Political Tiger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-22-10 11:52 AM
Original message |
| We have a "weak" President. |
|
At least that's what I hear on DU. Apparently, as Rachael Maddow said, "the last time any president did this much in office, booze was illegal" is a sign of "weakness."
|
Sheepshank
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-22-10 12:17 PM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Yeah - hearing it, but not buying into it all. |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-22-10 12:18 PM by Sheepshank
I hear many criticisms against Obama on the GD BB. I'm just not able to jump into that foray in any way.
From another bb, I've learned that it really does no good to "wallow" in the negative. The Reps just add botulism that particular type of feeding frenzy and then revel in the disarray they cause.
Activism is NOT the same thing and is admirable.
|
POAS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-22-10 09:10 PM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Unweakest President in a long time....n/t |
quiet.american
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-22-10 10:00 PM
Response to Original message |
| 3. PT - I take the sarcasm of your post, but -- |
|
Edited on Thu Jul-22-10 10:00 PM by quiet.american
Wish your subject line were different. Linguist George Lakoff - book, "Don't Think of an Elephant" - makes an excellent point that even if you use "the other side's" frame in sarcasm, it still perpetuates their language in the debate and reinforces it. Every time someone checks into the Barack Obama group now, the first thing they see is, "We have a "weak" President."
See what I mean?
Cheers.
|
Political Tiger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-22-10 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
I probably should have added a "LOL" after the title to show that I was not serious with that comment.
|
quiet.american
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-22-10 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
| 5. Cheers for the reply, PT. Thanks for listening. nt |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Dec 23rd 2025, 12:59 PM
Response to Original message |