[quote]hedo wrote:
Inner Hulk wrote:
hedo wrote:
The moonbats started with “Bush stole the election from Gore”. They didn’t wait for the swearing in ceremony. Other nutjobs protested at the inagural itself.
The truly demented lefties never waited for anything or let fact or reason interfere with forming an opinion.
Keep in mind that the left chanted “dissent is the highest form of patriotism” for 8 years. Based on the amount of dissent heard from the Democrats for the last 8 years, Obama is in for a lot of displays of patriotism.
Just imagine if Obama had ‘won’ the presidency over McCain in the same manner Bush did Al Gore. People on here would be having a heart attack.
I see you keep referring to the lefties who protested or opposed Bush from the start as “demented”, so I’m to assume you’re applying the same demented label to all the righties who are already vocally protesting and suggesting revolution or any of the other ridiculous comments that have been thrown around. Right?
Like spending $825 Billion with no guarantee of creating any new jobs? Nominating a Treasury secretary who didn’t pay his taxes? Raising emission standards for cars during a crisis in the auto industry? Banning domestic drilling for oil so while claiming to pursue energy independence? Nominating a woman as secretary of state who has no foriegn policy experience and whose husband has a laundry list of conflicts of interest? Are they are ridiculous comments or are they simply statements of fact regarding what the Great Leader actually did?
Criticism directed at an inexperienced politician after he makes proposals you don’t agree with isn’t demented.
[/quote]
Good points here. This is precisely why I have major issues with Obama. It isn’t that I hate his guts personally. He speaks well, he’s charismatic, he won convincingly. These ARE statements of fact, or very solidly stated platform/positions he stands for. Three of the first four questions hedo raised are, in my humble opinion, retarded. I believe they will have even further detrimental effects.
The apppointment of Hillary is an interesting move and bears watching. I personally think it is a terrible move, but I’ll wait and see what develops. I foresee much drama and at least some scandal in the future from that decision. The Clintons are inherently high drama.
Furthermore, in response to a small part of your OP IH, the constitution has always mattered to me, and I have never been one of the more vocal Bush supporters here. Bush violated the constitution in certain ways, Obama will violate it in different ways. I’m against both. Obama IS anti-gun, and WILL seek to restrict gun ownership and enact measures far beyond what I believe is warranted or reasonable. That’s 1 violation for starters. There will be others. For me, however, there is a fundamental difference in how the Dems vs. the Reps seek to bend the rules. Or, more specifically, the goals/objective they have for bending the rules. That is a different discussion I’ll not get into.
The difference is only in the reason given for the violations. And in the ability of the POTUS (AND his PR staff) to look smart, or at least reasonable, while doing it. This is something Bush never managed to do. DoubleDuce is right–the constitution has been violated for much longer than 8 years.
However, you are correct–it is inappropriate to “shit boulders” after only 1 week in office. I am not going to shit boulders, but I feel that most of his actions thus far have been counterproductive for the economy, and are counter to my position. So yeah, I’m going to criticize him.
The difference is, I’m not going to shit bricks or boulders. I don’t hate him personally, as so so SO many seem to hate Bush. If anything i hope he is good for this country. I just can’t reasonably think of many good reasons he actually will be. Even if he can simply inspire people out of cynicism and into working hard on their own, maybe he’ll be something we need.