Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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.

This should really go without saying.

[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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

I'm not trying to cajole a response or anything - I'm just saying that your disconnect isn't simply a by-product of the other person being narrow or whatever, it's also related to the very simple fact that you're presenting the information in the way you are.

I'm absolutely certain you're not ignorant on the matter, but the degree to which you're informed is impossible to parse out given your responses. You're subjecting yourself to the whim or caprice of the audience, whether by intent or by consequence, and you shouldn't be surprised by the responses.

Again, I recognize it's not your responsibility to post anything, but it may make the conversation better if you did.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I'm not trying to cajole a response or anything - I'm just saying that your disconnect isn't simply a by-product of the other person being narrow or whatever, it's also related to the very simple fact that you're presenting the information in the way you are.

I'm absolutely certain you're not ignorant on the matter, but the degree to which you're informed is impossible to parse out given your responses. You're subjecting yourself to the whim or caprice of the audience, whether by intent or by consequence, and you shouldn't be surprised by the responses.

Again, I recognize it's not your responsibility to post anything, but it may make the conversation better if you did.

I totally understand what you are saying. And I appreciate the fact that YOU realize I'm not ignorant in the matter simply because I choose not to go into detail.

However, as far as subjecting myself to the whim of the audience, I don't think I have done anything to subject myself to an accusation that google is the only research option I know how to use. Mind you, I was annoyed by her whole post, but THAT was just over the top.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I totally understand what you are saying. And I appreciate the fact that YOU realize I'm not ignorant in the matter simply because I choose not to go into detail.

However, as far as subjecting myself to the whim of the audience, I don't think I have done anything to subject myself to an accusation that google is the only research option I know how to use. Mind you, I was annoyed by her whole post, but THAT was just over the top.

Well, to be fair, you said this:

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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

Which, if you'll be honest with yourself, comes off as a bit condescending.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I totally understand what you are saying. And I appreciate the fact that YOU realize I'm not ignorant in the matter simply because I choose not to go into detail.

However, as far as subjecting myself to the whim of the audience, I don't think I have done anything to subject myself to an accusation that google is the only research option I know how to use. Mind you, I was annoyed by her whole post, but THAT was just over the top.

No, I didn't think that google was your only resource, nor did I suggest that in my post, but I wanted to you to list your ideas without ANY research, which typically for people who have heartfelt and/or well thought out objections, isn't a problem.

[AKA_Monet]

Originally Posted by AGDee

At the same time, we play this blame game, even if it's a cyclical inevitability and I think that blame game hurts us more than anything. We also tend to want a quick fix for EVERYTHING (from weight loss to health care to the economy) so we keep expecting someone to come in and fix it for us when the reality is that there may not be a fix. Which party is going to win on a platform of "We can't fix it so deal with it"?

As much as people are reveling in lower property taxes around here, it also means fewer services. Fewer police, returning to "pay per call" firefighters (who are slower to respond resulting in more property loss and loss of life or injury), less salt on the roads, more potholes, etc. I WANT my city services to continue, even if it means that those of us who can pay more in property taxes have to do that. I don't want to be put on hold when I call 911. I don't want to slide on black ice because they can't afford more salt (they only salted intersections and curved roads this winter and it was a noticeable difference). Eliminate waste? Absolutely, because there is some everywhere. But a total tax holiday? No way! It seems that could MORE costly than the bailout plans.

Dee, I agree.

For everyone:

Blame is an indication of "rationalization" of a problem rather than trying to understand the root causes.

I don't know what the root causes are other that what the media tells me. It does look like greed, like the grasshopper and the ant story... All summer long, the ants toiled to save for the winter, while the grasshopper played and was unconcerned about the change in the season. Fall came, and the grasshopper partied. Then the first blow of winter's chill, the ants survived because they prepared...

At best, you can corral ALL your IRA accounts, and roll them over to the new IRA's (includes Roth's) with a 6% return "grandfathered life insurance" that minimizes the loss as "insurance", without a health check, right now it is tax free to borrow out before aging into use. ROI amounts do vary.

If you have any capital (>$2500 these days), Cramer is saying buy as many energy/gas stocks, bonds and some manufacturing, even major commodities, like sugar cane, sorghum, etc. as well as blue chips if you can afford it. I would get into Food Coop/Farmer's Market that ship what's in season to you as season's change. If you live near farms, shop Kosher/Halal meats. If you can fish, get the aquaculture fish. You ain't eating Live Maine Lobster, but, you can eat Trout...

Seriously, even my father is bartering these days. If you have a service you can barter, do it. They have a Craigslist section. Flatten your energy bill, if you haven't already, cut cells phones off, or have bundled services. Dayum buy bootlegs, start living on the underground.

And I read, somewhere, on the internet, which could be wrong, if you are facing foreclosure, stay in your house before the police show up to evict you. Ignore the notices, do what you can as long as you can. Pride is not going to feed your family, seriously!

I would not believe any of the major media markets today because they are in the business of presenting news, mostly bad and negative these days. I am not talking about HRPL news. But we can all improve on our discernment on what is right and wrong. We do not have a loss of food, water, etc. Our infrastructure long neglected can use upgrades. Job losses are due to decaying businesses and structures that supported the "grasshopper's or locust's way of life" rather than the ants' which required us to work collaboratively for some time.

KsigKid:

That said...I don't think throwing money at it is the answer, and I have faith that the market (and big businesses) will self-correct at some point.

I'm not trying to come at this from some ivory tower; I have some family members who are in pretty bad shape right now.

KsigKid--

I wish throwing money would solve this problem, but leaving it to do nothing, will not self-correct it either. Because this problem is a "cancer" and we have to aggressively treat it if we want to survive as a country. If we fail to try our best to make a difference with this "patient" in who is in "active dying" mode, what's the point with having the United States? Maybe we will be wasting our money and owe the planets for our debt, but I personally rather try to make a difference, especially for those military service personnel who are coming back in boxes... For whatever it is that makes us American, that is what make it worth the effort for me. JMO...

[UGAalum94]

I'm going to say it: while there's a great deal of truth in the idea that the blame game doesn't help much, it still seems a little rich for people to make this appeal in regard to Obama after everything under the sun that Bush was blamed for.

I've said before and I'll say it again, it's way too early in Obama's Presidency to suggest that any of his policies as President are failures.

However, at some point, it's going to be as appropriate to regard him as being as responsible for whatever happens, good or bad, as it was to hold Bush responsible. I don't remember those of you posting this now ever making the same general argument when it was Bush being blamed.

ETA: personally, I think I'd be inclined to allow that some Presidents just have more than their fair share of crap happening during their terms than others. I think this is going to apply to Obama, but if the economy recovers during his Presidency, he'll largely receive the credit too.

On AGDee's point: I don't think you can just fail to take in taxes and quit providing all public services. That's just crazy talk. Is your ex-husband an anarchist?

On the other hand, I'm not sure that the people who seem to be able to afford to pay more taxes really can if they are also supposed to contribute to an economic recovery partially based on consumption. I think some of us also want some evidence that we're going to get something for the money. And no one can know that. A lot of the initial bailouts have just led to requests for more money. Others apparently involved enough red tape to hamper their effectiveness.