Kenyan was voted for and made president. Obama is a glimpse in the dark for the next four years, but I’m afraid we may go back to square one.”Qaddafi Lauds Obama, Then Launches Into Rambling Attack on U.N.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,554327,00.html%5B/quote%5D
Zeitgeist, and you believe Qaddafi? Who’s the gullible one here?
September 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM #460907Guest[quote=kicksavedave]This is idiotic, to even consider this is news.
Someone goes to Obama’s face book page and writes something – anything – and then complains that Obama keeps it without telling him he’s keeping it? What on earth would make someone, anyone, think that when you post something in public about someone else, on the internet, that it doesn’t automatically become a matter of public record?
It should be assumed that when you write on my wall, that I’m going to keep it. That I haven’t specifically told you that I’m going to keep it, only makes you the sucker if you didn’t think that was happening in the first place. This is nothing more than another way to try to characterize BO in a negative light. When there are so many legitimate things to discuss, this is what the WashTimes comes up with? Lame :rolleyes:[/quote]
I agree.
Piggington surely archives saves what we post here. How is that wrong?
September 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM #461101Guest[quote=kicksavedave]This is idiotic, to even consider this is news.
Someone goes to Obama’s face book page and writes something – anything – and then complains that Obama keeps it without telling him he’s keeping it? What on earth would make someone, anyone, think that when you post something in public about someone else, on the internet, that it doesn’t automatically become a matter of public record?
It should be assumed that when you write on my wall, that I’m going to keep it. That I haven’t specifically told you that I’m going to keep it, only makes you the sucker if you didn’t think that was happening in the first place. This is nothing more than another way to try to characterize BO in a negative light. When there are so many legitimate things to discuss, this is what the WashTimes comes up with? Lame :rolleyes:[/quote]
I agree.
Piggington surely archives saves what we post here. How is that wrong?
September 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM #461442Guest[quote=kicksavedave]This is idiotic, to even consider this is news.
Someone goes to Obama’s face book page and writes something – anything – and then complains that Obama keeps it without telling him he’s keeping it? What on earth would make someone, anyone, think that when you post something in public about someone else, on the internet, that it doesn’t automatically become a matter of public record?
It should be assumed that when you write on my wall, that I’m going to keep it. That I haven’t specifically told you that I’m going to keep it, only makes you the sucker if you didn’t think that was happening in the first place. This is nothing more than another way to try to characterize BO in a negative light. When there are so many legitimate things to discuss, this is what the WashTimes comes up with? Lame :rolleyes:[/quote]
I agree.
Piggington surely archives saves what we post here. How is that wrong?
September 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM #461512Guest[quote=kicksavedave]This is idiotic, to even consider this is news.
Someone goes to Obama’s face book page and writes something – anything – and then complains that Obama keeps it without telling him he’s keeping it? What on earth would make someone, anyone, think that when you post something in public about someone else, on the internet, that it doesn’t automatically become a matter of public record?
It should be assumed that when you write on my wall, that I’m going to keep it. That I haven’t specifically told you that I’m going to keep it, only makes you the sucker if you didn’t think that was happening in the first place. This is nothing more than another way to try to characterize BO in a negative light. When there are so many legitimate things to discuss, this is what the WashTimes comes up with? Lame :rolleyes:[/quote]
I agree.
Piggington surely archives saves what we post here. How is that wrong?
September 23, 2009 at 9:30 PM #461716Guest[quote=kicksavedave]This is idiotic, to even consider this is news.
Someone goes to Obama’s face book page and writes something – anything – and then complains that Obama keeps it without telling him he’s keeping it? What on earth would make someone, anyone, think that when you post something in public about someone else, on the internet, that it doesn’t automatically become a matter of public record?
It should be assumed that when you write on my wall, that I’m going to keep it. That I haven’t specifically told you that I’m going to keep it, only makes you the sucker if you didn’t think that was happening in the first place. This is nothing more than another way to try to characterize BO in a negative light. When there are so many legitimate things to discuss, this is what the WashTimes comes up with? Lame :rolleyes:[/quote]
I agree.
Piggington surely archives saves what we post here. How is that wrong?
September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM #460912Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1]The Republicans wanted and Imperial Presidency. They got what they wanted. Now they are complaining because their man is not in power. Tough luck. Live with what you created.
And why should Obama give up the expanded presidential powers that were handed to him on a silver platter? If I were Obama, I would use those powers to my advantage.[/quote]
Brian: So, following your logic, it then becomes okay for Obama to not only take, but use, the unjustly gained “imperial” powers seized under the Bush Administration?
This is exactly what I referenced before when I mentioned your breathtaking lack of consistency and coherence.
You cannot simultaneously decry and embrace a behavior. It is not only completely contradictory, it is ethically indefensible.
To become what one beholds (if that object is wrong) is wrong. And, no, it is not less wrong or more acceptable, it is still just as wrong.
For someone who argues strenuously for using logic in our thinking and demands accountability from our leaders, how, exactly, does this work?
September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM #461106Participant[quote=briansd1]The Republicans wanted and Imperial Presidency. They got what they wanted. Now they are complaining because their man is not in power. Tough luck. Live with what you created.
And why should Obama give up the expanded presidential powers that were handed to him on a silver platter? If I were Obama, I would use those powers to my advantage.[/quote]
Brian: So, following your logic, it then becomes okay for Obama to not only take, but use, the unjustly gained “imperial” powers seized under the Bush Administration?
This is exactly what I referenced before when I mentioned your breathtaking lack of consistency and coherence.
You cannot simultaneously decry and embrace a behavior. It is not only completely contradictory, it is ethically indefensible.
To become what one beholds (if that object is wrong) is wrong. And, no, it is not less wrong or more acceptable, it is still just as wrong.
For someone who argues strenuously for using logic in our thinking and demands accountability from our leaders, how, exactly, does this work?
September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM #461447Participant[quote=briansd1]The Republicans wanted and Imperial Presidency. They got what they wanted. Now they are complaining because their man is not in power. Tough luck. Live with what you created.
And why should Obama give up the expanded presidential powers that were handed to him on a silver platter? If I were Obama, I would use those powers to my advantage.[/quote]
Brian: So, following your logic, it then becomes okay for Obama to not only take, but use, the unjustly gained “imperial” powers seized under the Bush Administration?
This is exactly what I referenced before when I mentioned your breathtaking lack of consistency and coherence.
You cannot simultaneously decry and embrace a behavior. It is not only completely contradictory, it is ethically indefensible.
To become what one beholds (if that object is wrong) is wrong. And, no, it is not less wrong or more acceptable, it is still just as wrong.
For someone who argues strenuously for using logic in our thinking and demands accountability from our leaders, how, exactly, does this work?
September 23, 2009 at 9:41 PM #461517Participant[quote=briansd1]The Republicans wanted and Imperial Presidency. They got what they wanted. Now they are complaining because their man is not in power. Tough luck. Live with what you created.
And why should Obama give up the expanded presidential powers that were handed to him on a silver platter? If I were Obama, I would use those powers to my advantage.[/quote]
Brian: So, following your logic, it then becomes okay for Obama to not only take, but use, the unjustly gained “imperial” powers seized under the Bush Administration?
This is exactly what I referenced before when I mentioned your breathtaking lack of consistency and coherence.
You cannot simultaneously decry and embrace a behavior. It is not only completely contradictory, it is ethically indefensible.
To become what one beholds (if that object is wrong) is wrong. And, no, it is not less wrong or more acceptable, it is still just as wrong.
For someone who argues strenuously for using logic in our thinking and demands accountability from our leaders, how, exactly, does this work?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.