Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

Really, no one can criticize President Obama because it hasn't even been a GOOD month yet and to judge now based on a few weeks in office I think is a sad mistake.

To be quite frank, even 'the First 100 days" at this point with what we have to dig ourselves out of is not a good enough of a measuring stick to judge where this is going and we are in quite a different position than what we were in when Bush first took office.

I honestly believe it will take a year before anyone can adequately gauge where Obama's presidency will stand.

And I agree no free passes but being negative just for the sake of being negative is a mistake also.

[AGDee]

Frankly, anybody can criticize Obama any time they want and that's the beauty of free speech. Isn't it great that people can disagree and criticize our leader without fear of being tossed in jail?

I don't expect most Republicans to like or agree with Obama most of the time and it's cool with me if they want to verbally express that it in a mature way.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Really, no one can criticize President Obama because it hasn't even been a GOOD month yet and to judge now based on a few weeks in office I think is a sad mistake.

To be quite frank, even 'the First 100 days" at this point with what we have to dig ourselves out of is not a good enough of a measuring stick to judge where this is going and we are in quite a different position than what we were in when Bush first took office.

I honestly believe it will take a year before anyone can adequately gauge where Obama's presidency will stand.

And I agree no free passes but being negative just for the sake of being negative is a mistake also.

Ok...so, then does it follow that it's too early to say he's doing a good job as well? There are posters who have applauded his early moves (regarding the stimulus, abortion, etc.). If it's too early to criticize, it's probably too early to start patting him on the back as well, correct?

I agree that, to judge his Presidency as a whole, we need to wait. I'll even give you that we can't say whether his measures will be ultimately be successes or failures. But I don't see a problem with preliminary applause or criticism for something like the stimulus bill, or for the public face he's put on the issues through his news conferences.

ETA: Not everyone's being negative just to be negative; people have real problems with the stimulus bill, and his early approach to the economic crisis, for a variety of reasons.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Ok...so, then does it follow that it's too early to say he's doing a good job as well? There are posters who have applauded his early moves (regarding the stimulus, abortion, etc.). If it's too early to criticize, it's probably too early to start patting him on the back as well, correct?

I agree that, to judge his Presidency as a whole, we need to wait. I'll even give you that we can't say whether his measures will be ultimately be successes or failures. But I don't see a problem with preliminary applause or criticism for something like the stimulus bill, or for the public face he's put on the issues through his news conferences.

ETA: Not everyone's being negative just to be negative; people have real problems with the stimulus bill, and his early approach to the economic crisis, for a variety of reasons.

Agreed, whole heartedly...I have applauded SOME of what he has done right now but I won't be the first one to say **think back to the Lexus Christmas commercial** He is the BEST President.......EVER.

This is why I said we have to give it time before we have a handle on the OVERALL job.

Signing a few bills and reversing some of the former admin. bills doesn't mean shyte to the overall job performance.

It's just like a relationship, in the early part, they do everything right and say the words we all want to hear but in the back of our minds we have to be vigilant because sometimes years later those things do not hold up and people change....heh

It's not just the stimulus bill that people have problems with....and well...no need to run down that ball of wax again, suffice to say some people hate Obama just because, and let's just leave it at that.

Kisg...that reminds me, peep this: Historians Rank the Presidents

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

some people hate Obama just because, and let's just leave it at that.

And some people LIKE Obama just because.

Just saying.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Agreed, whole heartedly...I have applauded SOME of what he has done right now but I won't be the first one to say **think back to the Lexus Christmas commercial** He is the BEST President.......EVER.

This is why I said we have to give it time before we have a handle on the OVERALL job.

Signing a few bills and reversing some of the former admin. bills doesn't mean shyte to the overall job performance.

It's just like a relationship, in the early part, they do everything right and say the words we all want to hear but in the back of our minds we have to be vigilant because sometimes years later those things do not hold up and people change....heh

It's not just the stimulus bill that people have problems with....and well...no need to run down that ball of wax again, suffice to say some people hate Obama just because, and let's just leave it at that.

Kisg...that reminds me, peep this: Historians Rank the Presidents

I saw the Yahoo story, pretty interesting. It's on par with what one of my college professors (Robert Dallek) always said, as he consistently mentioned FDR, Truman and Lincoln. I personally think FDR gets way too much credit, and people gloss over some of the serious issues with FDR as a President, but that's a whole other discussion...

I completely agree that it takes a number of years to assess a President's legacy as a whole. Part of this is the time it takes to release the Presidential papers, and part of it is that certain high level decisions don't take full and final affect for a number of years. We won't be able to fairly evaluate the Obama presidency, as a whole, for many years, and I agree it's premature to even start that discussion.

That said - I don't see anyone here saying that he's the "WORST PRESIDENT EVER!" People have concerns about some of his decisions regarding economics, and while time will tell whether those decisions are correct, I see no issue with people criticizing those individual decisions now. If it's ok to applaud some of what he's done now, then should be ok to criticize some of it.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Ok...so, then does it follow that it's too early to say he's doing a good job as well?

Yep. We all have to sit on the fence until some obscure moment in time.

That would make sense IF the presidency had a grace period. It doesn't. We won't know the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of policies yet but we know some of what happens at the front end.

And, technically, the effectiveness of many administrations' policies can't be assessed in terms of effectiveness until years later, sometimes after that president is out of office. It's just like the effectiveness of other social policies and programs. You can't assume they were effective and you can't assess the effectiveness too soon.

[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.