Ivan Seeking said:
So you spoke in absolute terms but never followed up with comparisons. So you didn't really intend to make any comparisons.
Huh? Maybe you need to reread that...
So it seems your view is that Obama is dishonest if he doesn't force this on a State that doesn't want it. So then I assume your position is that Fed should ignore the will of the people;
No, it's dishonest if he misrepresents his reasons for doing it and dishonest if he commissions a study, then orders them not to consider Yucca.
Making that decision for political reasons just makes him more interested in playing politics than doing the right thing.
And by the way, Nevada is one state and it is undemocratic to favor them over the rest of the country just because they have a powerful Senator.
...that your definition of a leader is "one who ignores the democratic process".
You do understand that this is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, right? In a day and age when we could easily have a direct democracy if we wanted, the main reason to have a direct democracy is exactly that: to make tough decisions even if they are unpopular. Motivating people to accept something they need but don't want is the key trait of a leader:
A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don’t necessarily want to go, but ought to be.
~Rosalynn Carter
After eight years of Republican control, given that Republican policies caused the crash...
That's not a given. There is a shared responsibility, especiallly considering that Clinton signed some of the major enabling legislation without blinking.
...after McCain denied the economy was melting down while it was melting down, which probably cost him the election, you blame Obama for not accurately predicting the depth scope of the Republican disaster? That is laughable.
No, Ivan, it's realism. Neither Bush nor McCain are running for President next year, so Obama is going to have a difficult time running against them. He's going to have to run on his record and his record is that he badly underestimated the unemployment situation, tried to fix it and failed, and in so doing massively drove up the debt, and has since basically decided not to attempt to fix that. He's going to have trouble blaming McCain or Bush for all that.
It was obviously impossible when faced with Republican opposition at every turn.
Wow, still? Obama is CINC. He can move troops or prisoners with a word or a stroke of a pen (which is why he signed an executive order instead of writing a bill). The problem on this issue wasn't Republican opposition, it was conservation of mass. You can't just make prisoners disappear. I really thought even the die-hards would have realized by now that he was trying to do something that was physically impossible.
And by the way, I suppose you also forgot that Obama did at times have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
He isn't done yet. Did he promise when it would get done?
Huh? The healthcare hearings already happened and he declined to open them even after promising he would. This issue is over and done. Maybe you misread...
He says no such thing. That is a blatent lie.
Here's bobg's post:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3271041&postcount=30 If you haven't read it, you should - it's a classic.
Heavily liberal?
I would like to see evidence of that!
Read any poll we've ever had on the subject! And that's not even including the fact that some of our hardest liberals will claim up and down to be "independent"
