Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I would disagree with that argument, at least in part because I think a big boost to Bush's second term was the inability of the Democrats to field a viable candidate. Kerry was a complete disaster, and if the Democrats had found someone better I think it would have been a much closer and tougher race.

Agreed.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I would disagree with that argument, at least in part because I think a big boost to Bush's second term was the inability of the Democrats to field a viable candidate. Kerry was a complete disaster, and if the Democrats had found someone better I think it would have been a much closer and tougher race.

True. I don't buy it either. But my point is that perception is what rules the day. Yeah, democrats knew that Kerry wasn't a super strong candidate. But they weren't going to open themselves wider to criticism about choosing a weak candidate unless they opened republicans up with the "They cried wolf" argument. It seems that perhaps some of Obama's speech writers, and maybe Obama himself, believes that the fear mongering was what really won Bush his second term. If it worked then, why wouldn't it now?

Plus I don't think members of Congress are particularly invulnerable to fear mongering, either.

[UGAalum94]

Other than fear of complete catastrophe, what would have motivated people to favor this kind of spending, especially all at once?

I think selling it as fending off catastrophe is the only effective sell for the majority of Americans.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I would disagree with that argument, at least in part because I think a big boost to Bush's second term was the inability of the Democrats to field a viable candidate. Kerry was a complete disaster, and if the Democrats had found someone better I think it would have been a much closer and tougher race.

It's interesting to think that this last time around they managed to find two more compelling, I think, than Kerry.

Are you still loving Jindal for the Republicans next time around? What do you think about his suggesting he might decline some of the money on behalf of Louisiana?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

But my point is that perception is what rules the day.

That's the message to get from every single page of this thread.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think selling it as fending off catastrophe is the only effective sell for the majority of Americans.

Definitely and that's not just Americans. However, the socioeconomic breakdown of America and the undereducation of the working class is even more conducive to fear mongering.

Humans respond to extremes and fear. It is even worse when there is misinformation, withholding information, and a general refusal to inform yourself when you have access to the info.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Are you still loving Jindal for the Republicans next time around? What do you think about his suggesting he might decline some of the money on behalf of Louisiana?

I know this was directed to KSigkid, but I'm going to answer too.

I like Bobby Jindal very much (and not because we went to the same college). I find it ironic, however, that the states threatening to reject the stimulus money are the states that rely the most on federal funding. South Carolina is virtually a welfare state. Louisiana relies on federal money during boom times, so I can't imagine how they would manage without stimulus money. I think the governors who are saying that they'll decline the money are short-sighted; most, maybe even Jindal, are looking more for gaining bona fides with the GOP elite than helping out their states.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of that stimulus. But, I live in a state that doesn't rely on federal funding as much in the first place.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I know this was directed to KSigkid, but I'm going to answer too.

I like Bobby Jindal very much (and not because we went to the same college). I find it ironic, however, that the states threatening to reject the stimulus money are the states that rely the most on federal funding. South Carolina is virtually a welfare state. Louisiana relies on federal money during boom times, so I can't imagine how they would manage without stimulus money. I think the governors who are saying that they'll decline the money are short-sighted; most, maybe even Jindal, are looking more for gaining bona fides with the GOP elite than helping out their states.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of that stimulus. But, I live in a state that doesn't rely on federal funding as much in the first place.

Where are you again? What should I google to look up the data?

I think much of the stimulus money goes beyond what a state might have generally gotten, so it might be easier to turn it down. But I think it's GOP grandstanding too.

I've got no personal problem with Jindal: I just continue to be perplexed by folks who claim big problems with Palin's religious beliefs and governance but are down with Jindal's. I'm not trying to start junk with you, please believe me, but it's odd to me.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It's interesting to think that this last time around they managed to find two more compelling, I think, than Kerry.

Are you still loving Jindal for the Republicans next time around? What do you think about his suggesting he might decline some of the money on behalf of Louisiana?

I'm not on Jindal for President bandwagon, only because I've been on the Romney for President bandwagon for a while. I like Jindal though quite a bit.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I've got no personal problem with Jindal: I just continue to be perplexed by folks who claim big problems with Palin's religious beliefs and governance but are down with Jindal's. I'm not trying to start junk with you, please believe me, but it's odd to me.

For me, there are a few reasons why I prefer Jindal to Palin, but one of the most basic is that I think Jindal's just smarter. For me, one of the big issues is that I want someone at that level to be incredibly smart. It's not the whole ball of wax (for example, Obama's incredibly smart but I don't agree with his policies), but it's part of the equation for me.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Where are you again? What should I google to look up the data?

I think much of the stimulus money goes beyond what a state might have generally gotten, so it might be easier to turn it down. But I think it's GOP grandstanding too.

I've got no personal problem with Jindal: I just continue to be perplexed by folks who claim big problems with Palin's religious beliefs and governance but are down with Jindal's. I'm not trying to start junk with you, please believe me, but it's odd to me.

Here you go! That might be a little slanted, and a little older than I'd like, but it's a good start.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html

Here it is by state. In 2005, Louisiana took $1.78 in federal funding for every $1 in taxes paid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html



I'm in New York, which takes 79 cents for every dollar it gives the federal goverment. I grew up in Florida, though, which breaks just about even each year.

I find Bobby Jindal to be considerably more qualified, educated, and intelligent than Mrs. Palin. Even though I don't agree with all of his political-personal viewpoints, I believe that he can govern efficiently. Not so much with Miss Wasilla.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I think part of the problem, or at least the issue I have when I try to debate your points, is that you drop what I'll call a "debate atomic bomb." Essentially, you'll make your point, and then, in some way, you'll express that there's no other side of the argument, and that your statement should stand as the definitive last word. If someone tries to disagree with you, you either disparage them, or refuse to engage them in any sort of debate. Now, I know for a fact that you're dealing with some pretty intelligent people in this thread (one of whom, KSigRC, is a friend in real life and whom I know to be an incredibly smart person).

That's not making any judgment on your own intelligence, but it is making a judgment in how you've confronted debate in this thread and others. You don't have to accept their ideas, but if you're going to initiate debate, there has to be a little big of give and take, in an intellectual sense.

I guess my major point is that there are a lot of issues that are open to debate and interpretation. I'm not saying we should "agree to disagree" or any of that garbage, or that we should be changing our own views because someone brought up a contrary point, but if you're going to make a statement in a public forum, you have to be ready for the fact that there are intelligent and reasonable counterarguments out there. You can't just scream at the top of your lungs "This is how I feel, and that's the end of it."

Jumping off of what Sensuret said earlier, there are a bunch of smart people on this site (GeekyPenguin, Sensuret, DrPhil, nittanyalum, MysticCat, to name a few) who I know I don't agree with on every issue, or even on most issues. I know that I'm probably not going to change their views on most things, and their not going to change my views on most things. Yet, I respect the fact that they've obviously thought a lot about the issues, and that they can come at it in both an academic sense and a "real-world" sense.

This would be all well and good if this really happened to be the case.

You and several others have negative reactions to EVERYTHING I say. And it is not because of what you accused me of doing.

You all may be very intelligent individuals, but I don't care for how you and some others think you are SUPERIOR in intellect to everyone else. You don't just respond that way to me. I have noticed it in your responses to others as well and I know all those other people don't have the same issues you accuse me of having. .

I think the bottom line is that you don't like the fact that your efforts at intimidation through mob mentality failed. Miserably. Yes, I have an opinion. Yes, my opinions are strong. I don't recall especially being adamant about being entitled to my opinion above all else, but I'm not going to necessarily back down if I feel I am right. You don't. Why should I?
And that brings me back to the entitlement issue. You and some others seem to feel that once you have spoken, that should change everyone's mind. We should all realize that compared to you we are blithering idiots and that your word is the gospel.

[DrPhil]

LOL

Why do so many posters have a cyber-chip on their shoulder?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think the bottom line is that you don't like the fact that your efforts at intimidation through mob mentality failed. Miserably. Yes, I have an opinion. Yes, my opinions are strong. I don't recall especially being adamant about being entitled to my opinion above all else, but I'm not going to necessarily back down if I feel I am right. You don't. Why should I?

"Mob mentality?" Intimidation? People are disagreeing with you. How is that mob mentality? I don't think anyone is taking it that seriously.

I'm sure you've been in a classroom or work environment where someone makes a statement, and that statement elicits a number of dissenting opinions. Would you classify that as a "mob mentality?"

No one is saying you need to back down from your opinions - what they're saying is, if you're going to include yourself in a debate over the issues, then you have to expect that people may not like or agree with your opinions.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

And that brings me back to the entitlement issue. You and some others seem to feel that once you have spoken, that should change everyone's mind. We should all realize that compared to you we are blithering idiots and that your word is the gospel.

That may be the source of the issue, because it seems like your posts are doing the exact same thing - some of your posts bring the message "if I agree with you, great, if I don't agree with you, then you're not worth the effort."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You and some others seem to feel that once you have spoken, that should change everyone's mind. We should all realize that compared to you we are blithering idiots and that your word is the gospel.

Are you looking at a computer screen or at a mirror? This statement seems to fit the way your posts come across to a tee.

(And just an FYI - this =/= me trying to show any superiority. This is just me making making an observation on the tone of your posts.)

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html

Here it is by state. In 2005, Louisiana took $1.78 in federal funding for every $1 in taxes paid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

These are great resources! Thanks!