Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

All jokes aside, though, most of the time I think that Bush's cabinet/advisors had more to do with his policies than he did. I know that's the point, but it was almost like he was afraid of disappointing them, if that makes sense.

I could see that. I know some people thought Cheney was the mastermind of everything.

[agzg]

I wouldn't agree with that - it's not like he was a puppet and you certainly can't go by the movie W.. It just seems that there was not a lot of diversity of ideals (at least on the points that the Bush Presidency will be most remembered for - foreign policy and national security) and he sometimes just seemed unsure of what he was saying. But, that could be just his speaking method.

I'd think since none of us were in the Oval Office during the Bush Administration we can't speak definitively on whether or not he was bullied. Cheney may not have been the mastermind, maybe he just looks too menacing for anyone to believe he was a big softy - we just don't know.

Although I really dislike Paul Wolfowitz, and some of the stuff coming out of the Oval Office I could just picture him saying - ick.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I wouldn't agree with that - it's not like he was a puppet and you certainly can't go by the movie W..

That allegation--that Cheney was really the one holding the strings--is several years old, and therefore predates the movie W. I think it's simplistic, but not exactly incorrect.

During the 2000 elections, I went to a speech by a PP doctor, and he was getting us all fired up about the threat to Roe v. Wade. He said, "George W. Bush may be personally stupid, but he has surrounded himself with the nation's smartest conservative minds." Of course, all presidents do that to some extent, but Bush was acutely aware of his shortcomings and selected such people as Cheney and Rice to help him out; they probably did more than their counterparts in other administrations.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I wouldn't agree with that - it's not like he was a puppet and you certainly can't go by the movie W.. It just seems that there was not a lot of diversity of ideals (at least on the points that the Bush Presidency will be most remembered for - foreign policy and national security) and he sometimes just seemed unsure of what he was saying. But, that could be just his speaking method.

I'd think since none of us were in the Oval Office during the Bush Administration we can't speak definitively on whether or not he was bullied. Cheney may not have been the mastermind, maybe he just looks too menacing for anyone to believe he was a big softy - we just don't know.

Although I really dislike Paul Wolfowitz, and some of the stuff coming out of the Oval Office I could just picture him saying - ick.

I'm confused. It seems like you are contradicting your own statement.

And I don't recall anyone mentioning the movie, W.

[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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I'm confused. It seems like you are contradicting your own statement.

And I don't recall anyone mentioning the movie, W.

No. I said it seemed like his cabinet had more to do with his policies than he actually did, but none of us can say definitively if that's true.

I don't get what's so confusing.

And I mentioned the movie W.. Heaven forbid I make a reference to something that was not mentioned before. Have you seen it? The point of it was that he was fully bullied by his cabinet.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

Completely and demonstrably false.

Her grounds are that you've provided no evidence to the contrary, and that the "null hypothesis" is no research. In the absence of evidence, the null hypothesis is generally the accepted correct answer.

You disagree with the null hypothesis. You can easily remedy this disagreement. QED?

[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.

[srmom]

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball...onstitution/2/

Interesting take on Obama - and scary as heck!

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball...onstitution/2/

Interesting take on Obama - and scary as heck!

You have GOT to stop with this. It's just . . . inane. It's not scary, it's hack journalism for people who can't think critically enough to see through the post hoc fallacies and selection bias. Come on.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by srmom

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball...onstitution/2/

Interesting take on Obama - and scary as heck!

A little out there, don't you think? I mean, he's not saying anything that hasn't already been said by others (there were people crying "Socialist!" and "Commie!" during the election). This seems like nothing more than the rantings of a guy who doesn't do any favors for the rest of us conservatives.

I don't think it's intellectually honest to accuse the President of trying to bring down the economy.