|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i don't really believe in nationality or racial or whatever specific cultural values, except as products of a set of social conditions and whatnot specifically realized at that particular nation at the time. stereotypes are generated by observer biases and whatnot mechanisms.
hard work is usually valued alongside a conception of self reliant success. basically feeling satisfied and confident about what you have accomplished after doing the work. it doesn't have to be efficient work, just hard work. basically the same feeling that you get after exercising. this is pretty universal, but also because it is a feelign of self satisfaction, it can lack in describing the society at large.
|
On March 13 2014 07:53 corumjhaelen wrote:
Boblion is just so refreshingly French...
And yeah, plus Marx is as ambivalent to work as a value as americans, (cf Arendt The Human Condition Chapter 3, probably no a "proper" book though, you guys should read it).
What's so french about being a dick ? lol I don't have the same point of view on that.
And don't quote Arendt when talking about Marx, she's too deep into its time to be interesting outside of the specific context of the second world war. Same for the francfort school prior to Habermas.
|
On March 13 2014 06:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time. And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'. yeah, I know- I actually notice that a lot. Especially here! idk, I just expect Presidents to act like, well, presidents. Not authors on a book tour. Or actors on comedy TV. How about this: It was unpresidential AND made him look stupid. I hope that's a clear delineation. For lack of a better phrase it just seems like it's below the office of the president to do something like that. Since there is no presidential behavior handbook, it's all opinion. I'm not denying that. Your view that nothing is wrong with it is just as valid. I just happen to think there should be a higher standard for presidents. However, why would I express my opinion just to back off from it? Someone posted the video, so I responded. Show nested quote +The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous examples when a president (from either party) made a joke.
We could debate whether or not it changes the way he is perceived however, that might actually be relevant. I wonder not about the die-hard supporters or detractors, but about everyone else (in the country). Such a discussion would be quite boring, I fear.
I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). On the other hand you rail about executive overreach. Your whole viewpoint here seems a bit schizophrenic. Is he supposed to be a man of the people with limited powers or a dignified physical manifestation of total US power?
Let's look at Obama options given his goal of reaching more people.
1) give a typical presidential speech that is shown on cpsan, cnn, and fox for about 5 minutes in the middle of the week
2) try to be funny and hip while also attempting to retain some traditional presidential gravitas and end up looking like an old fart who is trying too hard, being mocked on the right for stupid pandering and on the left for being an old man who doesn't get it
3) go all out and appear on an internet humor website that clearly shows he is in the know — the people on Fox news won't even get it, and the people who never pay attention to the news (the key demographic he is targeting) will see the message and appreciate the gesture
You appear to not get it. I'm not surprised you haven't seen any other Between Two Ferns clips, but Obama comes off surprisingly well in his interview, which is a feat unto itself. It's very hard to go into a taped interview with Zach Galifianakis and not come off looking stupid. It's like when people host SNL and willingly subject themselves to jokes. Most people liked when Romney appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show to promote his documentary. Obama went two steps further with the collegehumor video, and I think the risk paid off.
|
On March 13 2014 08:07 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 06:27 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time. And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'. yeah, I know- I actually notice that a lot. Especially here! idk, I just expect Presidents to act like, well, presidents. Not authors on a book tour. Or actors on comedy TV. How about this: It was unpresidential AND made him look stupid. I hope that's a clear delineation. For lack of a better phrase it just seems like it's below the office of the president to do something like that. Since there is no presidential behavior handbook, it's all opinion. I'm not denying that. Your view that nothing is wrong with it is just as valid. I just happen to think there should be a higher standard for presidents. However, why would I express my opinion just to back off from it? Someone posted the video, so I responded. The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous examples when a president (from either party) made a joke.
We could debate whether or not it changes the way he is perceived however, that might actually be relevant. I wonder not about the die-hard supporters or detractors, but about everyone else (in the country). Such a discussion would be quite boring, I fear. I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). On the other hand you rail about executive overreach. Your whole viewpoint here seems a bit schizophrenic. Is he supposed to be a man of the people with limited powers or a dignified physical manifestation of total US power? Let's look at Obama options given his goal of reaching more people. 1) give a typical presidential speech that is shown on cpsan, cnn, and fox for about 5 minutes in the middle of the week 2) try to be funny and hip while also attempting to retain some traditional presidential gravitas and end up looking like an old fart who is trying too hard, being mocked on the right for stupid pandering and on the left for being an old man who doesn't get it 3) go all out and appear on an internet humor website that clearly shows he is in the know — the people on Fox news won't even get it, and the people who never pay attention to the news (the key demographic he is targeting) will see the message and appreciate the gesture You appear to not get it. I'm not surprised you haven't seen any other Between Two Ferns clips, but Obama comes off surprisingly well in his interview, which is a feat unto itself. It's very hard to go into a taped interview with Zach Galifianakis and not come off looking stupid. It's like when people host SNL and willingly subject themselves to jokes. Most people liked when Romney appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show to promote his documentary. Obama went two steps further with the collegehumor video, and I think the risk paid off.
The only previous time I've ever mentioned Reagan was in discussing how a conservative could win even when his own party hated him and all the pundits said it was impossible.
I've discussed ZERO having to do with his policies.
You have a nasty habit of pulling something completely irrelevant or unsupported from what people say.
What does "Celebrity-in-Chief" have to do with executive overreach? I hate Obamacare because it's an overreach and I'm disgusted with Obama because of his overreaches. That's entirely separate from a stupid comedy bit. There is no schizophrenia, the two are not linked at all.
Obama would be attempting to concentrate executive power regardless of his image.
I know, those are Obama's only options! Serious, or to try and mislead people- "See how cool I am? That means Obamcare is totally NOT a ripoff. I'm funny, therefore you should go sign up."
But that's not really the important part . Unless you are saying the only way to reach out to the uniformed to lower yourself to such a level that you start discussing the Hangover.
I know the interview was supposed to be silly. I'm not that dense. My criticism relates more to the fact that he agreed to it beforehand. It's not like he went to Bill O'Reilly and made himself a fool by being outmaneuvered, but he agreed to these terms at the start.
I've already said this as simply as I can: I think there is a floor for presidential behavior, and this is somewhere in between the concrete and the basement. Bill Clinton is one such president in said basement.
|
The daily show had a take on it not too long ago. One day Obama is weak and wears mom jeans and the next day he is emperor Obama who doesn't respect the constitution. Arguing against Obama that way is just another way of saying "blah, I hate Obama"
|
On March 13 2014 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:
The daily show had a take on it not too long ago. One day Obama is weak and wears mom jeans and the next day he is emperor Obama who doesn't respect the constitution. Arguing against Obama that way is just another way of saying "blah, I hate Obama"
The general conservative view is that Obama is weak on foreign policy but has no qualms with violating separation of powers at home. That's because he's learned that the Republicans won't make any real attempt to stop him, so he has no fear on that front.
|
On March 13 2014 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:
The daily show had a take on it not too long ago. One day Obama is weak and wears mom jeans and the next day he is emperor Obama who doesn't respect the constitution. Arguing against Obama that way is just another way of saying "blah, I hate Obama"
Right, because no one should ever say anything bad about Obama.
On a serious note, you do realize the difference between domestic and foreign policy, right?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 13 2014 05:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 04:18 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 20:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 12 2014 10:13 Introvert wrote:On March 12 2014 10:12 Nyxisto wrote:On March 12 2014 10:08 IgnE wrote:
Why do you think a president should be a humorless prick? True presidents right horses naked and shoot tigers, don't you know that? nah, Reagan told jokes and still appeared presidential. If Obama wants to joke at a press conference or something like that, fine. But faux interviews like this just seem low. Just IMO. Actually this just depends entirely on who you agree with politically. I think Reagan's "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes." joke is absolutely terrible, one of the worst things any American president has ever said, literally. I actually remember using this when teaching cold war to some junior high school students - they all started laughing and shaking their heads with disbelief that an actual president could say something so stupid and unpresidentlike. But I also think he was one of the worst presidents ever and if Clinton said something equally stupid, I'd be far more forgiving because it'd be like "meh, he's still cool", with Reagan however it's like, "yeah, plays perfectly into the image I already have of him". That's how you are with Obama, you exaggerate anything bad he does because it confirms the point of view you already have. I think DEB has hit the nail on the head. What Obama did was 6 or so minutes of garbage. It's one thing to make a bad joke or have a slip of the tongue, it's another to go out of your way to do this "interview." But of course in this thread all subtlety is lost. If Obama made a joke during a speech about healthcare.gov, fine. Anyway, just my two cents. I actually also think the nuke russia joke is funny, and I have no problems admitting that Reagan was a funny, witty guy who was good at speaking. But joking about destroying the world is not presidential, and it is less presidential than what Obama did here, it's less presidential than Clinton's blowjob, and that was the critique you gave towards Obama; that he wasn't behaving presidential and that even Reagan managed to crack jokes and stay presidential. DEB to me was more saying that Reagan's lack of "presidentialness" is part of his appeal - and that's something I can certainly understand and sympathize with. However, it's probably part of what makes Reagan such a controversial figure, and whether you approve of him, and the same goes for Obama, is determined by whether you agree with his politics. If you do, you'll find these stunts entertaining, if you don't, then you'll consider them further proof of how he's unfitting for the job.
for introvert nuking russia is probably the most presidential joke.
|
On March 13 2014 08:39 jellyjello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:
The daily show had a take on it not too long ago. One day Obama is weak and wears mom jeans and the next day he is emperor Obama who doesn't respect the constitution. Arguing against Obama that way is just another way of saying "blah, I hate Obama" Right, because no one should ever say anything bad about Obama. On a serious note, you do realize the difference between domestic and foreign policy, right?
Ah I forgot, a true American president is supposed to not do anything at home and wage war on people on other continents.
I'd like to hear more concretely were exactly Obama is violating anything at home, and what exactly he should do in the foreign policy department?
|
On March 13 2014 08:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 08:31 Nyxisto wrote:
The daily show had a take on it not too long ago. One day Obama is weak and wears mom jeans and the next day he is emperor Obama who doesn't respect the constitution. Arguing against Obama that way is just another way of saying "blah, I hate Obama" The general conservative view is that Obama is weak on foreign policy but has no qualms with violating separation of powers at home. That's because he's learned that the Republicans won't make any real attempt to stop him, so he has no fear on that front.
That's admitting republicans don't care about separation of powers
|
On March 13 2014 08:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 08:07 IgnE wrote:On March 13 2014 06:27 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time. And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'. yeah, I know- I actually notice that a lot. Especially here! idk, I just expect Presidents to act like, well, presidents. Not authors on a book tour. Or actors on comedy TV. How about this: It was unpresidential AND made him look stupid. I hope that's a clear delineation. For lack of a better phrase it just seems like it's below the office of the president to do something like that. Since there is no presidential behavior handbook, it's all opinion. I'm not denying that. Your view that nothing is wrong with it is just as valid. I just happen to think there should be a higher standard for presidents. However, why would I express my opinion just to back off from it? Someone posted the video, so I responded. The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous examples when a president (from either party) made a joke.
We could debate whether or not it changes the way he is perceived however, that might actually be relevant. I wonder not about the die-hard supporters or detractors, but about everyone else (in the country). Such a discussion would be quite boring, I fear. I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). On the other hand you rail about executive overreach. Your whole viewpoint here seems a bit schizophrenic. Is he supposed to be a man of the people with limited powers or a dignified physical manifestation of total US power? Let's look at Obama options given his goal of reaching more people. 1) give a typical presidential speech that is shown on cpsan, cnn, and fox for about 5 minutes in the middle of the week 2) try to be funny and hip while also attempting to retain some traditional presidential gravitas and end up looking like an old fart who is trying too hard, being mocked on the right for stupid pandering and on the left for being an old man who doesn't get it 3) go all out and appear on an internet humor website that clearly shows he is in the know — the people on Fox news won't even get it, and the people who never pay attention to the news (the key demographic he is targeting) will see the message and appreciate the gesture You appear to not get it. I'm not surprised you haven't seen any other Between Two Ferns clips, but Obama comes off surprisingly well in his interview, which is a feat unto itself. It's very hard to go into a taped interview with Zach Galifianakis and not come off looking stupid. It's like when people host SNL and willingly subject themselves to jokes. Most people liked when Romney appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show to promote his documentary. Obama went two steps further with the collegehumor video, and I think the risk paid off. The only previous time I've ever mentioned Reagan was in discussing how a conservative could win even when his own party hated him and all the pundits said it was impossible. I've discussed ZERO having to do with his policies. You have a nasty habit of pulling something completely irrelevant or unsupported from what people say. What does "Celebrity-in-Chief" have to do with executive overreach? I hate Obamacare because it's an overreach and I'm disgusted with Obama because of his overreaches. That's entirely separate from a stupid comedy bit. There is no schizophrenia, the two are not linked at all. Obama would be attempting to concentrate executive power regardless of his image. I know, those are Obama's only options! Serious, or to try and mislead people- "See how cool I am? That means Obamcare is totally NOT a ripoff. I'm funny, therefore you should go sign up."
But that's not really the important part . Unless you are saying the only way to reach out to the uniformed to lower yourself to such a level that you start discussing the Hangover. I know the interview was supposed to be silly. I'm not that dense. My criticism relates more to the fact that he agreed to it beforehand. It's not like he went to Bill O'Reilly and made himself a fool by being outmaneuvered, but he agreed to these terms at the start. I've already said this as simply as I can: I think there is a floor for presidential behavior, and this is somewhere in between the concrete and the basement. Bill Clinton is one such president in said basement.
What? I didn't mention Reagan at all? You seem to have a nasty habit of reading things into what I say and then accusing me of pulling that something from out of thin air.
The schizophrenia is that you want a President to project power and act like a king without actually wanting him to have that power or to act like a king. Then when he acts like a normal human being interacting with his voter-base you accuse him of being a clown. Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow.
So the truth finally comes out (in the bolded part above). You don't like the video because you think he is "trying to mislead people" by trying to get his particular message out. That's pretty funny in itself. We have talked for pages about how signing up enough young, healthy people is important, but when the President actually tries to get younger healthier people to do so, you think he is trying to mislead them. Do you think he's knowingly misleading them? Does he really believe that ACA is utter shit and he's just going on Between Two Ferns as part of some nefarious plot to fuck over young people? Or does Obama actually believe in what he's doing, despite your thinking that he is misguided?
The fact is that this was a good option, and that any normal avenue he had for talking about ACA does not reach his target audience. You can hate ACA all you want, but at least be upfront about why you hate everything that Obama does.
|
On March 13 2014 06:33 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 05:49 Roe wrote:
I have no idea what DEB tried to say in that long paragraph. Can you parse it out? Try explaining how people making things more efficient and more useful WASN'T an effort to reduce the amount of work people have to put in to their lives. You were talking about a culture that valued hard work now it's about whether mechanization made for less physical labor in the end? No wonder you're confused about what I wrote. In three sentences, America had and has a culture that values hard work and a lack of respect or appreciation of the worth of hard work is mostly a product of pop culture, in other words entertainment. The service economy provided opportunity for less physical labor and did not devalue hard work, whatever hard work may actually mean. What you said contained two typical Marxist tropes about capitalists in general and Americans in particular that has also been expressed by other foreigners America beat.
Yes, because I have an actual definition of hard work. You, the relativist, have lots of work ahead of you trying to argue americans have always valued hard work while holding that "hard work" is up to anyone to decide. Actually, you practically have no work to do since that argument is just a tautology.
My point was that all progress (technological for instance) has been made in the effort to reduce effort. In other words, you put in the effort now so that you don't have to work so hard later. The farmer gets more efficient tools and planting/reaping methods, he doesn't have to toil and sweat under the sun. Programmers develop more efficient (or less) frameworks and languages so that they don't have to do the grunt work as much as they used to (memory allocation, all the tiny little syntactical precision etc). You work hard now, save up for retirement so you don't have to work later. That has been the general american mindset, its goal is to not have to work.
And DEB, you keep trying to call me a Marxist or say that I'm just using Marxist lingo in the effort to try to reduce the work you would have to do in making an actual argument 
|
On March 13 2014 09:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 08:26 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 08:07 IgnE wrote:On March 13 2014 06:27 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time. And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'. yeah, I know- I actually notice that a lot. Especially here! idk, I just expect Presidents to act like, well, presidents. Not authors on a book tour. Or actors on comedy TV. How about this: It was unpresidential AND made him look stupid. I hope that's a clear delineation. For lack of a better phrase it just seems like it's below the office of the president to do something like that. Since there is no presidential behavior handbook, it's all opinion. I'm not denying that. Your view that nothing is wrong with it is just as valid. I just happen to think there should be a higher standard for presidents. However, why would I express my opinion just to back off from it? Someone posted the video, so I responded. The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous examples when a president (from either party) made a joke.
We could debate whether or not it changes the way he is perceived however, that might actually be relevant. I wonder not about the die-hard supporters or detractors, but about everyone else (in the country). Such a discussion would be quite boring, I fear. I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). On the other hand you rail about executive overreach. Your whole viewpoint here seems a bit schizophrenic. Is he supposed to be a man of the people with limited powers or a dignified physical manifestation of total US power? Let's look at Obama options given his goal of reaching more people. 1) give a typical presidential speech that is shown on cpsan, cnn, and fox for about 5 minutes in the middle of the week 2) try to be funny and hip while also attempting to retain some traditional presidential gravitas and end up looking like an old fart who is trying too hard, being mocked on the right for stupid pandering and on the left for being an old man who doesn't get it 3) go all out and appear on an internet humor website that clearly shows he is in the know — the people on Fox news won't even get it, and the people who never pay attention to the news (the key demographic he is targeting) will see the message and appreciate the gesture You appear to not get it. I'm not surprised you haven't seen any other Between Two Ferns clips, but Obama comes off surprisingly well in his interview, which is a feat unto itself. It's very hard to go into a taped interview with Zach Galifianakis and not come off looking stupid. It's like when people host SNL and willingly subject themselves to jokes. Most people liked when Romney appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show to promote his documentary. Obama went two steps further with the collegehumor video, and I think the risk paid off. The only previous time I've ever mentioned Reagan was in discussing how a conservative could win even when his own party hated him and all the pundits said it was impossible. I've discussed ZERO having to do with his policies. You have a nasty habit of pulling something completely irrelevant or unsupported from what people say. What does "Celebrity-in-Chief" have to do with executive overreach? I hate Obamacare because it's an overreach and I'm disgusted with Obama because of his overreaches. That's entirely separate from a stupid comedy bit. There is no schizophrenia, the two are not linked at all. Obama would be attempting to concentrate executive power regardless of his image. I know, those are Obama's only options! Serious, or to try and mislead people- "See how cool I am? That means Obamcare is totally NOT a ripoff. I'm funny, therefore you should go sign up."
But that's not really the important part . Unless you are saying the only way to reach out to the uniformed to lower yourself to such a level that you start discussing the Hangover. I know the interview was supposed to be silly. I'm not that dense. My criticism relates more to the fact that he agreed to it beforehand. It's not like he went to Bill O'Reilly and made himself a fool by being outmaneuvered, but he agreed to these terms at the start. I've already said this as simply as I can: I think there is a floor for presidential behavior, and this is somewhere in between the concrete and the basement. Bill Clinton is one such president in said basement. What? I didn't mention Reagan at all? You seem to have a nasty habit of reading things into what I say and then accusing me of pulling that something from out of thin air. The schizophrenia is that you want a President to project power and act like a king without actually wanting him to have that power or to act like a king. Then when he acts like a normal human being interacting with his voter-base you accuse him of being a clown. Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. So the truth finally comes out (in the bolded part above). You don't like the video because you think he is "trying to mislead people" by trying to get his particular message out. That's pretty funny in itself. We have talked for pages about how signing up enough young, healthy people is important, but when the President actually tries to get younger healthier people to do so, you think he is trying to mislead them. Do you think he's knowingly misleading them? Does he really believe that ACA is utter shit and he's just going on Between Two Ferns as part of some nefarious plot to fuck over young people? Or does Obama actually believe in what he's doing, despite your thinking that he is misguided? The fact is that this was a good option, and that any normal avenue he had for talking about ACA does not reach his target audience. You can hate ACA all you want, but at least be upfront about why you hate everything that Obama does.
I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man).
This is what I was referring to.
I want a president that acts like a leader within Constitutional bounds. That's not a hard concept. He can be strong, insofar as he is permitted by law.
You responded to the part that I said was least important. That's one way of ignoring what I said. But to answer your question, it doesn't matter if Obama believes Obamacare is good or not, it's what he says and what he does that's important. As a side note, I think Ocare will fail regardless. And no, I don't want ANY Americans signing up for this pile of crap, being the violation of the Constitution that it is, nevermind how many people it puts on the dole.
As to everyone who asked about violation of SOP, we've gone over it like 1645 times in this thread. I really don't feel inclined to rehash it. But.... Here's a refresher-
+ Show Spoiler +
Third-
http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-president-obama-power-grab-oped-0312-20140312,0,3174354.story
Edit: I picked a liberal professor in purpose. For obvious reasons. So that's why this is all from one person. It was a quick search of my favorites away.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
you can debate about following constitutional rules on executive power but that is rather academic. the reality is that this is the 21st century and the federal government has a lot of shit to do.
|
There would be a lot less need for Executive Power if Congress did more then obstruct one another and actually governed.
|
Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson acknowledged Tuesday that his department’s deportation numbers are now mostly made up of illegal immigrants caught at the border, not just those from the interior, which means they can’t be compared one-to-one with deportations under President Bush or other prior administrations.
It turned out to be true. Hopefully we can stop hearing about how tough Obama is on illegal immigration now. At least with the deportations.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/12/deportations-come-mostly-from-border-dhs-chief-say/
|
On March 13 2014 09:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 09:08 IgnE wrote:On March 13 2014 08:26 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 08:07 IgnE wrote:On March 13 2014 06:27 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time. And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'. yeah, I know- I actually notice that a lot. Especially here! idk, I just expect Presidents to act like, well, presidents. Not authors on a book tour. Or actors on comedy TV. How about this: It was unpresidential AND made him look stupid. I hope that's a clear delineation. For lack of a better phrase it just seems like it's below the office of the president to do something like that. Since there is no presidential behavior handbook, it's all opinion. I'm not denying that. Your view that nothing is wrong with it is just as valid. I just happen to think there should be a higher standard for presidents. However, why would I express my opinion just to back off from it? Someone posted the video, so I responded. The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous examples when a president (from either party) made a joke.
We could debate whether or not it changes the way he is perceived however, that might actually be relevant. I wonder not about the die-hard supporters or detractors, but about everyone else (in the country). Such a discussion would be quite boring, I fear. I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). On the other hand you rail about executive overreach. Your whole viewpoint here seems a bit schizophrenic. Is he supposed to be a man of the people with limited powers or a dignified physical manifestation of total US power? Let's look at Obama options given his goal of reaching more people. 1) give a typical presidential speech that is shown on cpsan, cnn, and fox for about 5 minutes in the middle of the week 2) try to be funny and hip while also attempting to retain some traditional presidential gravitas and end up looking like an old fart who is trying too hard, being mocked on the right for stupid pandering and on the left for being an old man who doesn't get it 3) go all out and appear on an internet humor website that clearly shows he is in the know — the people on Fox news won't even get it, and the people who never pay attention to the news (the key demographic he is targeting) will see the message and appreciate the gesture You appear to not get it. I'm not surprised you haven't seen any other Between Two Ferns clips, but Obama comes off surprisingly well in his interview, which is a feat unto itself. It's very hard to go into a taped interview with Zach Galifianakis and not come off looking stupid. It's like when people host SNL and willingly subject themselves to jokes. Most people liked when Romney appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show to promote his documentary. Obama went two steps further with the collegehumor video, and I think the risk paid off. The only previous time I've ever mentioned Reagan was in discussing how a conservative could win even when his own party hated him and all the pundits said it was impossible. I've discussed ZERO having to do with his policies. You have a nasty habit of pulling something completely irrelevant or unsupported from what people say. What does "Celebrity-in-Chief" have to do with executive overreach? I hate Obamacare because it's an overreach and I'm disgusted with Obama because of his overreaches. That's entirely separate from a stupid comedy bit. There is no schizophrenia, the two are not linked at all. Obama would be attempting to concentrate executive power regardless of his image. I know, those are Obama's only options! Serious, or to try and mislead people- "See how cool I am? That means Obamcare is totally NOT a ripoff. I'm funny, therefore you should go sign up."
But that's not really the important part . Unless you are saying the only way to reach out to the uniformed to lower yourself to such a level that you start discussing the Hangover. I know the interview was supposed to be silly. I'm not that dense. My criticism relates more to the fact that he agreed to it beforehand. It's not like he went to Bill O'Reilly and made himself a fool by being outmaneuvered, but he agreed to these terms at the start. I've already said this as simply as I can: I think there is a floor for presidential behavior, and this is somewhere in between the concrete and the basement. Bill Clinton is one such president in said basement. What? I didn't mention Reagan at all? You seem to have a nasty habit of reading things into what I say and then accusing me of pulling that something from out of thin air. The schizophrenia is that you want a President to project power and act like a king without actually wanting him to have that power or to act like a king. Then when he acts like a normal human being interacting with his voter-base you accuse him of being a clown. Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. So the truth finally comes out (in the bolded part above). You don't like the video because you think he is "trying to mislead people" by trying to get his particular message out. That's pretty funny in itself. We have talked for pages about how signing up enough young, healthy people is important, but when the President actually tries to get younger healthier people to do so, you think he is trying to mislead them. Do you think he's knowingly misleading them? Does he really believe that ACA is utter shit and he's just going on Between Two Ferns as part of some nefarious plot to fuck over young people? Or does Obama actually believe in what he's doing, despite your thinking that he is misguided? The fact is that this was a good option, and that any normal avenue he had for talking about ACA does not reach his target audience. You can hate ACA all you want, but at least be upfront about why you hate everything that Obama does. Show nested quote +I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). This is what I was referring to. I want a president that acts like a leader within Constitutional bounds. That's not a hard concept. He can be strong, insofar as he is permitted by law. You responded to the part that I said was least important. That's one way of ignoring what I said. But to answer your question, it doesn't matter if Obama believes Obamacare is good or not, it's what he says and what he does that's important. As a side note, I think Ocare will fail regardless. And no, I don't want ANY Americans signing up for this pile of crap, being the violation of the Constitution that it is, nevermind how many people it puts on the dole. As to everyone who asked about violation of SOP, we've gone over it like 1645 times in this thread. I really don't feel inclined to rehash it. But.... Here's a refresher- + Show Spoiler +Third- http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-president-obama-power-grab-oped-0312-20140312,0,3174354.storyEdit: I picked a liberal professor in purpose. For obvious reasons. So that's why this is all from one person. It was a quick search of my favorites away.
Those are wingnuts alleging Obama's acts are unconstitutional. That is a far cry from a Federal judge actually striking down one of Obama's actions as unconstitutional. You say he is a tyrant, but the law disagrees.
|
The law doesn't count when Introvert disagrees and it's about Obama(care), although the supreme court came to the conclusion it's constitutional. You know the guys who are actually paid to interpret the constitution and are the highest authorities on the topic.
Also just calling Obamacare a ripoff doesn't magically make it one.
|
On March 13 2014 10:18 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2014 09:22 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 09:08 IgnE wrote:On March 13 2014 08:26 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 08:07 IgnE wrote:On March 13 2014 06:27 Introvert wrote:On March 13 2014 06:17 Nyxisto wrote:On March 13 2014 06:12 Introvert wrote:
There is nothing wrong with being relateable, but I do have a problem with trying so hard to appear hip and cool, especially when the result is that the president manages to look like a idiot. Who can take him seriously after that? Besides the cowardly Republicans.
You do notice from time to time that your perception may deviate from how other people see something right? I didn't think Obama looked idiotic. I think it's refreshing to see a head of state who actually acts like a real person from time to time. And literally no one besides US right wingers will 'not take him serious after that'. yeah, I know- I actually notice that a lot. Especially here! idk, I just expect Presidents to act like, well, presidents. Not authors on a book tour. Or actors on comedy TV. How about this: It was unpresidential AND made him look stupid. I hope that's a clear delineation. For lack of a better phrase it just seems like it's below the office of the president to do something like that. Since there is no presidential behavior handbook, it's all opinion. I'm not denying that. Your view that nothing is wrong with it is just as valid. I just happen to think there should be a higher standard for presidents. However, why would I express my opinion just to back off from it? Someone posted the video, so I responded. The exact same people who took him seriously before that. You considered him to be an idiot before that spot and you still do afterwards. Your entire view of the spot is tainted by the fact that you considered Obama to be an idiot and "unpresidential" in general to begin with. To the rest of the world, this was not more "unpresidential" than previous examples when a president (from either party) made a joke.
We could debate whether or not it changes the way he is perceived however, that might actually be relevant. I wonder not about the die-hard supporters or detractors, but about everyone else (in the country). Such a discussion would be quite boring, I fear. I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). On the other hand you rail about executive overreach. Your whole viewpoint here seems a bit schizophrenic. Is he supposed to be a man of the people with limited powers or a dignified physical manifestation of total US power? Let's look at Obama options given his goal of reaching more people. 1) give a typical presidential speech that is shown on cpsan, cnn, and fox for about 5 minutes in the middle of the week 2) try to be funny and hip while also attempting to retain some traditional presidential gravitas and end up looking like an old fart who is trying too hard, being mocked on the right for stupid pandering and on the left for being an old man who doesn't get it 3) go all out and appear on an internet humor website that clearly shows he is in the know — the people on Fox news won't even get it, and the people who never pay attention to the news (the key demographic he is targeting) will see the message and appreciate the gesture You appear to not get it. I'm not surprised you haven't seen any other Between Two Ferns clips, but Obama comes off surprisingly well in his interview, which is a feat unto itself. It's very hard to go into a taped interview with Zach Galifianakis and not come off looking stupid. It's like when people host SNL and willingly subject themselves to jokes. Most people liked when Romney appeared on Jimmy Fallon's show to promote his documentary. Obama went two steps further with the collegehumor video, and I think the risk paid off. The only previous time I've ever mentioned Reagan was in discussing how a conservative could win even when his own party hated him and all the pundits said it was impossible. I've discussed ZERO having to do with his policies. You have a nasty habit of pulling something completely irrelevant or unsupported from what people say. What does "Celebrity-in-Chief" have to do with executive overreach? I hate Obamacare because it's an overreach and I'm disgusted with Obama because of his overreaches. That's entirely separate from a stupid comedy bit. There is no schizophrenia, the two are not linked at all. Obama would be attempting to concentrate executive power regardless of his image. I know, those are Obama's only options! Serious, or to try and mislead people- "See how cool I am? That means Obamcare is totally NOT a ripoff. I'm funny, therefore you should go sign up."
But that's not really the important part . Unless you are saying the only way to reach out to the uniformed to lower yourself to such a level that you start discussing the Hangover. I know the interview was supposed to be silly. I'm not that dense. My criticism relates more to the fact that he agreed to it beforehand. It's not like he went to Bill O'Reilly and made himself a fool by being outmaneuvered, but he agreed to these terms at the start. I've already said this as simply as I can: I think there is a floor for presidential behavior, and this is somewhere in between the concrete and the basement. Bill Clinton is one such president in said basement. What? I didn't mention Reagan at all? You seem to have a nasty habit of reading things into what I say and then accusing me of pulling that something from out of thin air. The schizophrenia is that you want a President to project power and act like a king without actually wanting him to have that power or to act like a king. Then when he acts like a normal human being interacting with his voter-base you accuse him of being a clown. Seriousness is the only refuge of the shallow. So the truth finally comes out (in the bolded part above). You don't like the video because you think he is "trying to mislead people" by trying to get his particular message out. That's pretty funny in itself. We have talked for pages about how signing up enough young, healthy people is important, but when the President actually tries to get younger healthier people to do so, you think he is trying to mislead them. Do you think he's knowingly misleading them? Does he really believe that ACA is utter shit and he's just going on Between Two Ferns as part of some nefarious plot to fuck over young people? Or does Obama actually believe in what he's doing, despite your thinking that he is misguided? The fact is that this was a good option, and that any normal avenue he had for talking about ACA does not reach his target audience. You can hate ACA all you want, but at least be upfront about why you hate everything that Obama does. I find it ironic that you deride Obama as celebrity-in-chief when you would seemingly prefer enshrining the man in the Presidential office, elevating him into a demigod (well maybe not this man). This is what I was referring to. I want a president that acts like a leader within Constitutional bounds. That's not a hard concept. He can be strong, insofar as he is permitted by law. You responded to the part that I said was least important. That's one way of ignoring what I said. But to answer your question, it doesn't matter if Obama believes Obamacare is good or not, it's what he says and what he does that's important. As a side note, I think Ocare will fail regardless. And no, I don't want ANY Americans signing up for this pile of crap, being the violation of the Constitution that it is, nevermind how many people it puts on the dole. As to everyone who asked about violation of SOP, we've gone over it like 1645 times in this thread. I really don't feel inclined to rehash it. But.... Here's a refresher- + Show Spoiler +Third- http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-president-obama-power-grab-oped-0312-20140312,0,3174354.storyEdit: I picked a liberal professor in purpose. For obvious reasons. So that's why this is all from one person. It was a quick search of my favorites away. Those are wingnuts alleging Obama's acts are unconstitutional. That is a far cry from a Federal judge actually striking down one of Obama's actions as unconstitutional. You say he is a tyrant, but the law disagrees.
Typical response.
I like to a draw a distinction (it's my own) between legal and Constitutional. The court does not get to change the Constitution. Therefore, they can make things legal, but they cannot make them Constitutional. They get to decide if something fits within the Constitution's constraints, not make Constitutional changes.
Yes, only judges can actually know these things. They are more perfect- they cannot make bad decisions or get it wrong.
Any disagreement after the decision is made is just nut talk!
Nevermind that in the obamacare case, it was 5-4. This is my primary point: when ONE justice ends up making the decision, how can you talk with such confidence? Surely the difference should be obvious. I'm sure many of the liberals here don't like the recent 14th amendment case, and they express their disagreement. No one told them to shut up- "the matter is settled!" Judges are human beings and make mistakes. Korumatsu, Dred Scott, etc. Hell, even precedence can change.
On this topic,
From what I've read, a lot of these cases have standing issues. Turley (who is not a wingnut) actually mentioned that in his testimony. But I've said this before: The court's ruling may make something legal, but it can't make it Constitutional. If they are wrong they are wrong.
Not every case can make it to the Court, and many of them are still in Court. For instance, the case involving Obama's recess appointments. That decisions won't be known for a couple more months, even though it's been in the system for several years now.
I can claim they were wrong, and I do. Most of the time, they disagree with each other! So don't paint someone as fringe when they side with the 4 person minority. "It's so fringe that the matter was decided by one vote!"
I'm not a lawyer, but I've gone over these different issues in this thread before.
The law doesn't count when Introvert disagrees and it's about Obama(care), although the supreme court came to the conclusion it's constitutional. You know the guys who are actually paid to interpret the constitution and are the highest authorities on the topic.
I didn't say it doesn't count- I said it was wrong.
|
No you're not only saying he is wrong. You're literally saying Obama has overreached his constitutional rights several times in this thread. And he has not. The supreme court has decided that Obamacare is constitutional. You can yammer about it as long as you want, but law is not a matter of opinion.
What does "Celebrity-in-Chief" have to do with executive overreach? I hate Obamacare because it's an overreach and I'm disgusted with Obama because of his overreaches
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
