Lead by example...

Pink wink where lesbians find love!! What on earth was posted in this thread that caused that to be the ad here? Well, at least I finally got one that wasn't selling asian women to men! I suppose this is an improvement?

Actually since it mentions love it is a definite improvement.
 
Onceler said:
Damo, just repeating "childlike" isn't doing much for you. Just an FYI there.

Actually, my musket analogy was the equivalent - because individual action in that case would be just as empty symbolically and ineffective as Obama paying more taxes himself. That's where the whole collective action thing comes in.

With your NATO analogy, an equivalent might be if Obama was trying to get a group of people in his bracket to voluntarily pay more, but didn't himself.

Stay on point.
Click to expand...

Not equivalent, he serves in the military already, as the CIC. I only state childlike because it is. Your attempt to spin out of a simple hypocritical moment has been extremely childlike.

If it is "right" then act, lead people to believe the same thing by proving the right through action.

He has spent many years telling me about how it isn't "fair", then does exactly what he says is "wrong" for others all while attempting to make other people do what he believes is "right". That is hypocrisy.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... the Buffet rule would bring in about $47B over a decade. That is completely ineffectual as well. It is a complete fail on his part. Like I stated before, your BDS/ODS combo is quite amusing. I know it is indeed hard to tell the two apart in terms of performance for this country. So I do understand why you continue to hold them up to one another.
Click to expand...

That's a rather typical SF goalpost-shift. I guess if the rule itself is ineffectual, then Obama's symbolic action would mean that much less.

Thanks.
 
Damocles said:
Not equivalent, he serves in the military already, as the CIC. I only state childlike because it is. Your attempt to spin out of a simple hypocritical moment has been extremely childlike.

If it is "right" then act, lead people to believe the same thing by proving the right through action.

He has spent many years telling me about how it isn't "fair", then does exactly what he says is "wrong" for others all while attempting to make other people do what he believes is "right". That is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Love that first line. I didn't realize that noon was the daily hairsplitters-anonymous meeting....
 
Damocles said:
Not equivalent, he serves in the military already, as the CIC. I only state childlike because it is. Your attempt to spin out of a simple hypocritical moment has been extremely childlike.

If it is "right" then act, lead people to believe the same thing by proving the right through action.

He has spent many years telling me about how it isn't "fair", then does exactly what he says is "wrong" for others all while attempting to make other people do what he believes is "right". That is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Tell us Damo, how much extra did you send to the treasury, earmarked to pay down the deficit? It is good to pay down the deficit isn't it? So sending in extra money is the "right" thing to do, right? Are you a hypocrite if you didn't pay extra? How about the fact that you are demanding that Obama should have paid extra but you are unwilling to do so? I guess (using your logic) that makes you a hypocrite. Since you are hypocritcal about tax issues, you really should keep your opinions about others to yourself.
 
Just for giggles, can any of the resident Republicans come up with a real world example of a sacrifice a Republican must take in the interests of "leadership" towards achieving his or her policy objectives?
 
Onceler said:
That's a rather typical SF goalpost-shift. I guess if the rule itself is ineffectual, then Obama's symbolic action would mean that much less.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It is not a goal post shift... I was commenting on your 'his contribution would be ineffectual on its own, so why do it?'. Using YOUR rationale it makes no sense to be pushing for the Buffet rule at all. But I know, you must pretend that I somehow shifted the goal posts as that is you new excuse/reason to apologize for Obama's lack of leadership.
 
Rune said:
Tell us Damo, how much extra did you send to the treasury, earmarked to pay down the deficit? It is good to pay down the deficit isn't it? So sending in extra money is the "right" thing to do, right? Are you a hypocrite if you didn't pay extra? How about the fact that you are demanding that Obama should have paid extra but you are unwilling to do so? I guess (using your logic) that makes you a hypocrite. Since you are hypocritcal about tax issues, you really should keep your opinions about others to yourself.
Click to expand...

If I were in his position and promoting a law to do such a thing I would be a hypocrite indeed. However, you do understand the difference in my argument to cut actual spending and their argument take more from others? No?

It is very easy to be generous with the money of others, it is often difficult to do what you believe to be the right thing. The result of the Buffet rule would be $47 Billion over 10 years. It has no effect even if it passes... tell me, what would be wrong with Obama leading by example and doing what he believes is right?
 
Damocles said:
If I were in his position and promoting a law to do such a thing I would be a hypocrite indeed. However, you do understand the difference in my argument to cut actual spending and their argument take more from others? No?

It is very easy to be generous with the money of others, it is often difficult to do what you believe to be the right thing. The result of the Buffet rule would be $47 Billion over 10 years. It has no effect even if it passes... tell me, what would be wrong with Obama leading by example and doing what he believes is right?
Click to expand...

Now we are going to move the goal posts to include cutting spending?
 
Superfreak said:
It is not a goal post shift... I was commenting on your 'his contribution would be ineffectual on its own, so why do it?'. Using YOUR rationale it makes no sense to be pushing for the Buffet rule at all. But I know, you must pretend that I somehow shifted the goal posts as that is you new excuse/reason to apologize for Obama's lack of leadership.
Click to expand...

Just so you know - that's a goalpost shift.
 
Rune said:
Now we are going to move the goal posts to include cutting spending?
Click to expand...
What? I simply cleared up a misconception on your part, I do not promote forcing others to pay more to pay down the deficit, I support a cut in spending. However, I clearly indicated that if I did support taking more money from others I would indeed be a hypocrite if I did not send in what I believe is "right" for others.

If you are unwilling to do what you believe should be the action of others, you are literally participating in hypocrisy.
 
Damocles said:
What? I simply cleared up a misconception on your part, I do not promote forcing others to pay more to pay down the deficit, I support a cut in spending. However, I clearly indicated that if I did support taking more money from others I would indeed be a hypocrite if I did not send in what I believe is "right" for others.

If you are unwilling to do what you believe should be the action of others, you are literally participating in hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Oh. I figured as brilliant as you are, you would be well aware that spending cuts alone will never pay off the deficit. My bad.
 
Damocles said:
What? I simply cleared up a misconception on your part, I do not promote forcing others to pay more to pay down the deficit, I support a cut in spending. However, I clearly indicated that if I did support taking more money from others I would indeed be a hypocrite if I did not send in what I believe is "right" for others.

If you are unwilling to do what you believe should be the action of others, you are literally participating in hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

And, in your estimation - because, after all, Bush was CIC - Bush did not believe others should fight the Iraq War? Or do you think he did enough as CIC to warrant your "leadership" definition, what w/ all of that "bring it on" stuff?
 
Superfreak said:
Do tell... how is it a shift? I was commenting on YOUR comment... not changing my initial point.
Click to expand...

It's a different argument - the idea that he shouldn't be pushing for the Buffett rule at all. I can understand why you bailed on the previous goalpost, but that is precisely what a "goalpost shift" is, SF. It's textbook.
 
Rune said:
Oh. I figured as brilliant as you are, you would be well aware that spending cuts alone will never pay off the deficit. My bad.
Click to expand...

One thing that I know, projecting a $1.3 Trillion deficit for 20 years certainly won't begin to pay off the deficit. What I most promote is a balanced budget amendment.
 
Onceler said:
And, in your estimation - because, after all, Bush was CIC - Bush did not believe others should fight the Iraq War? Or do you think he did enough as CIC to warrant your "leadership" definition, what w/ all of that "bring it on" stuff?
Click to expand...

Again, as CIC he participated in his military role. He sought and gained a small coalition. While I think the war was a waste of treasure and didn't support it, he did not seek for others to do what he thought was right, he committed the US to action. An equivalence would be attempting to force other nations to take action where he was unwilling.
 
Damocles said:
Again, as CIC he participated in his military role. He sought and gained a small coalition. While I think the war was a waste of treasure and didn't support it, he did not seek for others to do what he thought was right, he committed the US to action. An equivalence would be attempting to force other nations to take action where he was unwilling.
Click to expand...

That's pathetic. He was asking others to get in harm's way; he did not. As CIC, he participated in his military role the same way that Obama is participating in his taxpayer role.

You're really grasping at straws. And failing.
 
Onceler said:
It's a different argument - the idea that he shouldn't be pushing for the Buffett rule at all. I can understand why you bailed on the previous goalpost, but that is precisely what a "goalpost shift" is, SF. It's textbook.
Click to expand...

Again moron... I was addressing YOUR POINT. I was not shifting the goal posts nor was I abandoning my position. I was commenting on YOUR POSITION. I understand why you want to play this new game of pretending I did. You are tired of apologizing for the complete lack of leadership Obama displays on a daily basis. You know he is a 'lead from behind' kind of guy that, like you, has no concept of leadership.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top