Sic et Non, this time Non.

[Guest]

Great thread Rev. Kishkumen. The opposite side to this coin I think is that while Republicans say that Obama's supporters have lauded him beyond what his middling success as President deserves; those same Republican pundits will not admit that they've destroyed his character through insane attacks while Congressional Republicans have undermined his legislation. That he's gotten anything done is incredible in my mind.

[_asbestosman]

Why should I care whether he agrees or not?

Maybe because you think he's intelligent and hope he can be persuaded by reason once he understands it:

If he understood the point, he wouldn't have written such a poor post in the first place. And I say that in order to give him the benefit of the doubt.

.

Then again, maybe your post was more for the choir here than for the one you criticized.

[_asbestosman]

Republican pundits will not admit that they've attacked his character without quarter while Congressional Republicans have undermined his legislation. That he's gotten anything done is incredible in my mind.

I've been impressed with what I perceive as Obama's willingness to negotiate. I wish I could say the same for what I've perceived of Republicans over those years.

[_Bond James Bond]

Republican pundits will not admit that they've attacked his character without quarter while Congressional Republicans have undermined his legislation. That he's gotten anything done is incredible in my mind.

I've been impressed with what I perceive as Obama's willingness to negotiate. I wish I could say the same for what I've perceived of Republicans over those years.

I wish Obama had given up on bipartisanship earlier before the midterm elections. The Republicans got a lot done during the Bush era because they knew that it didn't matter how the public felt about their legislation; they had been elected and were going to run the government the way they wanted to. During the brief time when the Democrats had a super majority in the Senate as well as the House they should have pushed through their agenda and legislation the way the Republicans had done under Bush.

[_asbestosman]

I wish Obama had given up on bipartisanship earlier before the midterm elections. The Republicans got a lot done during the Bush era because they knew that it didn't matter how the public felt about their legislation; they had been elected and were going to run the government the way they wanted to. During the brief time when the Democrats had a super majority in the Senate as well as the House they should have pushed through their agenda and legislation the way the Republicans had done under Bush.

It's sad when I have to say I think one of President Obama's biggest weaknesses was his naïve idealism--that politicians would demonstrate more loyalty to common interests instead of special interests. I'm not saying I think President Obama is perfect on that account, but I get the impression that he's made a greater effort than most. I also don't think he's quite as naïve anymore.

[_Bond James Bond]

I wish Obama had given up on bipartisanship earlier before the midterm elections. The Republicans got a lot done during the Bush era because they knew that it didn't matter how the public felt about their legislation; they had been elected and were going to run the government the way they wanted to. During the brief time when the Democrats had a super majority in the Senate as well as the House they should have pushed through their agenda and legislation the way the Republicans had done under Bush.

It's sad when I have to say I think one of President Obama's biggest weaknesses was his naïve idealism--that politicians would demonstrate more loyalty to common interests instead of special interests. I'm not saying I think President Obama is perfect on that account, but I get the impression that he's made a greater effort than most. I also don't think he's quite as naïve anymore.

I agree it's sad that he's shed some of his idealism but I'd prefer a chiseled-from-marble winner to a "nice guy". Damn I've grown cynical.

(I think it's interesting that Obama hasn't went on the offensive yet but I also see the smart political calculation involved. Why not sit back and let Romney use his best attacks now while people can still forget them? Save some big shots for October.)

[_Darth J]

Does Michelle Obama own an article of clothing that has sleeves attached?

Would you if you had arms that cut?

The only reason I can wear a shirt with sleeves is that I got a concealed carry permit for my guns.

[_Bond James Bond]

The only reason I can wear a shirt with sleeves is that I got a concealed carry permit for my guns.

Yum

[_Kishkumen]

Maybe because you think he's intelligent and hope he can be persuaded by reason once he understands it:

Abman, I have not known Dr. Peterson to be persuaded by *anything* I have EVER written. Have you? Seriously?

It has nothing to do with his obviously high intelligence. He simply rarely if ever concedes anything in an argument. When he does, it is usually some ancillary point, which he argues does not undermine his larger point.

So, you know this is true, don't you? Why are you writing as though it is not? Daniel is a great guy, but he is not in the habit of concession. I say this with not a trace of ill will or bad feeling. I like his blog. I find it interesting reading.

What amuses me is that you and everyone else around the LDS interwebs have seen him in action all these years and yet you actually wrote those words in earnest. Or are you pulling my leg?

Then again, maybe your post was more for the choir here than for the one you criticized.

Sure, abman, I have spent so much time gratifying the hatred of some folk for Dr. Peterson lately, it couldn't possibly be the case that I spent my good time making a substantive point about an issue I thought worthwhile to engage. It was all for the "I hate Peterson" club. Rrriiiight.

You know, I don't have to write for Daniel to comment on Daniel's writing. I don't have to be motivated by dislike for Daniel to disagree with him. I can still like you and yet be disappointed with your tepid and half-baked engagement with the ideas I posted here. All these things are not only possible, they happen to be true from my point of view.

[_Kishkumen]

Great thread Rev. Kishkumen. The opposite side to this coin I think is that while Republicans say that Obama's supporters have lauded him beyond what his middling success as President deserves; those same Republican pundits will not admit that they've destroyed his character through insane attacks while Congressional Republicans have undermined his legislation. That he's gotten anything done is incredible in my mind.

Republicans like Mitt Romney (and he is comparatively mild) lie about Obama so regularly that they look to me to be utterly deranged. I know that they are not all deranged, but that they have sacrificed what scruples they may have had to exploit the deranged hatred of their base. It is mind blowing to observe.