Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

LOL It's funny when hateration rears its ugly head.

Good job.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Just glancing at the article, I really hope they are not accusing Obama of fearmongering. Certainly not after this last administration...Not to mention that people all across the board have been saying the same thing they are accusing him of saying. Why try to single him out? Hypocritical much?

There's enough fearmongering to go around. This is an article about politics (and the media) and the presentation of the current economic recession, as well the historical comparisons being made. Obama is the current POTUS who is making a lot of statements to the American public. So this article would be about him.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

There's enough fearmongering to go around. This is an article about politics (and the media) and the presentation of the current economic recession, as well the historical comparisons being made. Obama is the current POTUS who is making a lot of statements to the American public. So this article would be about him.

Were the same things being said and written before he became POTUS? Yes. Have other people made several statements to the American public concerning this economy? Yes. So this isn't unique to him.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Were the same things being said and written before he became POTUS? Yes. Have other people made several statements to the American public concerning this economy? Yes. So this isn't unique to him.

Good grief, some Obama supporters are way too sensitive.

People think the game has changed just because Obama is POTUS. Presidents are almost never the first and only one to say things. The same goes for many of the things Bush was blamed for. Being POTUS means that you have a powerful and unique platform. Presidents' words and actions are scrutinized much more because they have a much bigger impact. That's how it has always been so Obama doesn't get treated with kiddie gloves.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Were the same things being said and written before he became POTUS? Yes. Have other people made several statements to the American public concerning this economy? Yes. So this isn't unique to him.

Don't you think the scale is unique to him?

[Coramoor]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Don't you think the scale is unique to him?

Perhaps.

However BO was elected on his profound message of change. Not being Bush is not good enough any more.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Things are not good. Further nationalizing - first banks, now medical records, and whatever's next - and government pork are not the answer.

How are medical records being nationalized?

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

How are medical records being nationalized?

Maybe she's referring to electronic medical recordkeeping? If so, she should know that that's something many people in the medical community have been wanting for quite a long time. It's not only an efficiency/money saving issue, but it's a huge safety issue as well. Do you realize that right now, people can go from hospital to hospital with no trace of which drugs they may be taking or which procedures and conditions they've had in the past? It's a great way to enable prescription drug abuse. Furthermore, if you were taken to the ER, unconscious, the medical team these days might have no idea which medications you were taking, which drugs you might be allergic to, whether you've had your spleen removed, etc. By keeping medical records in one database, doctors attending to you whereever you may be know your medical history, which just might save your life. Of course, there are security issues that need to be addressed with such a system (we don't want people hacking into it), but overall the idea is sound, I think.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Maybe she's referring to electronic medical recordkeeping?

I wondered about that, too (and remembered that George Bush was advocating it before Barack Obama), but I haven't heard any proposal about EMR that could accurately be described as "nationalization" of medical records. Have I missed that part?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Maybe she's referring to electronic medical recordkeeping? If so, she should know that that's something many people in the medical community have been wanting for quite a long time. It's not only an efficiency/money saving issue, but it's a huge safety issue as well. Do you realize that right now, people can go from hospital to hospital with no trace of which drugs they may be taking or which procedures and conditions they've had in the past? It's a great way to enable prescription drug abuse. Furthermore, if you were taken to the ER, unconscious, the medical team these days might have no idea which medications you were taking, which drugs you might be allergic to, whether you've had your spleen removed, etc. By keeping medical records in one database, doctors attending to you whereever you may be know your medical history, which just might save your life. Of course, there are security issues that need to be addressed with such a system (we don't want people hacking into it), but overall the idea is sound, I think.

The privacy issue is huge. It's possible that the benefits to patients may outweigh the risks, but there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this.

I think one of the issues that will seem weird is employer-based insurance oversight with easy access to your whole history, but hey, maybe we'll get nationalized health care too, so that won't matter. Imagine the customer service and quality you associate with the DMV but with access to all your medical records. Awesome.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

LOL It's funny when hateration rears its ugly head.

Just glancing at the article, I really hope they are not accusing Obama of fearmongering. Certainly not after this last administration...Not to mention that people all across the board have been saying the same thing they are accusing him of saying. Why try to single him out? Hypocritical much?

LOL, it's cute when people chalk up criticism of their favorite politician as "hateration." There are lots of smart, well-educated people who disagree with certain things Obama has done, and who aren't big fans of his policies. That's not "hateration," it's life.

When the person you support gets elected, you kind of have to realize that he's going to be open to criticism. As noted, he's being singled out because he's the President...."the buck stops here" and all of that good stuff. Just because you support the guy's policies and statements doesn't mean everyone else does

Also, as Cooramor noted, just because he's "not Bush" doesn't all of a sudden make everything he does positive. At some point a Presidency has to stand on its own, not in comparison to the work of others.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Good job.



There's enough fearmongering to go around. This is an article about politics (and the media) and the presentation of the current economic recession, as well the historical comparisons being made. Obama is the current POTUS who is making a lot of statements to the American public. So this article would be about him.

Exactly. Every President has members of Congress, political pundits, and experts in the various fields who agree with his policies and vocally support them. But, at the end of the day, if people have concerns, or if things don't work out, it's not the political pundits, experts, or even members of Congress who will get the brunt of the criticism or blame; it's going to be the President.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Also, as Cooramor noted, just because he's "not Bush" doesn't all of a sudden make everything he does positive. At some point a Presidency has to stand on its own, not in comparison to the work of others.

Where is this point? Is it before the first 30 days that a presidency should stand on its own? Not many presidencies stand on their own and not in comparison to others. Obama/Bush. Bush/Clinton. etc. Those that do stand on their own (and even these are debatable) are typically Presidencies that happened during extreme situations. (ex: Lincoln & FDR)


FEAR MONGERING: spreading discreditable, misrepresentative information designed to induce fear and apprehension.

^ This is the definition of fear mongering that I usually use. As per this definition I would not claim that President Obama is a fear mongerer. The information he has spread about the economy is not particularly discreditable nor is it misrepresentative of the situation. The purpose of telling the American people about the economy doesn't seem to be to induce fear. It seems to be to increase the spread of information and to educate the general public. As far as the great depression goes. It is possible. The great depression happened because of a stock market crash and because the American people withdrew from the financial sector. If, today, people started to withdraw all of their money from the banks, the credit system fails, the dollar becomes worthless that would cause great depression # 2. Though it may seem farfetched and scary to many people the fact of the matter is that the dollar only has value because we think/say it does. If enough people are unemployed and have lost trust in the "system" we could see a major failure. Pointing this fact out isn't trying to incite fear. It's trying to keep history from repeating itself. At the current rate I do not believe that the American people will lose faith in or stop trusting the "system", but that does not matter much if these people have no money and no understanding of what is going on. Worst case=Great depression. Best Case=Happiness and free rainbows for all!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Where is this point? Is it before the first 30 days that a presidency should stand on its own? Not many presidencies stand on their own and not in comparison to others. Obama/Bush. Bush/Clinton. etc. Those that do stand on their own (and even these are debatable) are typically Presidencies that happened during extreme situations. (ex: Lincoln & FDR)

I agree with your point to a certain extent, and I should have clarified my own point a bit better. You're correct in that, in many ways, Presidencies are judged based on comparisons to others; how did this President deal with this situation as opposed to previous Presidents, etc.

My main point is that what you hear from some Obama supporters is "Well, you can't criticize Pres. Obama because Pres. Bush was terrible." I think that's where the comparisons have to stop; we can't give Obama a free pass because of the perceived shortcomings of the Bush presidency.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

LOL, it's cute when people chalk up criticism of their favorite politician as "hateration." There are lots of smart, well-educated people who disagree with certain things Obama has done, and who aren't big fans of his policies. That's not "hateration," it's life.

When the person you support gets elected, you kind of have to realize that he's going to be open to criticism. As noted, he's being singled out because he's the President...."the buck stops here" and all of that good stuff. Just because you support the guy's policies and statements doesn't mean everyone else does

Also, as Cooramor noted, just because he's "not Bush" doesn't all of a sudden make everything he does positive. At some point a Presidency has to stand on its own, not in comparison to the work of others.



.

It's cute when people don't realize that some of us actually can read between the lines and discern the difference between legitimate criticism and hateration. I don't think I ever said that criticism of Obama is automatically hateration. When the criticisms are objective and focus on the actual policy issues, it is more likely that the criticism is honest, legitimate criticism. Comments that are subjective in nature and hinge on personal attributes tend to lean more towards being hateration.

Also, I don't recall anyone saying that because he's not Bush, everything he does is positive. And a presidency can stand on its own, but also must stand in comparison to others.

[ASTalumna06]

...case in point:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It's cute when people don't realize that some of us actually can read between the lines and discern the difference between legitimate criticism and hateration. I don't think I ever said that criticism of Obama is automatically hateration. When the criticisms are objective and focus on the actual policy issues, it is more likely that the criticism is honest, legitimate criticism. Comments that are subjective in nature and hinge on personal attributes tend to lean more towards being hateration.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Coramoor

Perhaps.

However BO was elected on his profound message of change. Not being Bush is not good enough any more.

??

I was more commenting on the office of President (specifically the current sitting President) . . . actually I think we more agree than disagree, so I have no clue about the "however" portion, or how this affects the specific topic in the OP. I'm confused.