Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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.