Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

As long as it's too early to criticize him it's too early to credit him, as well.

Yup. I credit him with good communication (but thats him overall even before he was POTUS) and thats about it.

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Can we credit him with being hot, though?

Hellz yeah! LOL. My President is hot!

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. No because I don't think he's hot. He's not fugly which makes him average looking.

Man, that hateraid got yo' vision blurred. lol. 2/3 is the majority and the majority has spoken.
Obama=Hotness

[agzg]

If Bill Clinton could get a little something on the side on the Oval Office Barack Obama can be considered sexy because of his power. Although I see what you're saying about the autonomy thing.

BTW has anyone heard the new White House scandal? Michelle Obama wears dresses that show her arms OMGTEHHORROR!

LOL I.A.S.K. 3 people is not a good sample size. Unless the population is 5.

[KSig RC]

Can anyone point to a specific Bush policy that tanked the economy? I'd appreciate the help, thanks!

[agzg]

I'm pretty sure it was his "Everyone must wear suits and ties while in the White House" rule.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. No because I don't think he's hot. He's not fugly which makes him average looking.

I'm surrounded by hot and sexy black educators and hot, sexy, and powerful black businessmen.

The power of POTUS isn't sexy to me. It is much more stress and trouble than its worth. I like power that comes with a level of autonomy among other things. That is sexy.

Senusrat I = self-published novelist = autonomy = hot = Senusret I.

I mean think about it.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

If Bill Clinton could get a little something on the side on the Oval Office Barack Obama can be considered sexy because of his power. Although I see what you're saying about the autonomy thing.

BTW has anyone heard the new White House scandal? Michelle Obama wears dresses that show her arms OMGTEHHORROR!

LOL I.A.S.K. 3 people is not a good sample size. Unless the population is 5.

you're messing up the plan. The plan was to use b/s "statistical figures" to get the people to agree with what we want. Its in my Lobbying 101 handbook. I gotta work on my technique...and get someone who'll stick with the story along with me. See if you had agreed it'd be as good as law.

[agzg]

... But I passed statistics!

Barely, but still.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I understand your elaboration on deepimpact2's points, but that doesn't lessen my disagreement with them.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/mar...tion/na-bush18

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5800960/

http://www.cato.org/research/article...en-030728.html

These are all articles that criticize Bush over the economy. A quick google search with the terms "Criticism of Bush over economy" brought up over 5,000,000 hits. There's a whole Wikipedia page devoted to the various criticisms of Bush's presidency. So, the idea that Bush has somehow escaped criticism for his presidency seems a bit odd to me, to say the least.
Its incredibly odd to me too. I dont follow it and I never said it nor did anyone else from what I've read. My point was that Bush did not recieve as much criticism on that issue as he did on others and that if people want to be critical on the issue of the economy they should be critical of both of them not just one of them.
If people are saying that the criticism of Obama is extreme...well, these are extreme times. Taxpayer money is being used.
I thought extreme times called for extreme action/measures not extreme criticism. Also had people been more extremely critical of Bush then maybe we wouldnt be in extreme times and maybe taxpayer money would not need to be used. See, goes both ways.

Also, while it may seem a bit hypocritical for people to give Bush a pass and then criticize Obama, I'm guessing that some of those same people who were calling for Bush's head will give Obama a free pass on his policies. For a quick example, will all of the people who criticized Bush on detainee issues now be criticizing the Obama administration because it hasn't acted quickly enough on certain detainee issues (the administration is still keeping the Bush DOJ's protocol on fighting habeas corpus petitions in a number of cases? Or, will they give President Obama a break on that issue? Like it or not, hypocrisy is a part of politics, and we've all been guilty of hypocrisy whether we like to admit it or not.
It doesnt seem hypocritical; it is. Just because you're all hypocrites does not make hypocracy right.
In my experience, people don't mind the hypocrisy as long as their candidate isn't criticized. I'm ok with that viewpoint, as long as people are honest with themselves about it.
Im saying that I mind hypocrisy. Im also saying that I mind when people try to play hypocracy off as critisicm. They're not the same. I think that is the general point: be as critical as you want just dont be hypocritical.


There are a couple of issues with this statement. First, the re-election of Bush had a GREAT deal to do with the fact that the Democrats were unable to produce a viable candidate. They brought someone who has spent his career trying to ride Kennedy's coat tails and who has made a career of refusing to work "across the aisle."

This chart shows Bush's approval ratings over the years: http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

In it you can see that his ratings were only particularly high in the wake of 9/11; other than that, it wasn't like there was an outpouring of support for Bush.
Voting for Bush is accepting his policies. Unless you pull a Hillary and say something like "I voted for it but I hoped it didnt pass" then you pretty much accept that if you vote for the guy his agenda will be passed (unless you have adequate reason to think otherwise). So, to re-elect Bush is in essence to tolerate his policies (and to allow his policies to continue to be implemented is to accept his policies). I realize that acceptance does imply some sort of positive feeling or approval, but I do not mean that people approved of Bush's policies. I mean that they accepted them. You dont have to approve of something to go along with it. Thats what happened people accepted his policies. One could argue that the approval ended after his first term, but the acceptance still continued.

I would also disagree with your conclusions as to when people thought the country was "screwed" because of his policies, or that re-election automatically equates to "wide acceptance" of his policies.
I didnt say that people thought the country was screwed because of his policies. I said that once people thought the country was screwed (ie: predicting recession, no end in sight to the war, issues with the war in general, National security issues etc.) then they began to see his policies as bad. At then end of Bush's last term is where you heard congress people saying things like "Yeah I voted for the war, but I thought (insert b/s here)" or "I voted for Bush policy X and it was a mistake because Bush is bad" JMac was one of the few people who didnt try to distance themselves from Bush immediately.

My opinion is that there are always going to be voters and people who feel that the President isn't receiving enough of the credit or enough of the blame. The people who say that Bush got a free pass, in my opinion, are analogous to the people who talk about how the media was out to get Bush. They are two sides of an extreme, and I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

@ last paragraph--I agree.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

... But I passed statistics!

Barely, but still.

I got a B in AP stats and then an A in Stats in college....See that proves I know what Im talking about and that Obama is statistically HOT. LOL!

As long as we agree to go along with it DrChaos cant prove anything and she's still out numbered.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

@ last paragraph--I agree.

I can't figure out how to quote your whole post, so I'll just go off of this...I'll also say that some of the things we disagree upon are splitting hairs (defining "acceptance of his policies," how we define "hypocrisy" with regards to the issues, etc.), so I won't get any more into those issues.

From your comments, I think that we're fairly close in our feelings on some of the policy issues; there were some of Bush's ideas and policies that I thought had merit, and there were many that seriously perturbed me, as a Republican and as a taxpayer.

When I talked about "extreme times," and the criticism that goes with them, I meant that the decisions made are going to be polarizing decisions. Stimulus bills, bailouts, are sensitive issues, and they're going to rile people up on both sides. You see it here on GC...you've got one group that doesn't want to spend the money, you've got one group that's saying "You don't understand, it's not happening in your hometown," you've got another group that is very much in support of the social welfare aspects of it...there's just not a whole lot of middle ground.

My issue is that I have little patience for people who claim fairness or unfairness in the treatment of their candidate. We've heard for eight years how citizens felt that their criticism was stifled in the previous administration, and now they want people to keep their mouths closed regarding this administration. There are even individuals on GC who have said, to paraphrase, "Obama's the President, take it or leave it, no criticism allowed." It's by no means the majority of sentiment from supporters of President Obama, but it's a sentiment that's out there.

To me, there's ample amounts of fairness and unfairness in the expectations placed upon every President. While I agree that it's too early to evaluate President Obama's presidency as a whole, he's still made some decisions (regarding the stimulus, taxes, and handling of detainees) that are individually open to criticism. There are lots of smart people that have thought about these issues for some time, so they have every right to critique the way in which President Obama has responded to these problems.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Can anyone point to a specific Bush policy that tanked the economy? I'd appreciate the help, thanks!

Well, he got the bailout ball rolling, but that was post-tank.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

If Bill Clinton could get a little something on the side on the Oval Office Barack Obama can be considered sexy because of his power. Although I see what you're saying about the autonomy thing.

You asked if he can get credit for being hot. You all go ahead and give him credit. I won't.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

[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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

What constitutionally granted rights of people in this country do you feel were stomped on? I'd prefer that you answered specifically rather than just "Patriot Act." It's gotten to be anti-Bush boilerplate language but what specifically grinds your gears?

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.