Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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

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.

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

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.

Though I agree with you on the fact that criticizing is a right that everyone has no matter what. I think the point that DeepImpact is trying to make is that the criticism of Obama seems unfair because he has been in office for less than 2 months and the criticism he is getting could be considered extreme as compared to the way that the same critics treated GWB for the first 5 or 6 years he was in office. No one would argue with the fact that GW made some horrible decisions. One of them being the Patriot Act and another being the war in Iraq and how it was handled. GW has gotten criticism for these, but he has not been criticized (to the same extent) for lack of oversight of the economy and other really bad decisions that he has made. The sentiment I believe that Deep Impact and others like her are trying to convey is that there is nothing wrong with criticism from anyone, but there is something wrong with criticism on one part and indifference or lack of criticism on another. If you're going to criticize Obama on oversight of these companies getting tax payer dollars then you should be equally willing to criticize the lack of oversight it took for these companies to need tax payer dollars. That's just one example.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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

Idk where DeepImapct lives but I live in America where for about 4-6 years people tolerated and accepted Bush's policies. Hell they re-elected him. If that isnt wide acceptance I dont know what is. It wasnt until the end of his last term when people realized that the country was screwed that Bush's policies became "bad" or intolerable. I dont get why some people act like the American people were totally against Bush the whole time he was in office. Bush had a lot of support until the last half of his last term.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

I agree that nothing will be 100%. I didnt disagree with all of Bush's policies. In fact I liked some that many other people hated. I believe some of his policies had potential. One in particular was the no child left behind act. Had the act been given the proper care, attention, guidance, and funding it could have helped our schools. It wasnt. It didnt. I agree with the wall/fence border idea. The issue I have with people who want to criticize is that if they are not willing to actually critically think while doing so their criticism is just a bunch of bull. I also dont get why someone cannot be of the opinion that the criticism is unfair. Sometimes it is. Thats life.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

The issue I have with people who want to criticize is that if they are not willing to actually critically think while doing so their criticism is just a bunch of bull.

The same goes for people who are supporting but don't critically think while they are supporting. In fact, the FANS of every president have done this and get extremely emotional when someone questions why they are in support or when someone is critical. Speaking of Obama specifically since this thread is about his administration, I know rational Obama supporters but unfortunately 7/10 of the Obama supporters that I come across are the emotional ones.

For some of these supporters who are black: There are some touchy topics that black folks, in general, will figuratively whoop your butt or take your imaginary black card over if you question what they consider to be conventional black folk wisdom. Now Obama is one of those things for some of these folks.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

also dont get why someone cannot be of the opinion that the criticism is unfair.

They can. There's a difference between thinking something is unfair (opinions) versus automatically dismissing any dissenting opinion as unfair or claiming that people don't have any right/rhyme/reason to criticize yet.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Though I agree with you on the fact that criticizing is a right that everyone has no matter what. I think the point that DeepImpact is trying to make is that the criticism of Obama seems unfair because he has been in office for less than 2 months and the criticism he is getting could be considered extreme as compared to the way that the same critics treated GWB for the first 5 or 6 years he was in office. No one would argue with the fact that GW made some horrible decisions. One of them being the Patriot Act and another being the war in Iraq and how it was handled. GW has gotten criticism for these, but he has not been criticized (to the same extent) for lack of oversight of the economy and other really bad decisions that he has made. The sentiment I believe that Deep Impact and others like her are trying to convey is that there is nothing wrong with criticism from anyone, but there is something wrong with criticism on one part and indifference or lack of criticism on another. If you're going to criticize Obama on oversight of these companies getting tax payer dollars then you should be equally willing to criticize the lack of oversight it took for these companies to need tax payer dollars. That's just one example.

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.

If people are saying that the criticism of Obama is extreme...well, these are extreme times. Taxpayer money is being used

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.

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.

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

Idk where DeepImapct lives but I live in America where for about 4-6 years people tolerated and accepted Bush's policies. Hell they re-elected him. If that isnt wide acceptance I dont know what is. It wasnt until the end of his last term when people realized that the country was screwed that Bush's policies became "bad" or intolerable. I dont get why some people act like the American people were totally against Bush the whole time he was in office. Bush had a lot of support until the last half of his last term.

I agree that nothing will be 100%. I didnt disagree with all of Bush's policies. In fact I liked some that many other people hated. I believe some of his policies had potential. One in particular was the no child left behind act. Had the act been given the proper care, attention, guidance, and funding it could have helped our schools. It wasnt. It didnt. I agree with the wall/fence border idea. The issue I have with people who want to criticize is that if they are not willing to actually critically think while doing so their criticism is just a bunch of bull. I also dont get why someone cannot be of the opinion that the criticism is unfair. Sometimes it is. Thats life.

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. 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.

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.

[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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Not to be snide, but what should make us think that you're looking at his moves with an objective eye? I mean, it seems from your previous posts that you're an Obama supporter. What, then, makes your opinions any more presumptively objective than someone who didn't vote for him? Are you just ignoring any flaws because you want him to be President?

Chalking up people's concerns to them not wanting Obama to be President is a fairly narrow-minded way of looking at things. There's some of that out there, sure...but it's like you're cheapening legitimate criticism out of some idea that people don't have honest issues with his policies.

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.

To be honest, I saw that a few people were disagreeing with you, and I didn't want this to turn into another round of "mob" allegations.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Not to be snide, but what should make us think that you're looking at his moves with an objective eye? I mean, it seems from your previous posts that you're an Obama supporter. What, then, makes your opinions any more presumptively objective than someone who didn't vote for him? Are you just ignoring any flaws because you want him to be President?

Chalking up people's concerns to them not wanting Obama to be President is a fairly narrow-minded way of looking at things. There's some of that out there, sure...but it's like you're cheapening legitimate criticism out of some idea that people don't have honest issues with his policies.



To be honest, I saw that a few people were disagreeing with you, and I didn't want this to turn into another round of "mob" allegations.

I am an Obama supporter, but I can still remain objective. Don't forget I have made it clear that I didn't support Bush, but I was still able to remain objective and agree with him on some policies and other things. I simply haven't made up my mind how I feel about Obama's moves yet. I'm just pondering it all and waiting to see how things work out.

However, I can still get an inkling of when people's attacks on Obama are more personal than they are objective. A prime example would be the attacks on his speaking ability. His speaking ability has nothing to do with the implementation of his policies and should be separated.

I would also like to add that when I speak of people disagreeing with him because they don't want him to be president, I am referring to a very small part of the population here. The people I am referring to have made it clear that they don't want him as president and have made it clear that they aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You seem to ignore the fact that I'm separating objective criticism from obviously personal attacks. You are making the type of blanket statements you accuse me of making.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Chalking up people's concerns to them not wanting Obama to be President is a fairly narrow-minded way of looking at things. There's some of that out there, sure...but it's like you're cheapening legitimate criticism out of some idea that people don't have honest issues with his policies.

A lot of the criticisms are coming from people who voted for Obama. I voted for Obama but I agree with commentators who feel Obama is trying to tackle too much and may have a lot of empty promises (which every POTUS has, although supporters of presidents are in denial about that).

[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.