Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

Admittedly, I'm really upset by the amount of unfair blame and criticism that President Bush received while in office. Perhaps thats why I am going to blame everything that happens for the next eight years on Barack Obama.

I hope you're kidding when you say this because this is kind of ridiculous.

Bush didn't get as much criticism and blame as he deserved to get for his policies and decisions while he was in office.

I think people really need to just give Obama and this new administration time to fix the mess that was created. While I definitely believe God put him in office, I realize that this kind of thing won't be fixed overnight. And I think people also need to realize that this administration isn't perfect. Mistakes will be made. However, it is extremely unfair for people to be so judgmental about this administration when those same people tolerated an administration that basically stomped all over the constitutional rights of people in this country.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Have any of you been following what's happening with the EU over the last week or so? It is possible the EU might sever. They are in even worse shape than we are right now, and Gordon Brown is heading here to address OUR government tomorrow night. Word is that he might be suggesting the stimulus passed by congress isn't big enough, and that the EU will be looking to the U.S. to essentially bail them out. Some Internet chatter even suggests it's possible the UK could be taken over by U.S. rule if the EU should falter; I think that's maybe a little nutty, but nevertheless, it's chatter.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Have any of you been following what's happening with the EU over the last week or so? It is possible the EU might sever. They are in even worse shape than we are right now, and Gordon Brown is heading here to address OUR government tomorrow night. Word is that he might be suggesting the stimulus passed by congress isn't big enough, and that the EU will be looking to the U.S. to essentially bail them out. Some Internet chatter even suggests it's possible the UK could be taken over by U.S. rule if the EU should falter; I think that's maybe a little nutty, but nevertheless, it's chatter.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

MLK, Jr.?

"That ain't your real hair. Just stop it! You just go too far with the jokes." ~ Eddie Murphy Nutty Professor

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I hope you're kidding when you say this because this is kind of ridiculous.

Bush didn't get as much criticism and blame as he deserved to get for his policies and decisions while he was in office.

I think people really need to just give Obama and this new administration time to fix the mess that was created. While I definitely believe God put him in office, I realize that this kind of thing won't be fixed overnight. And I think people also need to realize that this administration isn't perfect. Mistakes will be made. However, it is extremely unfair for people to be so judgmental about this administration when those same people tolerated an administration that basically stomped all over the constitutional rights of people in this country.

You realize how unrealistic the bolded part is, right? In other words, you're saying that people who supported Bush have no right to criticize Obama? Your statement seems to be of the same type as those who are saying "Well, Bush was the worst ever, so anything else is good."

It's not unfair for Bush supporters to criticize Obama, any more than it's unfair for Obama supporters to have criticized Bush. That's politics.

ETA: I disagree with a lot of what Bush did, and I can't say I'm his biggest supporter. But if you're going to start talking about fairness, it's unfair to silence a whole group of people because they supported the previous administration.

You're entitled to your opinion on the issues, but it bothers me when you say that people essentially don't have a right to criticize the administration.

I also never answered your previous point, on Congresspeople asking for the President's autograph. The red flag for me is that it just seems unprofessional, given their position. That's obviously a debatable point, but it raises a red flag in my mind, no matter whether they're asking for the autograph of Obama or Bush, Democrat or Republican.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

ETA:

I also never answered your previous point, on Congresspeople asking for the President's autograph. The red flag for me is that it just seems unprofessional, given their position. That's obviously a debatable point, but it raises a red flag in my mind, no matter whether they're asking for the autograph of Obama or Bush, Democrat or Republican.

Has it already been mentioned what it kind of suggests about issues with separation of powers and checks and balances?

Sure, Presidents have to be popular and powerful enough to get their agenda through, but if there's a suggestion that Congress is acting like 15 years old girls at a Jonas Brothers' show, it makes you wonder if things will function like they should.

ETA: sorry, it was tweens at the Jonas Brothers' show. And yeah, you mentioned overriding vetoes, etc.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Where do you live that you saw wide acceptance of Bush's policies?

It seems that Bush was almost universally panned by all but the most die-hard of the conservatives, and already the media has published pieces that don't look kindly on his Presidency (see the widespread distribution of the Presidents list that placed him near the bottom). There has been criticism of his domestic and foreign policy, almost across the board.

Of course, there are some people who supported his Presidency and supported some of his policy decisions, but it seems like deepimpact2 is looking for something like 100% disapproval of his Presidency.

To be clear, I am not doing this to be part of some "mob" mentality against deepimpact2. I am simply stating my disagreement with their statement.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Has it already been mentioned what it kind of suggests about issues with separation of powers and checks and balances?

Sure, Presidents have to be popular and powerful enough to get their agenda through, but if there's a suggestion that Congress is acting like 15 years old girls at a Jonas Brothers' show, it makes you wonder if things will function like they should.

ETA: sorry, it was tweens at the Jonas Brothers' show. And yeah, you mentioned overriding vetoes, etc.

In my mind it's more of an issue of how it appears; in my mind, it gives the wrong appearance when Congresspeople are acting like excited autograph-seekers around the President.

It's not the worst thing in the world, no, and I don't even know that I would personally question their ethics. I just think some people would, and as a Congressperson, you have to be extra careful in that regard.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

To be clear, I am not doing this to be part of some "mob" mentality against deepimpact2. I am simply stating my disagreement with their statement.

Are these types of disclaimers going to to be necessary when typing directly or indirectly to certain posters? Count me out.

I agree with you, there will not be 100% approval or disapproval. There doesn't need to be. This is all politics. The substantive as well as the superficial and petty. Every camp has rhetoric, some of it is just more annoying on the surface than others to me. The hypocrisy is when people on either side pretend that every tax payer does not have a right to critique and criticize anyone they choose and however they choose, based on the info that is available.

On another note, Sean Hannity was ripping Obama, liberals, and Dems a new one last night regarding the deficit and rhetoric. I agreed with some of what he said although I think some of the language was a bit harsh, even for me. Not to mention Hannity's response to David Letterman's comment about Rush Limbaugh's look.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Are these types of disclaimers going to to be necessary when typing directly or indirectly to certain posters? Count me out.

I agree with you, there will not be 100% approval or disapproval. There doesn't need to be. This is all politics. The substantive as well as the superficial and petty. Every camp has rhetoric, some of it is just more annoying on the surface than others to me. The hypocrisy is when people on either side pretend that every tax payer does not have a right to critique and criticize anyone they choose and however they choose, based on the info that is available.

Exactly; it comes with politics, and every President is going to have their supporters or detractors. No matter how bad people think President Bush was when he was in office, there were people who were quite happy with his performance. No matter how much people think of President Obama's first couple of months in office, there are some people who are unhappy with some of his decisions.

I think it gets very dangerous when we start saying who is or is not allowed to have an opinion on an issue. There was a lot of talk in the last administration about how people felt that their voices of dissent were quashed. I hope those same people aren't trying to quash debate now.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

On another note, Sean Hannity was ripping Obama, liberals, and Dems a new one last night regarding the deficit and rhetoric. I agreed with some of what he said although I think some of the language was a bit harsh, even for me. Not to mention Hannity's response to David Letterman's comment about Rush Limbaugh's look.

I used to listen to Hannity every once in a while in the car, and he would occasionally have interesting topics mixed among his rants. The problem for me was that there was too much of the latter (the rants) and not enough of the former (the interesting topics). He also seemed to have an anti-intellectual bent that got annoying after a while.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Exactly; it comes with politics, and every President is going to have their supporters or detractors. No matter how bad people think President Bush was when he was in office, there were people who were quite happy with his performance. No matter how much people think of President Obama's first couple of months in office, there are some people who are unhappy with some of his decisions.

I think it gets very dangerous when we start saying who is or is not allowed to have an opinion on an issue. There was a lot of talk in the last administration about how people felt that their voices of dissent were quashed. I hope those same people aren't trying to quash debate now.

This is going to be a very ROUGH 4 years and not just because of the economy. People are trying to rewrite the rules for the political game to suit their fondness for Obama and some are still uncertain and are playing it safe for the first black POTUS.

People need to understand that criticisms of every administration and its policies are based on the theoretical and the substantive. "Change" has different interpretations. One fear that has led to criticism is that the Obama camp is trying to change the Democrats into a European-esque labor party, which theoretically can give rise to a socialist party if our (unpure) capitalist economy continues to crumble and fails. I don't think it will EVER happen but if there is a transition, it will be unpure socialism that is more of a combo of capitalism and socialism. Some say that's what we have now. But it's unrealistic to not expect those who fear this to be critical of the path they THINK we are taking based on the information we have available and the unknown.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I used to listen to Hannity every once in a while in the car, and he would occasionally have interesting topics mixed among his rants. The problem for me was that there was too much of the latter (the rants) and not enough of the former (the interesting topics). He also seemed to have an anti-intellectual bent that got annoying after a while.

Anti-intellectualism has taken over across the political board.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It seems that Bush was almost universally panned by all but the most die-hard of the conservatives, and already the media has published pieces that don't look kindly on his Presidency (see the widespread distribution of the Presidents list that placed him near the bottom). There has been criticism of his domestic and foreign policy, almost across the board.

Of course, there are some people who supported his Presidency and supported some of his policy decisions, but it seems like deepimpact2 is looking for something like 100% disapproval of his Presidency.




.

If you can point to a statement where I said I was looking for 100% disapproval of the Bush presidency I would appreciate it.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

If you can point to a statement where I said I was looking for 100% disapproval of the Bush presidency I would appreciate it.

To paraphrase, you said that Bush didn't get enough criticism or blame for what he did in office. During his last couple of years, his disapproval rating hovered around 70%. So, going off of your statement that this wasn't enough "criticism or blame," there's not much farther you have to go to come to a 100% disapproval rating.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Believe it or not I saw acceptance of the Bush policies because people looked at it like this...they felt he was doing what was necessary to combat those big, bad evil terrorists. And then you have people who support the president just because he's the president.

With respect to your question about the constitutional issues, information about that has been revealed. i thought everyone knew about that.

And, believe it or not, I saw a wide disapproval of his policies. If you're talking about things such as the torture memos and the such, there's a huge segment of the legal world that has criticized the way the OLC handled the issue, and the way in which the Bush White House requested and framed the information.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

My response did not say that people can't criticize Obama EVER. My response said that people need to be fair and give him time before saying he's not doing a good job. It's really too early to discern something like that.

And I think we still disagree about what would constitute "fairness" or "unfairness" in this situation. I don't think it's possible to judge Obama's entire presidency three months in. I think it is fair to judge individual moves, if one thinks that Obama is taking the wrong path on an issue.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

To paraphrase, you said that Bush didn't get enough criticism or blame for what he did in office. During his last couple of years, his disapproval rating hovered around 70%. So, going off of your statement that this wasn't enough "criticism or blame," there's not much farther you have to go to come to a 100% disapproval rating.



And, believe it or not, I saw a wide disapproval of his policies. If you're talking about things such as the torture memos and the such, there's a huge segment of the legal world that has criticized the way the OLC handled the issue, and the way in which the Bush White House requested and framed the information.



And I think we still disagree about what would constitute "fairness" or "unfairness" in this situation. I don't think it's possible to judge Obama's entire presidency three months in. I think it is fair to judge individual moves, if one thinks that Obama is taking the wrong path on an issue.

I would just appreciate it if you wouldn't assert that I said or implied that I was looking for 100% because that's simply not true.
As far as judging individual moves, I think that is fine with any president. However, I would also add that when doing so, it is important to actually look at things with an objective eye. Some people around here are not looking at his moves with an objective eye. I think some people are just looking for flaws simply because they don't want him to be president.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

To be clear, I am not doing this to be part of some "mob" mentality against deepimpact2. I am simply stating my disagreement with their statement.

I forgot to add that I appreciate your disclaimer despite the fact that some folks around here had a hissy fit because you wrote that.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I forgot to add that I appreciate your disclaimer despite the fact that some folks around here had a hissy fit because you wrote that.

I (or "we," since you're being passive aggressive) didn't think enough of it to have a "hissy fit."