Neato Torpedo wrote:Yes I will raise a stink about it but I don't plan to get violent about things I'm passionate about. I plan to act under lawful channels, gather support, carry signs, pester government officials with petitions, get news time, write articles, convince people that disagree, and inform those that don't know enough.
Call me back when someone gets arrested for having a camera near a government building under the Obama administration's rules.
Lots of people in Venezuela probably said the same thing after Chavez was democratically elected. Oopsie. Democracies collapse incrementally, not in a day.
They're also fixed incrementally, not in a day by violent overthrow or some kind of magic bullet.
Neither of which I've advocated. The fixing list keeps getting bigger over the last 3 months.
NT wrote:
RugbyD wrote:
Pretty sure Bush had higher approval rates after 9/11. Don't act like this is anything even close to new.
This is a completely different scenario. It has nothing to do with elections.
LOL so popular support for Bush is different from semi-popular support for Obama how? Right now people are probably evenly split between passionate hatred, passionate support, and tentative approval. In the few months after 9/11 I think like 80% of the country was passionately pulling for Bush. Support for Reagan was much, much higher than for Obama. Again, get over it; supporters making posters and latching on to a campaign slogan is nothing new.
9/11 was a completely different situation. It was event-driven and had nothing to do with the person in office.
What I saw during the campaign was not just posters and campaign slogans, it was mentally vacant political religion on a scale I had not previously experienced.
RugbyD wrote:9/11 was a completely different situation. It was event-driven and had nothing to do with the person in office.
If you fly to Nebraska from the East or fly to Nebraska from the West, at the end of the day you're still in Nebraska.
RugbyD wrote:What I saw during the campaign was not just posters and campaign slogans, it was mentally vacant political religion on a scale I had not previously experienced.
If this is true, you lead a really, really sheltered life. You must have had your head stuck in a bucket of sand to have missed the euphoria that greeted Reagan after Carter, or Clinton after Bush I.
Maybe you're convincing you with this tangent you're on.
RugbyD wrote:9/11 was a completely different situation. It was event-driven and had nothing to do with the person in office.
If you fly to Nebraska from the East or fly to Nebraska from the West, at the end of the day you're still in Nebraska.
I have no clue what this is supposed to mean or how it can possibly equate a unifying national atrocity with a long and contentious election process that didn't involve and incumbent.
RugbyD wrote:What I saw during the campaign was not just posters and campaign slogans, it was mentally vacant political religion on a scale I had not previously experienced.
If this is true, you lead a really, really sheltered life. You must have had your head stuck in a bucket of sand to have missed the euphoria that greeted Reagan after Carter, or Clinton after Bush I.
Maybe you're convincing you with this tangent you're on.
This was definitely beyond anything I saw in 1991. I'm too young to speak from personal experience about 1979, but the average Reagan supporter I've encountered since it has mattered is at least a few rungs above the average Obama supporter in terms of having a clue what to expect from their candidate.
One data point doesn't make a thesis, but its not jsut the run-of-the-ill idiots we see every 4 years:
…The sources, who represent creditors to Chrysler, say they were taken aback by the hardball tactics that the Obama administration employed to cajole them into acquiescing to plans to restructure Chrysler. One person described the administration as the most shocking "end justifies the means" group they have ever encountered. Another characterized Obama was "the most dangerous smooth talker on the planet- and I knew Kissinger." Both were voters for Obama in the last election. One participant in negotiations said that the administration's tactic was to present what one described as a "madman theory of the presidency" in which the President is someone to be feared because he was willing to do anything to get his way. The person said this threat was taken very seriously by his firm…
i'm a busy man, sorry i can't conform to your schedule.
Everyone else got a copy, I don't see what you found difficult.
I know, right? What a flimsy excuse! I'm surprised he didn't give us some line about his dog eating it.
Anyway, I hereby concede whatever point Rugby is making here. He is totally right and I am totally wrong, and my shame over my wrongness knows no bounds. Thank you, Rugby, for helping me see the error of my ways.
RugbyD wrote:i'm a busy man, sorry i can't conform to your schedule.
Everyone else got a copy, I don't see what you found difficult.
I know, right? What a flimsy excuse! I'm surprised he didn't give us some line about his dog eating it.
Anyway, I hereby concede whatever point Rugby is making here. He is totally right and I am totally wrong, and my shame over my wrongness knows no bounds. Thank you, Rugby, for helping me see the error of my ways.
anytime. you make it all worthwhile
seriously tho, my post count is way down the last couple months. responses are in the "i'll get around to it" bucket and an applicable anecdote fell into my lap today.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by Neato Torpedo » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:52 pm 
