Thought it was interesting:
"His actions remind me of a trench warfare tactic. During an enemy advance you fall men back to more distant trenches, you put up some fight but you let them overrun your front line (Obama tries to compromise/give them their way). The enemy having momentum presses further. You put up some fight but secretly you fall the majority of your force back again. You give the enemy what they want while not making it too easy. You allow the enemy to continues its overzealous advance. Now, with the enemy standing under their own artillery fire (accidentally attacking their own policies and people - Romney Care etc); and with supply and support over extended (people getting fed up with the nations drive to the fringe right) - You advance. The Republicans have little ability to attack the President without attacking themselves and have strained their support with many Americans due to their advance to the fring right - if the President puts his full pressure on them during the campaign he could crush them (victory is not assured - but looks damn likely).
tl;dr Short term losses in exchange for long term gains."
Re: Saw this comment on Obama. I like it.
So I take it the writer has been in military training and/or combat? As opposed to the President?
Thought so.
I'd insert a pot stirring gif here, but I'm too damn lazy to open Firefox to do so. Stupid Chrome.
Lol. It's called an analogy. And, to me at least, it's clear the writer is merely speculating.
I agree. I'm glad that kid gets the $#it kicked out of him.
Wait, what? Did you say something about, uh... strategery or something?
DP, I told you how to do it in chrome! You copy the image instead of the link. The only problem is you can't resize.
See?
Oops, sorry - I didn't see a follow-up! Hang on:
Crap, it's not working. I'm right-clicking on the image, choosing copy image, then trying to paste it in the post and nothing-doing.
Both you and Sibil are a bunch of bastards.
For hijacking? Or some other reason I can't divine because I'm so full of awesome goodness?
Highjacking itself is fine (High-five, Atta!), but the content of your discussion is just... it's just fluff. I like banter. But not the fluffy kind.
Well, how about this fluff??? This perfectly expresses my feelings about my Chrome disability: