Thanks

It wasn’t my question, John. I repeated it for the 88th time on this thread. Pretending you didn’t see it doesn’t cover you. I don’t know why it would take you so long to answer such a simple question with such a ridiculous answer, but it did.

YOU are the one that posted the conspiracy-to-answer bullshit. YOU are the one that has been keeping the idiocy going on this thread. The people who are here that care whether or not something so stupid is being spread around are, for the most part, appalled at how vapid people have to be to 1) buy this garbage, and 2) give a shit.

I’m glad you agree with Obama on his stance on Iran. So what’s your excuse for going out of your way to propagate the moronic rumors you find on Politico?

I guess since I knew how I was going to make my coffee this morning, in advance, that it was “staged”. I feel like a fraud, yet cannot think of a way to make coffee spontaneously, with no foreknowledge. Even if I went out to get coffee, it would be staged, because I would know where I wanted to go to get the coffee before I left the house. Oh. I hate myself. Such a phony.

Horrible analogy.

He ignored it when I said it to. The reality is that how the question was posed really doesn’t mean dick. The content of the answer is the important part. That’s why the Politico article is irrelevant, that’s why JohnM is irrelevant. I know the devil’s in the details, but we’re about thisclose to someone criticizing Obama for having a fly-away hair on a windy day.

Sorry, I did not see your post. I think the answer to your question is how upset people are here about the possibility that it was staged. People here obviously care, otherwise they would not be so set on trying to prove denounce the possibility.

Personally, I don’t care if it was staged or not. I actually agree with Obama on his stance with Iran. I just think it is interesting that people are so unwilling to believe that he would do this, especially when Bush would get so much flak for doing same thing. It is strange that the whitehouse reached out to this reporter before the press conference and it did seem to be staged during the press conference. The fact remains the left was very critical of Bush staging answers and Obama must be held to the same standard.

Now go pick up your heads from the curb herbs!

KEEP REMINDING THE NAYSAYING GOPERS!
NUFF SAID!

Oh, who am I kidding. click.

See ya.

No.

Good. We are on the same page. Both schools of thought serve a purpose.

Progressives push for change. Conservatives champion the status quo. Hopefully, progressives will make headway on issues that need change and conservatives will successfully defend those areas of the status quo that benefit society.

Nice try, smidget, but JohnM doesn’t DO “reasonable”.

*forehead slap* You’re right, ralph. I don’t know what I was thinking.

backup Says:
The well-known right-wing rigidity must really come in handy for JohnM.

ralph. It doesn’t surprise me that liberals and conservatives think differently.

Liberals or progressives seem to want, and are more open to, change, while conservatives seem to be more comfortable with the status quo.

If all change is good, the generalization that the liberal mindset is somehow more appropriate or evolved, would be compelling.

But, is that the assumption? That any and all change is better than the status quo?

No.

smidget Says:
And you still haven’t explained why anyone would give a damn, even if they had discussed the question(s).

Thought I’d post it again, just to see if JohnM will blatantly ignore a reasonable question yet again.

Nice try, smidget, but JohnM doesn’t DO “reasonable”.

Your question is fair and reasoned. The answer is – there is no answer. Sometimes yes, and sometimes no (see, there’s that liberal flip-floppy-ness that the cons can’t stand….actually it’s because there is no black and white answer).

Conservatives and progressives are polar opposites. True conservatism advocates, literally, for there to be no change. True progressives say that since things have to change, we should change with it. Both are reasonable when applied to certain situations. When the way to freedom and personal liberty means changing, then it change is good. When change equals oppression and the regression of society, then it is not good. To determine whether “new and shiny” or “tried and true” is the best option, one must first know the details of the situation.

Could you imagine the mess this would have become with McCain and Palin?

We are sooooo lucky that the magine was soooo wide that the GNOP could not steal another election.