--- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote: <snip> > > If Hillary had been elected President and were making > > some of the same decisions Obama is, we wouldn't hearing > > a word of criticism out of you two. Your admirable > > intellects are fundamentally governed by your emotions. > [I wrote:] > Rick, I know you're pissed as hell because I dug up that > post in which you quoted Obama as telling you he was > going to plug all the holes Bush blasted in the > Constitution. Of course it embarrasses you now that he's > gone to some trouble to keep most of them wide open. > > I understand why that upsets you. > > But while making a stupid and offensive comment like the > one above may make you feel better for a little while, > it doesn't really do much to erase the unpleasant facts. > > You need to adjust your perception of Obama and come to > terms with the new reality. > > I don't feel pissed or upset in the least. Very seldom do > I get angry or upset about anything.
Yeah, that must be why you made the comment at the top. I mean, it was just so, you know, *rational*. Oddly enough, you never addressed any of what Raunchydog said; you just blasted her (and me) with a sexist ad hominem. > I don't expect Obama to keep every campaign promise he > made. Nor would I expect any president to be able to do > so. The reality of the job must be quite different than > what it appears to be during the campaign. I don't expect > him to be perfect. I'm not disillusioned like some of the > lefties are because he isn't conforming to their naive, > idealistic expectations. You mean the "naive, idealistic expectation" that he'd uphold the Constitution, unlike Bush? That expectation, the promise you so proudly posted here on FFL? The promise he made in the oath of office he took to "protect and defend" the Constitution? > I don't necessarily agree with everything Obama is > doing, but I don't adamantly disagree, because I'm > not as well informed as he is, and even if I were, > I don't think my intelligence and judgment are > remotely on a par with his. He was the guy who said he was going to repair the damage Bush had done to the Constitution. Was he just not very well informed about all that? Did he show poor judgment? If he changed his mind once he got in office and was able to inform himself, and he decided to stick with Bush's policies, maybe Bush's judgment wasn't so bad after all.
