Lead by example...

Rune said:
No matter how many times it is pointed out, you just can't seem to fathom that neither you nor Bill O'Reily get to decide what the president should do. Truly effing hillarious.
Click to expand...

LMAO... I never stated that I get to decide for him. But guess what, I am a citizen of the United States of America. We have the right to free speech. We have the right to criticize our elected leaders. That is what I am doing. I am stating very plainly that he has the opportunity to lead on this issue and I don't believe he is taking it. No matter how many times you moronic liberals try to equate my opinions back to Fox news, no matter how many times you liberal Obama apologists try to defend him with weak straw men, you will not be able to take away my right to state that once again Obama 'leads from behind'.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... I never stated that I get to decide for him. But guess what, I am a citizen of the United States of America. We have the right to free speech. We have the right to criticize our elected leaders. That is what I am doing. I am stating very plainly that he has the opportunity to lead on this issue and I don't believe he is taking it. No matter how many times you moronic liberals try to equate my opinions back to Fox news, no matter how many times you liberal Obama apologists try to defend him with weak straw men, you will not be able to take away my right to state that once again Obama 'leads from behind'.
Click to expand...

Like your right to express your opinion, I have the right to point out how absurd your opinion is.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... I never stated that I get to decide for him. But guess what, I am a citizen of the United States of America. We have the right to free speech. We have the right to criticize our elected leaders. That is what I am doing. I am stating very plainly that he has the opportunity to lead on this issue and I don't believe he is taking it. No matter how many times you moronic liberals try to equate my opinions back to Fox news, no matter how many times you liberal Obama apologists try to defend him with weak straw men, you will not be able to take away my right to state that once again Obama 'leads from behind'.
Click to expand...

Here is where your ODS is showing. If Obama was calling for a volunteerism on the part of millionaires to choose to pay more in taxes, you'd have a point. By paying more himself, he'd be leading that initiative "by example."

He isn't. He's pushing for policy change.
 
Onceler said:
Here is where your ODS is showing. If Obama was calling for a volunteerism on the part of millionaires to choose to pay more in taxes, you'd have a point. By paying more himself, he'd be leading that initiative "by example."

He isn't. He's pushing for policy change.
Click to expand...

There is certainly ODS going on in this thread. It is coming directly from every liberal on it. Your absurdity above shows just how deranged you Obama apologists have become.

But thank you for once again proving that liberals have no idea what real leadership is.
 
Superfreak said:
There is certainly ODS going on in this thread. It is coming directly from every liberal on it. Your absurdity above shows just how deranged you Obama apologists have become.

But thank you for once again proving that liberals have no idea what real leadership is.
Click to expand...

I supposed conservatives think it's saying "bring it on" when you're thousands of miles from harm's way?

I didn't present absurdity. Obama is pushing for policy change - not the kind of volunteerism you are describing...
 
Superfreak said:
There is certainly ODS going on in this thread. It is coming directly from every liberal on it. Your absurdity above shows just how deranged you Obama apologists have become.

But thank you for once again proving that liberals have no idea what real leadership is.
Click to expand...

As if you do. If you had even the slightest clue what you are talking about, you would realize that Onceler has a very valid point.
 
Onceler said:
I supposed conservatives think it's saying "bring it on" when you're thousands of miles from harm's way?

I didn't present absurdity. Obama is pushing for policy change - not the kind of volunteerism you are describing...
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the ODS and BDS of Onceler have now combined. Trying to equate it back to Bush in some vain effort to deflect away from criticism of Obama. Trying to make up some absurdity about Obama to apologize for his inability to lead.

he is pushing for the wealthy to pay higher taxes. Period. Thus, he could choose to LEAD by example as I clearly stated 100 times already. But he is not. He instead is going to 'lead from behind' and he will only do what he says he should do if he is forced to do so.
 
Superfreak said:
Ah yes, the ODS and BDS of Onceler have now combined. Trying to equate it back to Bush in some vain effort to deflect away from criticism of Obama. Trying to make up some absurdity about Obama to apologize for his inability to lead.

he is pushing for the wealthy to pay higher taxes. Period. Thus, he could choose to LEAD by example as I clearly stated 100 times already. But he is not. He instead is going to 'lead from behind' and he will only do what he says he should do if he is forced to do so.
Click to expand...

Um....SF? You brought up the "liberal" idea of "real leadership." I was just going back to a recent example of what I can only assume you meant by "real leader." Or was it Bush Sr. w/ "no new taxes?" Or Reagan with Iran/Contra?
 
Onceler said:
Um....SF? You brought up the "liberal" idea of "real leadership." I was just going back to a recent example of what I can only assume you meant by "real leader." Or was it Bush Sr. w/ "no new taxes?" Or Reagan with Iran/Contra?
Click to expand...

Like I stated, your ODS and BDS have blended into something that is only going to continue making you look foolish. But do go on apologizing for Obama.
 
Superfreak said:
Like I stated, your ODS and BDS have blended into something that is only going to continue making you look foolish. But do go on apologizing for Obama.
Click to expand...

There are enough real issues w/ Obama without this fabricated stuff.

Seriously - you're very off on this one. There are definitely times where your personal feelings about Obama get in the way of rational thought.
 
Onceler said:
There are enough real issues w/ Obama without this fabricated stuff.

Seriously - you're very off on this one. There are definitely times where your personal feelings about Obama get in the way of rational thought.
Click to expand...

1) Tax policy is a real issue
2) This is not fabricated, it is real. Obama promotes that the wealthy should pay more... FACT. Obama states that he himself should pay more... FACT. Obama chooses not to pay more as he says he should... FACT.

3) As I stated, continue apologizing for Obama, your blend of ODS and BDS is quite amusing.
 
Damocles said:
Showing you are willing to do what you demand of others is not just symbolism, it is what is right.
Click to expand...

No, it's symbolism if we're talking about a policy change.

If I believed in legislating that everyone drive a car w/ higher emissions standards (I don't - just an example), it would be because the collective effect of EVERYONE driving a car with higher emissions standards might make a difference, or because I believed that. My driving a car w/ a higher emissions standard without the policy change would just be cheap symbolism - it wouldn't amount to anything at all.

Again - Obama isn't pushing for more voluntary extra tax paying. He's pushing for a policy change. His giving extra money to taxes won't amount to a hill of beans. Many millionaires having to pay a higher tax will.
 
Onceler said:
No, it's symbolism if we're talking about a policy change.

If I believed in legislating that everyone drive a car w/ higher emissions standards (I don't - just an example), it would be because the collective effect of EVERYONE driving a car with higher emissions standards might make a difference, or because I believed that. My driving a car w/ a higher emissions standard without the policy change would just be cheap symbolism - it wouldn't amount to anything at all.

Again - Obama isn't pushing for more voluntary extra tax paying. He's pushing for a policy change. His giving extra money to taxes won't amount to a hill of beans. Many millionaires having to pay a higher tax will.
Click to expand...

However, if the car was available to you, and you believed that it was the only right thing to do yet were unwilling to buy what you believed others should, and are trying to force them to, drive then you would be a flat hypocrite. That he is trying to force others to do something he is unwilling to do as an example in a leadership position shows a healthy measure of hypocrisy and a willingness to only do what he believes to be the right thing if he is forced to do it.

His doing the right thing would give him a bit of respect from those who believe you should walk the walk, not just talk. However, it is literally the right thing to do. I think setting examples is exactly what leadership should do. And no, the $5 Billion per year this false "outrage" fix will bring will not do much at all.
 
Onceler said:
No, it's symbolism if we're talking about a policy change.

If I believed in legislating that everyone drive a car w/ higher emissions standards (I don't - just an example), it would be because the collective effect of EVERYONE driving a car with higher emissions standards might make a difference, or because I believed that. My driving a car w/ a higher emissions standard without the policy change would just be cheap symbolism - it wouldn't amount to anything at all.

Again - Obama isn't pushing for more voluntary extra tax paying. He's pushing for a policy change. His giving extra money to taxes won't amount to a hill of beans. Many millionaires having to pay a higher tax will.
Click to expand...

Again you show you fail to grasp the concept of leadership. A leader is the first in line. The one who sets the example for others to follow. It is indeed symbolic. Depending on the leaders conviction and ability to convince others that the path chosen is the correct one, the masses will either follow or they will reject the path. A leader doesn't sit on the sideline saying 'we should do 'x', but I am not going to do it myself unless we can force everyone else to do it too'.
 
Damocles said:
However, if the car was available to you, and you believed that it was the only right thing to do yet were unwilling to buy what you believed others should, and are trying to force them to, drive then you would be a flat hypocrite.
His doing the right thing would give him a bit of respect from those who believe you should walk the walk, not just talk.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't, and that isn't hard to grasp. Because I would believe in the COLLECTIVE effect, and would have a completely realistic assessment of what my own individual action would amount to (that is, nothing).

I used to have this discussion a lot with toppy. He thought that people were hypocrites if they argued for better enviro policy but lived in anything more than a 1,200 square foot home, or drive anything bigger than a bicycle.

I just think that's silly; it's what I said it is - cheap symbolism. Policy action is far different from individual action.
 
Superfreak said:
Again you show you fail to grasp the concept of leadership. A leader is the first in line. The one who sets the example for others to follow.
Click to expand...

Again - this is true if he was out pushing for more voluntary contributions to the tax bill. Not if he's pushing for a change in policy.

This really isn't that hard.
 
Onceler said:
No, it wouldn't, and that isn't hard to grasp. Because I would believe in the COLLECTIVE effect, and would have a completely realistic assessment of what my own individual action would amount to (that is, nothing).

I used to have this discussion a lot with toppy. He thought that people were hypocrites if they argued for better enviro policy but lived in anything more than a 1,200 square foot home, or drive anything bigger than a bicycle.

I just think that's silly; it's what I said it is - cheap symbolism. Policy action is far different from individual action.
Click to expand...

It is hypocrisy. The urge of leadership to force others to do as they are unwilling to do is flat hypocrisy and always will be. I find people who are willing to demand from others what they are unwilling to lead others in doing to be amoral.
 
Damocles said:
It is hypocrisy. The urge of leadership to force others to do as they are unwilling to do is flat hypocrisy and always will be. I find people who are willing to demand from others what they are unwilling to lead others in doing to be amoral.
Click to expand...

It's not hypocrisy. If Obama achieved the change in policy, and then didn't pay the additional amount he was mandated to pay, it would be hypocrisy; and also a legal offense...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top