|
Post by worlder on Sept 6, 2011 12:12:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 6, 2011 12:31:41 GMT -5
Not surprised. People always turn their frustrations onto the president whenever any portion of the government turns into a three ring circus, regardless of who's to blame.
Obama & the Democrats as a whole certainly aren't beyond criticism, but it would be nice if more people would recognize that it's largely the Republicans who are impeding any progress.
Of course, it would also be nice if I had an amusement park in my back yard and laser eyes, but that's not going to happen either.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 6, 2011 23:02:35 GMT -5
My reaction: not surprized.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 6, 2011 23:23:17 GMT -5
I think that's fair. Obama has been a rather sub-par president, after promising the world during the campaign. Sure, the Republicans are far worse (and should be destroyed in the next election), but I think the Dems have been pretty poor too.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 7, 2011 1:12:23 GMT -5
He's earned the ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 7, 2011 1:48:37 GMT -5
It's because both parties suck. The Democrats just suck less.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Sept 7, 2011 1:49:27 GMT -5
It's because both parties suck. The Democrats just suck less. I wouldn't say less, just different.
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Sept 7, 2011 1:55:38 GMT -5
Compared to the current crop of batshit insane Republicans, they suck less.
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Sept 7, 2011 2:09:25 GMT -5
And yet, you can be guaranteed that none of the 3rd parties will see any major increase in support. Except maybe Ron Paul, but fuck that guy.
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Sept 7, 2011 2:15:13 GMT -5
And yet, you can be guaranteed that none of the 3rd parties will see any major increase in support. Except maybe Ron Paul, but fuck that guy. Oh, please no. I've seen enough of his cult followers' idiocy to last me a lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Her3tiK on Sept 7, 2011 2:18:07 GMT -5
And yet, you can be guaranteed that none of the 3rd parties will see any major increase in support. Except maybe Ron Paul, but fuck that guy. Oh, please no. I've seen enough of his cult followers' idiocy to last me a lifetime. He's the only person I've seen get any mention anywhere that doesn't involve a universal "fuck you". I don't understand why he seems to be so popular all of a sudden, though I will give him props for sticking to his views, even if most of them are incredibly dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by N. De Plume on Sept 7, 2011 9:14:58 GMT -5
Oh, please no. I've seen enough of his cult followers' idiocy to last me a lifetime. He's the only person I've seen get any mention anywhere that doesn't involve a universal "fuck you". I don't understand why he seems to be so popular all of a sudden, though I will give him props for sticking to his views, even if most of them are incredibly dangerous. I don’t see why you should get props for sticking to incredibly dangerous views. Is it not more admirable to recognize when your views require changing and to go and change them? I mean, sticking to your guns is easy. What’s hard is changing your views and facing that horror of horrors: publicly admitting you were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Sept 7, 2011 9:25:29 GMT -5
He's the only person I've seen get any mention anywhere that doesn't involve a universal "fuck you". I don't understand why he seems to be so popular all of a sudden, though I will give him props for sticking to his views, even if most of them are incredibly dangerous. Do you also give props to the WBC for that? The RCC? Skinheads? Anyway, Paul has been "popular" for a decade now. It's not sudden or new. And he remains an internet darling, with a lot of his fans not even voting in real elections. The only trait I found admirable in George Dubyah was his attitude of "FUCK THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE I'MM'A DO WHAT'S BEST FOR 'EM!" In a supposed man of the people, that's a pretty fucking horrible thing to do. Remember, he was a populist up until the polls turned against him. I also think it's incredibly naive to say he really thought these things were what was best for America. Especially when so many of his actions made his buddies richer and screwed everyone else. There's a more likely notion he was in it for himself, rather than he was looking out for us and accidentally only benefitted his cronies. Bill Maher said that about Bush a few years ago, and I disagreed with him, too. It'd be nice to have a president with a spine, but Bush was pigheaded and dangerous. That. Is not. Admirable.
|
|
|
Post by verasthebrujah on Sept 7, 2011 14:52:52 GMT -5
Don't read the comments? Why shouldn't I read the comments?
Two minutes later: Ahhhh the pain! Why would you say not to read the comments!? Don't you know that there isn't a more reliable way to get people to do something than to tell them not to!?
Here's a selection (suffer with me):
NamVetBuck says
Uncle Buckwheat, in response to the argument that a great deal of the current problems were left by Bush, says:
Trigger writes:
Emphasis mine. What does "tribe family" mean?
|
|
|
Post by nickiknack on Sept 7, 2011 16:37:04 GMT -5
Yeah, and if you look at the ratings for the comments, you'll see the ones that are sensible get voted down, but that seems to be common nowadays...who gives a fuck for living in reality, I want those damn rose-colored glasses...
|
|