Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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.

[UGAalum94]

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.

I guess honestly, I don't really believe that you do know much about that. I want you to name the issues that actually upset you, rather than just going with language that you've heard thrown around before.

I'd especially like it if you'd list these issues without googling.

It's not that I don't think Bush did shady, perhaps unconstitutional stuff; it's that I suspect a lot of people who complain about it couldn't actually discuss what was unconstitutional about it.

ETA: I'm not suggesting that whether you can list stuff or not makes Bush a better President. I just think, by most people's standards and understanding, the language gets really overused.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I guess honestly, I don't really believe that you do know much about that. I want you to name the issues that actually upset you, rather than just going with language that you've heard thrown around before.

I'd especially like it if you'd list these issues without googling.

It's not that I don't think Bush did shady, perhaps unconstitutional stuff; it's that I suspect a lot of people who complain about it couldn't actually discuss what was unconstitutional about it.

ETA: I'm not suggesting that whether you can list stuff or not makes Bush a better President. I just think, by most people's standards and understanding, the language gets really overused.

lol The sad part is that you are probably serious...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

lol The sad part is that you are probably serious...

No, the sad point is that she is right.

Just for the record, I was never a W supporter. But UGAalum is right -- lots of people, especially those who fall into the "George Bush is evil/the worst president ever" camp -- seem to repeat the mantra that W trampled on our constitutional rights, but they can't actually identify those rights or discuss exactly how they have been trampled on, other than by repeating what talking heads have said.

UGAalum didn't ask what constitutional rights W is commonly accused of trampling on. She asked you to identify specifically what rights you think were "stomped on." Whether you like it or not, you can't be surprised when someone interprets your avoidance of answering that question to mean that you don't have an answer.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, the sad point is that she is right.

Just for the record, I was never a W supporter. But UGAalum is right -- lots of people, especially those who fall into the "George Bush is evil/the worst president ever" camp -- seem to repeat the mantra that W trampled on our constitutional rights, but they can't actually identify those rights or discuss exactly how they have been trampled on, other than by repeating what talking heads have said.

UGAalum didn't ask what constitutional rights W is commonly accused of trampling on. She asked you to identify specifically what rights you think were "stomped on." Whether you like it or not, you can't be surprised when someone interprets your avoidance of answering that question to mean that you don't have an answer.

Exactly - I hear people shouting from the rooftops about all the terrible thinks W did when he was in office, but when confronted with specific questions, the best that many people can do is speak in generalities.

The thing is, if someone is that heated about issues in the Bush White House, it's also fairly easy to do some quick research and find out background, no matter the problem. The way the White House accepted the OLC's advice regarding the Torture Memos? The issues with wiretapping and invasions of privacy, in light of Supreme Court precedent? Problems with the manner in which habeas corpus was made available (or not made available) to detainees?

However, it's easier for many people just to shout generalities, instead of debate specifics.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Exactly - I hear people shouting from the rooftops about all the terrible thinks W did when he was in office, but when confronted with specific questions, the best that many people can do is speak in generalities.

This is absolutely true.

I don't have the vitriol towards W that a lot of people seem to have, and I can't think of anything really bad (or good) that he did while he was in office. I can actually think of more things that Clinton did that I didn't agree with. Obama's already annoyed me a few times since Jan 20. Maybe all this means that either I'm more conservative, or more politically apathetic, than I originally believed.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Exactly - I hear people shouting from the rooftops about all the terrible thinks W did when he was in office, but when confronted with specific questions, the best that many people can do is speak in generalities.

The thing is, if someone is that heated about issues in the Bush White House, it's also fairly easy to do some quick research and find out background, no matter the problem. The way the White House accepted the OLC's advice regarding the Torture Memos? The issues with wiretapping and invasions of privacy, in light of Supreme Court precedent? Problems with the manner in which habeas corpus was made available (or not made available) to detainees?

However, it's easier for many people just to shout generalities, instead of debate specifics.

I don't think it's fair to assume that people who complain are not also doing their research. I have done my research, but I'm picky about when I engage in a full discussion about it. If it's a forum that I think is appropriate and worthwhile, then yes, I will have a full-fledged discussion. Otherwise, I tend to be general.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. Your previous statement, that "some people" weren't being objective, seemed to show an opinion that you thought it was more than a "very small part of the population."

As to the criticisms of his speaking ability - I can only assume you're talking about DrPhil's comments. I would note, however, that DrPhil did not frame those criticisms in terms of his policies; she was making isolated comments about his speaking ability, and how she thought he was overrated as an orator. People criticize the speaking ability of Presidents all the time - they did it to Bush, they're doing it to Obama, and they'll do it in the future. When someone is that prominent a public figure, and makes that many public appearances, there are going to be discussions about their speaking ability.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I don't think it's fair to assume that people who complain are not also doing their research. I have done my research, but I'm picky about when I engage in a full discussion about it. If it's a forum that I think is appropriate and worthwhile, then yes, I will have a full-fledged discussion. Otherwise, I tend to be general.

Please re-read; I said "many," not "most," not "all," and not "the majority." I never said that I assumed people who complain are doing their research. Again, as I stated, there are lots of people out there who have complained about the Bush Presidency and have substantiated those complaints with specifics. Nowhere did I say that all complaints about Bush were coming out of ignorance of the issues.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, the sad point is that she is right.

Just for the record, I was never a W supporter. But UGAalum is right -- lots of people, especially those who fall into the "George Bush is evil/the worst president ever" camp -- seem to repeat the mantra that W trampled on our constitutional rights, but they can't actually identify those rights or discuss exactly how they have been trampled on, other than by repeating what talking heads have said.

UGAalum didn't ask what constitutional rights W is commonly accused of trampling on. She asked you to identify specifically what rights you think were "stomped on." Whether you like it or not, you can't be surprised when someone interprets your avoidance of answering that question to mean that you don't have an answer.

No. Actually, she is NOT right. She has no basis for making an assumption that I can only speak generally and not point to anything specific. She has no basis for making an assumption that my only research tool would be google. She has no basis for making an assumption that I am only repeating what SHE thinks I have heard from other people. So, no, she ISN'T right.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

No. Actually, she is NOT right. She has no basis for making an assumption that I can only speak generally and not point to anything specific. She has no basis for making an assumption that my only research tool would be google. She has no basis for making an assumption that I am only repeating what SHE thinks I have heard from other people. So, no, she ISN'T right.

While the absence of evidence is not guaranteed evidence of absence . . . it's a pretty good proxy in a conversational sense.

Here's what you're doing:

Them: "I think that people likely speak in generalities because they don't know the specifics."
You: "I know specifics, I just don't want to talk about them."
Them: "Do you really?"
You: "You have no reasonable basis for thinking otherwise."

Um, yes they do. You definitely don't have to share your research - you don't need to "do my job for me" or anything - but it shouldn't be surprising that speaking in a general sense (rather than specific) fuels assumptions that the argument is rooted in generalities rather than specifics. Most of the time, we use specifics to prop up our general arguments, and you've (apparently) made a conscious effort to not do this. That's fine, but it does play into the "them" assumption.

It's very similar to my (VERY BASIC AND POINTED) question about which Bush policies tanked the economy . . . in fact, it's likely identical.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

While the absence of evidence is not guaranteed evidence of absence . . . it's a pretty good proxy in a conversational sense.

Here's what you're doing:

Them: "I think that people likely speak in generalities because they don't know the specifics."
You: "I know specifics, I just don't want to talk about them."
Them: "Do you really?"
You: "You have no reasonable basis for thinking otherwise."

Um, yes they do. You definitely don't have to share your research - you don't need to "do my job for me" or anything - but it shouldn't be surprising that speaking in a general sense (rather than specific) fuels assumptions that the argument is rooted in generalities rather than specifics. Most of the time, we use specifics to prop up our general arguments, and you've (apparently) made a conscious effort to not do this. That's fine, but it does play into the "them" assumption.

It's very similar to my (VERY BASIC AND POINTED) question about which Bush policies tanked the economy . . . in fact, it's likely identical.

If you recognize that people don't have to elaborate if they don't want to, you should also recognize that silence does not equate with ignorance on a subject matter. Also, as I pointed out earlier, sometimes, when I don't like the tone of a question, I won't respond. That doesn't just apply with politics and typically occurs when somenoe DEMANDS a response in an arrogant and/or entitled manner.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

She has no basis for making an assumption that I can only speak generally and not point to anything specific.

Of course she does -- you have provided it.

You made a statement: "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."

In response to that statement, she asked you a simple, specific question: "What constitutionally granted rights of people in this country do you feel were stomped on? . . . what specifically grinds your gears? (My emphasis.)

You answered her question, or more accurately avoided answering her question, by making the general statement that "information about that has been revealed. i thought everyone knew about that." (Really? You thought everyone knew what rights you believe were stomped on?)

You say you pick and choose when to have a full-blown discussion and when to be general. That's fine, and that's your prerogative, without a doubt. But as I said before, you can't be surprised if, when someone asks for a specific answer and you deflect the question with generalities, the assumption is made that you really don't have a specific answer. That assumption may, in fact, be incorrect. But a reader certainly has ample basis for making the assumption.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Of course she does -- you have provided it.

You made a statement: "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."

In response to that statement, she asked you a simple, specific question: "What constitutionally granted rights of people in this country do you feel were stomped on? . . . what specifically grinds your gears? (My emphasis.)

You answered her question, or more accurately avoided answering her question, by making the general statement that "information about that has been revealed. i thought everyone knew about that." (Really? You thought everyone knew what rights you believe were stomped on?)

You say you pick and choose when to have a full-blown discussion and when to be general. That's fine, and that's your prerogative, without a doubt. But as I said before, you can't be surprised if, when someone asks for a specific answer and you deflect the question with generalities, the assumption is made that you really don't have a specific answer. That assumption may, in fact, be incorrect. But a reader certainly has ample basis for making the assumption.

I have provided no basis for her assumption. She made that assumption from my first statement. And you are right. I chose NOT to respond with specifics because I don't feel I have to prove anything to her...especially not with the tone of her repsonse. I will repeat my earlier statements. She had no grounds to make an assumption that I haven't done research or that I must use google in order to research.