Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Well, to be fair, you said this:



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

It was no more condescending than remarks I have been subjected to in this forum. When I said that, I genuinely meant that I thought everyone had heard about the constitutional issues that were raised. Some people are just going to automatically take issue with every single thing I say. I have come to terms with that.

And even with all of that, it still doesn't provide a basis for what she said.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

It was no more condescending than remarks I have been subjected to in this forum. When I said that, I genuinely meant that I thought everyone had heard about the constitutional issues that were raised. Some people are just going to automatically take issue with every single thing I say. I have come to terms with that.

And even with all of that, it still doesn't provide a basis for what she said.

You really need to get over this martyr complex. Can't you just admit that there are posters that disagree with you, or at least disagree with your methodology?

Looking at it as some bigger issue, like a "mob" mentality, or that people are going to take issue with every thing you say, makes it seem like there's no possible problem with your logic. It makes it seem like there must be some issue with the rest of the posters if you don't find support for your theories. People are disagreeing you on both sides of the political spectrum; that doesn't make you right or wrong, but it does mean that you can't chalk this up to some simple claim that people "automatically" take issue with your points.

I disagree with a lot of your postings, but I have a bigger issue with this idea that there are people on the board who are out to get you. You've been fairly steadfast in your ideas; that's certainly your right, but you have to expect that some people are going to be just as steadfast in disagreeing with you, right?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You really need to get over this martyr complex. Can't you just admit that there are posters that disagree with you, or at least disagree with your methodology?

Looking at it as some bigger issue, like a "mob" mentality, or that people are going to take issue with every thing you say, makes it seem like there's no possible problem with your logic. It makes it seem like there must be some issue with the rest of the posters if you don't find support for your theories. People are disagreeing you on both sides of the political spectrum; that doesn't make you right or wrong, but it does mean that you can't chalk this up to some simple claim that people "automatically" take issue with your points.

I disagree with a lot of your postings, but I have a bigger issue with this idea that there are people on the board who are out to get you. You've been fairly steadfast in your ideas; that's certainly your right, but you have to expect that some people are going to be just as steadfast in disagreeing with you, right?

LOL. This is why disclaimers for certain posters are unnecessary. Even after your disclaimer, you're still doing the same old gratuitous song and dance with deepimpact2.

ETA:
Might I add that this thread began with no one even thinking about deepimpact's existence. She announced her presence when she quoted my first post and said "hateration." People can't have it both ways, either you want to be noticed and be in the mix...or you don't. If you do, you understand that people may disagree with you and they will express that no matter how many people are disagreeing with you. Am I the only one who has disagreed with a room full of people IN REAL LIFE before? They weren't disagreeing with me, they were disagreeing with my ideas. I was right and they were wrong......so I stood strong in what I believed, had my evidence, and didn't get defensive and personal about it. At the end, some people came up to me off the record and said "good job!" or "ya know, I agreed with you but didn't know how to express it" (those types of people are cowards, btw).

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

You really need to get over this martyr complex. Can't you just admit that there are posters that disagree with you, or at least disagree with your methodology?

Looking at it as some bigger issue, like a "mob" mentality, or that people are going to take issue with every thing you say, makes it seem like there's no possible problem with your logic. It makes it seem like there must be some issue with the rest of the posters if you don't find support for your theories. People are disagreeing you on both sides of the political spectrum; that doesn't make you right or wrong, but it does mean that you can't chalk this up to some simple claim that people "automatically" take issue with your points.

I disagree with a lot of your postings, but I have a bigger issue with this idea that there are people on the board who are out to get you. You've been fairly steadfast in your ideas; that's certainly your right, but you have to expect that some people are going to be just as steadfast in disagreeing with you, right?

I think I have stated more than once that isn't not a matter of someone disagreeing. It's the fact that there is disagreement with pretty much EVERYTHING I say and an attempt to find something wrong with just about EVERYTHING I say. When that happens, it's pretty clear that it's not a matter of simple disagreement, but that it's more of a personal issue. Someone on here admitted that I "turned people off with my first post." That in and of itself suggests that there is a prejudice against me and anything I have to say around here.

[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.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

You did suggest that in your post when you said you'd like me to list things without googling.

Also, you should be advised, that in order for someone to have a "heartfelt and/or well thought out objection" on an issue like this, SOME research must be done.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You did suggest that in your post when you said you'd like me to list things without googling.

Also, you should be advised, that in order for someone to have a "heartfelt and/or well thought out objection" on an issue like this, SOME research must be done.

You wouldn't need to do research NEW research to answer a GreekChat level question that you had already expressed a strongly held opinion about.

I'm not really interesting in continuing to talk about this with you. I've reached my conclusion. ETA: even if it's wrong and you're a freaking Constitutional scholar, I still think talking to you, at least in this instance, is pointless.

[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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 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.

I agree. Once again, people have conveniently changed the rules.

I read this article today http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/9...re-his-wedding and some of the comments were random as hell because people began debating whether Obama, Bush, or Clinton were to blame for the economy.

[AGDee]

My main complaints about Bush were related to pouring our military resources into Iraq instead of Afghanistan and Pakistan, his trade policies and his stances on social issues (embryonic stem cell research, abortion, etc). Of those, the economy is somewhat related to trade policies and the spending in Iraq (I'm not convinced we would have needed to spend quite as much in Afghanistan/Pakistan seeking out Bin Laden and his cronies as we have spent in Iraq). While I think the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein, I'm not convinced that it needed to be the priority it became.

My ex-husband is not an anarchist but he hates paying money for anything, even stuff he tells me he'll pay half for like my daughter's varsity jacket and Spamalot tickets (which he attended with me and the kids!). He just hates paying anybody anything, unless it's golf or big screen tvs. Since he works for the steel industry, he's pretty panicked about his job right now and he was really ticked off with Bush when Bush wouldn't put tariffs on foreign steel. Then again, his once American steel company was bought by a Russian company, which is a strange thing in and of itself. As an American company, they only provided steel for Ford. As a Russian company, they are 50% auto industry and 50% commodities so the part of the stimulus package that addresses infrastructure could actually help them because steel is needed for bridge/road improvements, etc. He also rarely thinks for himself and spouts off stupid things like that. Once I point out the issues with the ideas he spouts off, he will admit that maybe it's not the best idea. He's truly a horrible debater...lol. He even wavered on abortion when my daughter asked him what would happen if she got pregnant before she finished college. In that case, it would be ok if she got an abortion, but not for anybody else or any other reason. In short, he's selfish and just wants to know "What about me?"

I hear a lot of people saying "Where is my bailout?" when they are still employed, can afford to stay in their house, etc. HELLO! You don't need one! You're ok! I do see great benefit in not having too many vacant houses in a neighborhood. There are 4 on my street right now, including the one right next door. It's being auctioned on the 16th. People have been stopping by the house and I have been going out to meet them I want friendly neighbors. I want real people to buy it, not some investment company who will eventually flip it. I don't like having an abandoned house next door. When I bought my house, the house on the other side was abandoned and the grass grew feet before the city would come to mow it. There were rats over there. During the blackout of 2003, there were people around it. The demand for copper is so high that break ins are happening and people are stealing the copper out of the abandoned houses. It's not good to have lots of abandoned houses. I'm ok, I can pay my mortgage (as long as I have a job, which seems pretty secure so far). I don't need a tax cut, I'm living comfortably enough.

I really think that the whole root of this problem is greed. We are a wasteful and frivolous society. We have been irresponsible with credit and with our spending. I'm not exempt from that... I was in that trap too and dug out when my mom passed away because she was a saver and a wise investor. I'm bound and determined to not get into that trap again. Yes, my living room carpet is old. Sure, I'd love to have a big screen TV and to replace the loveseat that the dog ripped up, which is covered with a blanket these days. I'm waiting until I have the cash to do those things now. In the past, I would have charged those things without a thought. Credit cards have become "emergency only" things, like if the furnace were to go this winter and they are the first priority for paying off.

Interestingly, Suze Orman, who always said "pay off the credit cards" is now saying "Pay only the minimum on your credit cards for now and save your cash". The last I heard her speak, she said that as people are paying off credit cards, their credit limits are being reduced or the accounts are being closed by the bank, leaving people without that emergency backup. She has said that all the rules are different this year and you need to make sure you have cash. A friend of mine experienced something similar. She has kept up with her bills, except for a couple months last year when she had major surgery and was late with a few credit card payments. She realized her interest rate was up to something insane like 29% and called to have them lower it because she had paid down a lot, was making more than the minimum payment and her last late payment was about 10 months ago. The response? They said "Oh, you had late payments, we have to close your account"

Ok, this ended up being another novel, sorry for that. I'm quite preoccupied with the economy. I have heard experts saying we are going to become a service economy and all manufacturing in the US will go away. I don't see how we can survive being only consumers and not providers of goods in a global economy.

Did this whole problem start when we got rid of the gold standard? I wish I had studied economics more.