The Audacity of Hope turns into the Politics of Fear
#11
Anastasia Wrote:And on what evidence does Obama always follow true reason and logic?

On the basis that he isn't an ideologue who feels he already has all the answers. He listens to economists, he listens to Generals regarding the war, he listens to common sense. That's a refreshing break from Bush's insistence on the wonderful market's miraculous power... his greatest allies in Congress are on the floor of the Senate now arguing against this much-needed bill. He listens to facts - reason is heavily emphasized in political liberalism... acting on it and nothing else, even moreso.

Diana, I'll find the explanation for how that happened. I recall President Obama explained it, and I'm certain his explanation was ignored. Please remember voting "AGAINST" legislation doesn't mean that you're actually against the legislation's principle.
Reply
#12
JonathanCid Wrote:1. The article is dishonest. Perpetuating it is in turn dishonest.

2. Good to see there's some criticism of Bush.

3. Obama permitted spending to fund foreign abortions, you're right. However, the issue is that the man is honestly convinced that there is no human life to be had there. Everyone should stop throwing rocks at him and convince him. The problem with the pro-life movement is that there hasn't been enough emphasis on demonstrating to major leaders (i.e., Obama) that this is indeed a human life. President Obama seems like a reasonable man, who will gladly change his position if he sees it is unreasonable.

4. I'll have to disagree with your politicians' logic Anastasia. Your assumption is as follows -
A. Politicians follow Politicians' Logic.
B. Obama is a politician.
C. Obama must follow politicians' logic.

But Obama has based himself on economists' advice and logic and the best of economic wisdom. What else should he base himself on? It's opposite is the Bush/Republican ideology of the heavenly, utopian market that needs no regulation or government interference. It may not be what fits with the dominant ideology of Washington for eight years, but it's what economists are screaming about and what needs to get done - and he's pushing to make sure it gets done.

To add to that politicians' logic:
A. Typical politicians follow Politicians' Logic.
B. Obama follows true reason and logic.
C. Obama is not a typical politician.

Utopian marketHuh? Bush and the Republicans created the housing crisis! And they definitely weren't advocating less market regulation.

Bush has released several stimulus packages just like the ones Obama is going to. It's not going to change anything. Search for videos of Peter Schiff, who predicted the economic collapse we're experiencing.

Look, Obama is a typical politician. You seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt and that he'll do "what needs to be done" but that's being extremely naive. What do you have to say about Tom Dascle and the other crooks Obama nominated for positions - who've failed to pay all sorts of taxes?
Reply
#13
Vincentius Wrote:The Fierce Urgency of Pork

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, February 6, 2009; A17


"A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe."

-- President Obama, Feb. 4.



Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.

The Daschle affair was more serious because his offense involved more than taxes. As Michael Kinsley once observed, in Washington the real scandal isn't what's illegal, but what's legal. Not paying taxes is one thing. But what made this case intolerable was the perfectly legal dealings that amassed Daschle $5.2 million in just two years.

He'd been getting $1 million per year from a law firm. But he's not a lawyer, nor a registered lobbyist. You don't get paid this kind of money to instruct partners on the Senate markup process. You get it for picking up the phone and peddling influence.

At least Tim Geithner, the tax-challenged Treasury secretary, had been working for years as a humble international civil servant earning non-stratospheric wages. Daschle, who had made another cool million a year (plus chauffeur and Caddy) for unspecified services to a pal's private equity firm, represented everything Obama said he'd come to Washington to upend.

And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Not just to abolish but to create something new -- a new politics where the moneyed pork-barreling and corrupt logrolling of the past would give way to a bottom-up, grass-roots participatory democracy. That is what made Obama so dazzling and new. Turns out the "fierce urgency of now" includes $150 million for livestock (and honeybee and farm-raised fish) insurance.

The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.


This writer is rabid Zionist and Neocon...just saying...
Reply
#14
I am hopeful about hope in...hope (based on nada) [Image: laff.gif][Image: laff.gif][Image: jestera.gif][Image: rolleyes.gif][Image: eek.gif][Image: crazy.gif][Image: crazy.gif][Image: crazy.gif]
Reply
#15
Bush "witticisms":

'The vast majority of our imports come from outside the country.'
- George W. Bush

'If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure.'
- George W. Bush

'One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Governor, and that one word is 'to be prepared'.'
-George W. Bush


'I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future.'
- George W. Bush

'The future will be better tomorrow.'
- George W. Bush

'We're going to have the best educated American people in the world.'
- George W. Bush

'I stand by all the misstatements that I've made.'
- George W Bush

'We have a firm commitment to NATO, we are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe . We are a part of Europe '
- George W. Bush

'Public speaking is very easy.'
- George W.. Bush

'A low voter turnout is an indication of fewer people going to the polls.'
- George W. Bush

'I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them.'
-George Bush

'We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur.'
- George W. Bush

'For NASA, space is still a high priority.'
-George W. Bush

'Quite frankly, teachers are the only profession that teach our children.'
-George W. Bush

'It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it.'
- George W. Bush

Reply
#16
JonathanCid Wrote:3. Obama permitted spending to fund foreign abortions, you're right. However, the issue is that the man is honestly convinced that there is no human life to be had there.
That's incorrect.  He has said that he doesn't know whether there is human life there.  (His exact words were that that determination is "above [his] pay grade," showing he thinks it's a joking matter.  Classy guy.)  Since he says he doesn't know whether an unborn baby is a human life, you would think he would have to err on the side of caution, but no.

Quote:Everyone should stop throwing rocks at him and convince him.
Straw man: no one's throwing rocks.  We're criticizing things he's DOING and SAYING.  Yes, we should also try to convince him.  (But based on a foundation of what, exactly?  He doesn't accept the basic assumptions that make abortion wrong.)  But criticism IS one way to convince people they're wrong---expecially political people. 

Quote:The problem with the pro-life movement is that there hasn't been enough emphasis on demonstrating to major leaders (i.e., Obama) that this is indeed a human life.
That's just nonsense.  Entire books have been written on the subject.  The Pope wrote to him personally about it.  Videos of babies in the womb have been spread around the net and put on TV as much as the networks will allow.  As Fox Mulder would say, the truth is out there, for anyone willing to see it.  For those who turn a blind eye to it, all the "education" in the world won't matter.

Quote:President Obama seems like a reasonable man, who will gladly change his position if he sees it is unreasonable.
Glad you think so.  I don't so much.  Read his books.  Read his speeches.  (READ, not listen or watch, so you get the words without the charm.)  He's as committed to his ideology as any politician I'm aware of.  He voted against an infant protection act in Illinois that even NARAL wasn't radical enough to oppose.  Reasonable?  Not on this issue.  Not on many, actually.

Quote:C. Obama is not a typical politician.
Bwah!  I've got this great bridge to sell you...

Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel (and read about him if you really want to know how Obama operates), explained exactly why they're pushing this spending bill so hard:
Quote:“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”
In other words: "People are panicky and willing to accept anything if it looks like action, so we're going to push through as many pet projects as we can."

Reply
#17
These actual photographs will not never appear realistic to Obama, who once said that he will not punish his daughters with a pregnancy if they made a "mistake" (or words to that effect) but will probably convince JonathanCid that what is in the womb is a human being, and that abortion tears a baby limb by limb ...

Click Here
Reply
#18
Quote:These actual photographs will not never appear realistic to Obama, who once said that he will not punish his daughters with a pregnancy if they made a "mistake" (or words to that effect) but will probably convince JonathanCid that what is in the womb is a human being, and that abortion tears a baby limb by limb ...

Those pictures work with folks on a regular basis, but they don't stand in for reason. Pro-choicers won't be moved from their position by appeals to emotion. By the way, I'm pro-life.

Quote:That's incorrect. He has said that he doesn't know whether there is human life there. (His exact words were that that determination is "above [his] pay grade," showing he thinks it's a joking matter. Classy guy.) Since he says he doesn't know whether an unborn baby is a human life, you would think he would have to err on the side of caution, but no.

I don't think it's unclassy to say that something is beyond you. He sticks with scientists and others who argue that indeed there isn't a human life to be had here. If you want the exemplary straw man, watch your own words please... "He doesn't know whether an unborn baby is a human life". That's quite a difference from "he doesn't know whether there is human life there."

Quote:Straw man: no one's throwing rocks. We're criticizing things he's DOING and SAYING. Yes, we should also try to convince him. (But based on a foundation of what, exactly? He doesn't accept the basic assumptions that make abortion wrong.) But criticism IS one way to convince people they're wrong---expecially political people.

Viciously hoping for the President to slip up and screw something up, making ad hominem attacks (unclassy, idiot, etc. in various threads), is throwing rocks. That's not a straw man. There's also a sharp difference between constructive criticism and vicious bemoaning with no steps towards improvement. The current administration is a bad time for cynical rhetoric, because Americans have become disposed to ignore it. If the pro-life movement marries itself to the anti-Obama, cynical, Zionist, neo-con movement, I expect tremendous regression for the pro-life cause, and the fault is not with the ignorant to whom little has been given, but with the enlightened to whom much has been given.

Quote:That's just nonsense. Entire books have been written on the subject. The Pope wrote to him personally about it. Videos of babies in the womb have been spread around the net and put on TV as much as the networks will allow. As Fox Mulder would say, the truth is out there, for anyone willing to see it. For those who turn a blind eye to it, all the "education" in the world won't matter.

Then we need to try a different approach, and ask ourselves, what about this approach is failing to convey the message? People aren't rejecting it because they're just evil - that's a cheap excuse. People are rejecting the message because they don't feel compelled by science and reason to believe that there's a life here. The see the "propaganda" from the pro-life movement, espoused often by religious figureheads, and perceive this to be yet another attempt to impose religious superstitions down the throats of society. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. They tie it to gay marriage and every other issue the religious world has been involved in. We need to espouse science, and reason, not demagoguery and guilt - not because this is an issue without emotions to be had, and not because anyone can clean their hands of it, but because "demagoguery and guilt" are perceived to be the prime and only tools of the religious right. The pro-life movement needs a fundamental change.

Quote:Glad you think so. I don't so much. Read his books. Read his speeches. (READ, not listen or watch, so you get the words without the charm.) He's as committed to his ideology as any politician I'm aware of. He voted against an infant protection act in Illinois that even NARAL wasn't radical enough to oppose. Reasonable? Not on this issue. Not on many, actually.

I've read his books, I own them. I've read his speeches, I'm a political science student. I addressed the infant protection act in an earlier post. Reasonable? Yes. I'd like to see your examples on how you suppose he isn't reasonable. Please don't refer to me sources I'm already familiar with as if there's some mysterious evidence there that will knock me off my feet.

Quote:Bwah! I've got this great bridge to sell you...

Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel (and read about him if you really want to know how Obama operates), explained exactly why they're pushing this spending bill so hard:
Quote:
“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”

In other words: "People are panicky and willing to accept anything if it looks like action, so we're going to push through as many pet projects as we can."

Is the Pope doing the same taking advantage of the world's economic crisis? Why do you presume gaining momentum in dark times is necessarily a bad thing? It seems to me the Church always gains momentum from the worst of times, with the poorest of people. Is that a bad thing? But alas, you presume that Obama is a wicked man because you've sorrounded yourself with ideological rhetoric, a pre-accepted grouping of ideas, tied them together and married them, and never actually stood them up to reason. Such ideology is questionable at best.

The entire "trial" against President Obama has begun with a presumption of guilt.
Reply
#19

Amazing, there's an Obama supporter at FE. Who would have thought it?

Obama is as phony as a $3 bill, though he suckered a lot of people into believing in him. I hope he will make things better, for all our sakes, but I have no illusions about the man. He's just another politician. I've lived through too many presidential elections to expect much change, much less to expect presidents to keep campaign promises.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)