EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 438
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Infernal Knight
United States557 Posts
On September 06 2012 21:10 xDaunt wrote: You guys are absolutely crazy in your analysis of the article on Woodward's book. I didn't cherry pick anything. I damn near quoted the entire article. Woodward, as evidenced by the beginning of the article and the countless quotes from other democrats thereafter, clearly is saying that Obama is an ineffective leader. Though you may disagree with Woodward, you can't disagree that this is what he is saying. I haven't read it myself, so this is just speculation, but I believe what they're saying is that Woodward comes down hard on everyone, but you only clipped out the parts where he's dishing on Obama. If he talks about Republican intransigence or Boehner's inability to get the Tea Party to compromise or internal backbiting between Cantor and Boehner, then you've omitted all of that to try to make Obama look like the sole party responsible for failure. That's how I interpreted those replies, anyway. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2012 21:13 Infernal Knight wrote: I haven't read it myself, so this is just speculation, but I believe what they're saying is that Woodward comes down hard on everyone, but you only clipped out the parts where he's dishing on Obama. If he talks about Republican intransigence or Boehner's inability to get the Tea Party to compromise or internal backbiting between Cantor and Boehner, then you've omitted all of that to try to make Obama look like the sole party responsible for failure. That's how I interpreted those replies, anyway. Yes, that is what they are saying but they are clearly wrong. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
For the most part, it felt like as if he had plagiarized the speech that I would have written. It's good to see all the arguments debunking Republican bullshit that I and many others in this thread have brought up, finally getting the coverage it deserves on primetime TV. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president. "It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama," Woodward writes. Please explain what is out of context in that quote. Granted, the president is the focus of this article, and I'm sure that Woodward has more stories about the failures of congressional republicans, but this is an unequivocally damning indictment of Obama's ability to lead, which is the point that I was making. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 06 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote: Oh, and all of you Obama fans may want to have a look at this. None other than Bob Woodward is about to come out with a book that shows how pathetic of a leader Obama is. This article is rather long, and I'll post some excerpts after the speeches. What is incredibly amusing about the details of the book leaking alongside Clinton's speech tonight is the sharp contrast on how effective Clinton was compared to how inept Obama is. What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2012 21:39 paralleluniverse wrote: What were you expecting to happen after the 2010 midterms when the House was filled with right-wing, tea party nutjobs? They took the country as hostage, in the end refusing a single cent in tax increases, and created the fiscal cliff. Hypocritically, the Republicans talk about the fiscal cliff having catastrophic effects on the economy with exactly the same Keynesian logic that they ignore when it comes to stimulus. It's not easy dealing with ideological, anti-intellectual, doublethinking nutjobs. Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. | ||
|
Minus`
United States174 Posts
On September 06 2012 21:32 xDaunt wrote: In case y'all missed this part, here's the topic sentence of the article from the bottom of page 1: Please explain what is out of context in that quote. Granted, the president is the focus of this article, and I'm sure that Woodward has more stories about the failures of congressional republicans, but this is an unequivocally damning indictment of Obama's ability to lead, which is the point that I was making. Bolding is fun. While questions persist about whether any grand bargain reached by the principals could have actually passed in the Tea Party-dominated Congress, Woodward issues a harsh judgment on White House and congressional leaders for failing to act boldly at a moment of crisis. Particular blame falls on the president. "It was increasingly clear that no one was running Washington. That was trouble for everyone, but especially for Obama," Woodward writes. Others said context, I said perspective, but the point is the same. Yes, it is an indictment of Obama's ability to lead, since that's the point you were trying to make. And that's the only thing you saw, whereas a reasonable reader saw the rest of the people being blamed, too. "You" vs "Y'all". Being raised in the South would've really helped you out here, I think. "There were a lot of people to blame, but this paper is mainly going to focus on the President, so of course take that into account with how I'm writing." (This isn't a real quote.) You just selectively choose things to ignore, apparently. Like the (granted!) fact that the article is focused on Obama. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 06 2012 04:31 dvorakftw wrote: Debt comes from too much spending. Blaming Republicans for unfunded trillions from the "Great Society" because their bill comes due when Republicans are in office is silly. So debt comes from too much spending. How much is too much? Too much compared to what? How can we tell that it's too much from the graph? We can't. You've pick the wrong graph. Your graph doesn't include revenue, so you cannot tell how much spending is too much, you cannot tell whether spending is increasing. It doesn't say who is responsible for what. Here's a graph that explains who increase the deficit in terms of policy change. ![[image loading]](https://farm7.static.flickr.com/6150/5974618229_81b7d3f9ce.jpg) | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2012 21:46 MinusPlus wrote: Bolding is fun. Others said context, I said perspective, but the point is the same. Yes, it is an indictment of Obama's ability to lead, since that's the point you were trying to make. And that's the only thing you saw, whereas a reasonable reader saw the rest of the people being blamed, too. "You" vs "Y'all". Being raised in the South would've really helped you out here, I think. "There were a lot of people to blame, but this paper is mainly going to focus on the President, so of course take that into account with how I'm writing." (This isn't a real quote.) You just selectively choose things to ignore, apparently. Like the (granted!) fact that the article is focused on Obama. Yeah, I already said that the article is focused on Obama. I also said that the point of the article is that Obama is an ineffective leader. The liberal chorus here doesn't seem to even want to acknowledge that this is what the article is saying. Y'all just won't accept that your "messiah" is flawed. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 06 2012 21:43 xDaunt wrote: Even assuming that you everything that you just said is accurate, what does that have to do with all of the comments, quotes, and stories from Woodward and the democrats about how inept of a leader that Obama is? Did you miss that wonderful bit towards the end where Harry Reid's staffer confronts Obama with his disappointment? Get off the Kool Aid for once. To focus on just Obama ignores the other side. If we consider how unreasonable Republicans have been, how outrageous their demands are, how many have signed a pledge to never increase taxes by a single cent -- that puts it into context. I highly doubt anyone could have done any better given the other side refuse to compromise. Boehner and Obama were working on a deal, the deal had tax increases. Given that it had tax increases, what was the chance that it would have passed the house -- virtually zero. The fact that they even refused to raise the debt ceiling in the first place, given that it was -- until then -- completely routine and uncontroversial, and they had done it without fuss throughout the 8 years that Bush increased the debt from around $6 to $10 trillion, is a testament to the craziness of Republicans. | ||
|
Minus`
United States174 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2012 21:56 MinusPlus wrote: Oh no this is so damning, some guy complained about his boss. Part of Obama's charm (look it up) is that he seems like a fairly approachable guy. But of course, you've got this burning (irrational, even) desire to try your damnedest to demonize Obama as a pigheaded, egotistical, arrogant, directionless failure, so you only read the bits that make him look incompetent. You should get off the damn Kool Aid for a change. Like, damn dude. It can't be enough that he's not a good president, but you have to make sure everybody thinks he's a bad person, too? What's the hell? Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. | ||
|
Minus`
United States174 Posts
On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote: Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. That's the "perspective" thing coming into play. And your post history is way~~ too long to search for examples, so I appreciate these two well enough. Your opinion of Obama as a person colors everything you read, literally to the point that you can't help but dismiss every pro-Obama case you come across as "bullshit". (Deleted the quoted post, but won't disown it. Just seemed a bit [unnecessarily] inflammatory.) EDIT: Also, I caught the "Y'all" above, but I bet it'd be easy to miss. Your usage erroneously counts (for instance) people like me among them, but I'm actually alright with that right now; if there are only two choices, and Romney/GOP is one of them, it's hardly a choice at all. | ||
|
natrus
United States102 Posts
On September 06 2012 22:00 xDaunt wrote: Where did I say that he's a bad person? I'm only arguing about his leadership abilities. As for what I think of Obama, I have no doubt that he's a narcissist and, for the purpose of political leadership, cripplingly egocentric. But these thoughts are another matter. Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 06 2012 12:31 xDaunt wrote: He peddles bullshit better than anyone else. Thankfully, Clinton is likely to disappear again after tonight and not resurface for the rest of the campaign. Like what? How many examples do you have? Quite ironic coming from you since I've never seen you engage in substantive and technical policy discussion in this thread. For the most part, you just talk about how fucked Obama is going to be. You throw one liners and have failed to demonstrate even the most basic understanding of macroeconomics. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2012 22:04 MinusPlus wrote: That's the "perspective" thing coming into play. And your post history is way~~ too long to search for examples, so I appreciate these two well enough. Your opinion of Obama as a person colors everything you read, literally to the point that you can't help but dismiss every pro-Obama case you come across as "bullshit". (Deleted the quoted post, but won't disown it. Just seemed a bit [unnecessarily] inflammatory.) What in the world are you talking about? I don't often post news articles and other stories. I only post the really good ones. This Woodward book article makes the cut because he is a democrat hero who is throwing Obama under the bus (along with republicans, if you will). His credibility in liberal circles is basically unimpeachable. If you want to know what I actually think, my guess is that Woodward likely is more charitable to Obama than he should be in his book. Of course, I'd have to read the book to know, but that's my gut instinct. EDIT: Also, I caught the "Y'all" above, but I bet it'd be easy to miss. Your usage erroneously counts (for instance) people like me among them, but I'm actually alright with that right now; if there are only two choices, and Romney/GOP is one of them, it's hardly a choice at all. EDIT: I like to paint in broad brushstrokes. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 06 2012 12:44 dvorakftw wrote: Yeah America, 8% unemployment, trillions dollar deficits, and the government running your health care is a fine trade to be able to listen to some people speak well about things that just aren't true. Like how he showed that the Romney campaign is mostly just lies and bullshit? Good to finally see the things I (and many others) have been saying here getting the mainstream audience it deserves. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 06 2012 22:06 natrus wrote: Would you describe Romney through your eyes as you have with Obama? Just curious. My concern with Romney is that he lacks conviction. I'm hoping that he has found his conservative Jesus and is ready to govern accordingly, but I can't say that I know this will happen. I'm not concerned about his ability to lead and get things done in Washington. If anything, I'm afraid that he'll compromise too much with democrats as republicans have been prone to do. For example, my biggest criticism of Bush is that he did not govern like a conservative in terms of his domestic policy and he damn near ruined the republican party as a result. As I mentioned a few days ago, it's only by the grace of Obama's incompetence that the republicans were revived in 2010 and are in the position that they are in now. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 06 2012 12:51 dvorakftw wrote: I think last time I proved something on this board it was with a graph showing how government spending went from less than 10% of GDP to almost half and I was told it didn't have any relevance to bigger government so why bother? I have no idea what you're talking about, but the last time government spending was less than 10% of GDP was in the 1910s. ![[image loading]](http://www.google.com.au/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1366&bih=640&tbm=isch&tbnid=9NHOJp4t5dBACM:&imgrefurl=http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/did-republican-policies-cause-the-recession/question-1340917/&imgurl=http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/0/8/4/6/9/8/5/US-Government-Spending-As-Percent-Of-GDP-Fiscal-Ye-43054341693.png&w=390&h=250&ei=TqNIUMnqJ4WwiQeDt4C4BA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=355&vpy=214&dur=1233&hovh=180&hovw=281&tx=179&ty=77&sig=102672899746487814806&page=1&tbnh=113&tbnw=177&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:76) | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png/350px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png)
