Inauguration

[TPMdm]

Preface: President Obama was not my choice, not even my 3rd or 4th choice, but he is now my president. Please at least respect the office in any replies.

Is it just me or is President Obama getting an undue amount of press coverage in the lead up to the inauguration and the inauguration? I mean wall to wall coverage including the luncheon afterwords on? The magazine rack at the supermarket has a 1/2 dozen covers with him and/or Mrs. Obama. Don't get me wrong, I understand the significance of a black man becoming the president of the United States given our racial history but consider:

The Game Show Network is doing special inauguration day stuff
The Gems Network (a shopping channel) was doing inauguration "specials"
Nickelodeon Networks (for children and early teens) are showing inauguration informationals in between shows
DirecTV has added channel 102 the "inauguration mix"

How can this human (lets all remind ourselves he is just a man afterall, no footage of him walking on water.....yet) live up to this hype? He's expected to fix a global financial crisis which is beyond the control of one country let alone one man. He's expected to instantly yet responsibly withdraw all US combat troops within a week. He's expected to reduce the carbon footprint of the US by 100 Megatons per person by Summer.*





*the preceding statements are known as hyperbole

[elsegundo]

He's the first black president.

i think thats cause enough for a gigantic event.

[surodat]

Because people will read/watch it.

Internationally, it's a nice breath of fresh air. At least before we find out what kind of president he is going to be. Right now we're just celebrating that someone else is no longer president.

[Tikki]

First off- I'm not American.

But I think today is special on many levels. Yes, he is the first black American president, but it's more than that. You could see happiness and hope in the crowds eyes, and I think in this time of unhappiness and despair, it's what people need. I think the media, and products are capitalizing on the hope that Obama, and an impending change are bringing to people. I think Obama represents more than just a step towards eliminating racism. He represents a change in a time when people are losing hope, happiness, and strength. The economy is in bad shape, America's war on terror, and the soldiers over seas, are all hardships that America has been dealing with for the past few years, and I think Obama to many represents a change and a hope that these will change.

Just my 2 cents

[jschild]

Because we are coming off of what probably 50% of the American population thinks is one of the worst presidents ever and almost 75% disapprove of.

Because 50 years ago, any person would have laughed in your face if you would have claimed that a black man would be president. Hell, 10 years ago they would have laughed in your face.

People seem to forget that the world hasn't always hated America. During Clinton, most of the world liked us. Most everyone except for some of the middle east liked us under the first Bush. Reagan was respected world-wide. Americans are praying Obama returns America to respectability and likability.

As to those who think he'll be a miracle worker, they will be disappointed. To those who think he will push a heavy progressive agenda, whether hopefully or fearfully, he won't. So far he is pretty much working towards the things he laid out in his book (The Audacity of Hope) and he will most likely be a very pragmatic and emperical president. That means he isn't likely to swing heavily to the left so he can retain the support of the moderate right.

That being said, let's hope (unlike the idiot that is Rush Limbaugh (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html)) that he does a good job for the sake of our country. No free rides, but lets give him the chance at least.

[Twoflower]

People seem to forget that the world hasn't always hated America. During Clinton, most of the world liked us. Most everyone except for some of the middle east liked us under the first Bush. Reagan was respected world-wide. Americans are praying Obama returns America to respectability and likability.

long way to go, but you should never give up hope :)

still, he is just one man. Time will tell how much he can do, i hope it is alot.

[TPMdm]

I guess since I come from the mindset that the president, individually, doesn't have that great an impact on the things that affect day to day life that I don't see what the big deal is. To me major swings in congress are more important and again individual races don't count as much unless and until they become the deciding race.

I don't "hope" that a new president will make my life better (this would have applied even had my guy won). I "hope" the country continues to dig itself out of this economic crisis (as best it can given the global economy), I "hope" America's enemies won't mistake a "kinder gentler" president for a wavering of our national resolve, and I "hope" the people who are jumping to the conclusion that Bush was the worst president ever would let history have a crack at him. When we can measure the distance from his terms of office in years not hours then we can be more accurate in our appraisal of them.

PS
Unrelated to the Inauguration and the "hope" issue when did it become so important what other countries thought of us? I don't want us, nationally, to be hated (since most individual citizens of countries don't hate other individual citizens). But I also don't want the opinions of others to guide our decisions. They are guided by their own interests and their interests color their opinions (ex. IIRC France was one of the biggest importers of Iraqi oil).

[odinsnephew]

Sadly, what America does counts for a lot in the entire world. That is why this is serious news.

Js, I agree with almost all you say apart from where you say the world hasnt always hated America. Although Clinton was a lot better I will admit.

Everyone I know wishes the yanks would just piss off and stop meddling in other peoples affairs and dragging everyone one else in to their crap. I know its not as simple as that. Yes I know that being British I hardly have a foot to stand on regarding being the "bully boy" of the world as our history says for itself.

By the "yanks should piss off comment" I mean the politics, not the general public or the American forumers (word?) here, as we have the same mindset here in Britain.

All said and done, I really hope this guy does well. So much is on his shoulders though, both in America and the rest of the world.

One last word - Good riddance Bush you stupid <insert favourite bad word here>

[jschild]

Unrelated to the Inauguration and the "hope" issue when did it become so important what other countries thought of us? I don't want us, nationally, to be hated (since most individual citizens of countries don't hate other individual citizens). But I also don't want the opinions of others to guide our decisions. They are guided by their own interests and their interests color their opinions (ex. IIRC France was one of the biggest importers of Iraqi oil).

It has nothing to do with basing your policies on what other world leaders think. It has to do with operating in a manner that follows even the most basic of international laws. We lost standing in the world because of our insistence of NOT working with other nations. See how Bush 1 went about fighting in the middle east vs. Bush 2. It has to with not torturing people (and lying about it). It has to do with having places like Guatonomo Bay (sp?) and denying people Habeus Corpus for only the second time in our nations history.

It is also working with your allies and listening to them, not telling them that they can either do what we want, or they are against us.

[Tikki]

I also don't want the opinions of others to guide our decisions. They are guided by their own interests and their interests color their opinions.

I feel the need to bring up the war on Iraq and their progress to a more Amer- er "happier, bunnies running free, rainbows glittering, and kittens purring" nation.

You need to have the trust, respect, and friendship of other countries. America lost it with the Iraq war. Not to mention all the things JS said.

As for the "hope" issue. You'd be surprised at how many people still use hope to get themselves going. Obama may or may not change things, but to many people, he represents a change in power (more than just the party, but a change in power from the upper class, white male whom many minority or marginalized American can not relate to; to someone of minority status (although he's upper class)). Obama is a change, and to many represents a change in the nation, a change for the better.

And as for Bush in history. Bush's rein of power will continue on for many years. What he did in office has had, and will have consequences that last for years to come. Regardless of his intentions, the decision he made will be seen for some time.

But then again...we elected Harper...I really have no opinion.

[Twoflower]

I "hope" the people who are jumping to the conclusion that Bush was the worst president ever would let history have a crack at him. When we can measure the distance from his terms of office in years not hours then we can be more accurate in our appraisal of them.


He canceled Kyoto.

He changed several laws about selling mortgages which had a big deal in the actual economics crysis.

He may not be the worst president ever, i dont know all of them. But he certainly was not in the top half of your presidents.

[Glurin]

I'll agree he wasn't a good president, but not at all for the same reasons.

He canceled Kyoto.

Which is a very, very good thing. FYI, Bush actually had little to do with it. Did you know that the senate in 1997 voted unanimously that we should not sign it? And that it was the Clinton administration who outlined all of the pitfalls of signing such a thing? Everyone who wasn't a "ZOMG! Stop global warming!" zealot agreed it was a bad deal.

When Bush came along, he presented a political opportunity for the democrats as a scapegoat. They could play it up as the last hope for the entire world to stop this (imagined) crisis, and the only people standing in the way was Bush and his evil republicans. Same thing happened when the housing market fell, which was inevitable considering its just been going up and up and up for so long. Plenty of blame to go around for that one, only a very small fraction of which belongs to Bush himself.


On Obama, the only significance of his inauguration to me is that it was the biggest celebration of a figurehead so far this century. Anyone who thinks he's more than that is just fooling themselves. He's a nobody. A puppet that has been placed on a stage to dance for the crowd. Its a bit frightening actually. And yes, I am aware this will be written off by the "Obamans" as rhetoric.

Now, I can understand the historical significance of having a black man elected president, although I do think there are a lot of people taking that a bit too far. The office of president of the united states is an honorable and respectable position to hold. Too bad we don't have an honorable and respectable man that is going to hold it. Still, he hasn't actually done anything just yet, so we'll see if he decides to wise up and do the right thing rather than lead us down the path that so many are cheering for.

[jschild]

Yes, he's just a puppet, thats why conservatives like George Will say that they have had conversations about policy with such a depth that they never could have had with Bush.

We know Glurin you think he is some kind of idiot that has somehow fooled the majority of America and we are all dummies next to you.

Time will tell, though I will gladly bet that he does a better job than Bush did (though that would be a gimme for pretty much anyone).

ANd please tell me, why is Obama not Honorable and Respectable? A real fact please.

[surodat]

But then again...we elected Harper...I really have no opinion.

Do not!

We did not elect Harper!

Harper is a minority government - his power is completely dependent on the other parties - and now that there has at least been the threat of a coalition, Harper can no longer use the threat of a non-confidence motion to bully the other party leaders to follow along with his agenda.

Until Harper has a majority government, it is the responsibility of the other members of parliment - not the Canadian people - to rein him in. And -finally - the coalition is doing exactly that.

Anyways. Glurin, the 1997 senate and house were republican - just so you know. And, to preempt something, the notion of a president sitting in the White house Vetoing every bill is absurd.

In US politics, the republicans had a majority for 6 years. Six year to roll out changes and fix things without having to negotiate with people who were at the other end of the American Political Spectrum. Clinton's administration was eight years of barganing and half-measures and cobbled together pieces of legislation that were chewed at by the left and the right. Giving the democratic party the same responsibility under Clinton as the republicans under Bush is just ignorent.

(Also, Tikki, Harper is closer to Obama than McCain politically. Which says something of the American 'left')

[Tikki]

Do not!

We did not elect Harper!

Harper is a minority government - his power is completely dependent on the other parties - and now that there has at least been the threat of a coalition, Harper can no longer use the threat of a non-confidence motion to bully the other party leaders to follow along with his agenda.

Until Harper has a majority government, it is the responsibility of the other members of parliment - not the Canadian people - to rein him in. And -finally - the coalition is doing exactly that.

Anyways. Glurin, the 1997 senate and house were republican - just so you know. And, to preempt something, the notion of a president sitting in the White house Vetoing every bill is absurd.

In US politics, the republicans had a majority for 6 years. Six year to roll out changes and fix things without having to negotiate with people who were at the other end of the American Political Spectrum. Clinton's administration was eight years of barganing and half-measures and cobbled together pieces of legislation that were chewed at by the left and the right. Giving the democratic party the same responsibility under Clinton as the republicans under Bush is just ignorent.

I know what you're saying, but essentially a greater portion of Canadians decided NOT to vote for a party other than the conservatives...which STILL blows my mind. I live on the east coast, and I can't believe that there are several ridings here where conservatives won. How can you vote for a party that has declared where you live, to be the butthole end of Canada- where we have "a culture of defeat". We're clearly a culture of idiots if we support a leader that could care less of us! Above that, I mean...it's HARPER!

Gah! We're lucky he didn't get a majority...

But back to Obama. I don't know how anyone could think he's dishonest or unrespectable. what's he done to be that way?

[elsegundo]

just more rhetoric from the other side, thats all.

[TPMdm]

He canceled Kyoto.

Presidents sign treaties the US Senate approves them.

He changed several laws about selling mortgages which had a big deal in the actual economics crysis.

The President has almost 0 power to write laws

He may not be the worst president ever, i dont know all of them. But he certainly was not in the top half of your presidents.

Of the 43 (Grover Cleveland was elected to non-consecutive terms) men who have been president of the United States I am comfortable with that assessment of him. Just like to throw out Carter as a far worse president however.


(Also, Tikki, Harper is closer to Obama than McCain politically. Which says something of the American 'left')

QFT the left is in the US is still far more right than the left elsewhere.

But back to Obama. I don't know how anyone could think he's dishonest or unrespectable. what's he done to be that way?

Not to derail further but Rev. Wright or his association with Ayers are pretty unrespectable in the eyes of many. True, guilt by association and I don't care much for it but I also didn't care for his handling of either issue.

IMO though this topic has gone far astray of where I was hoping it would go. I guess my point is even if "my guy" had won I know there wouldn't have been as much hype and build up, but I also know I would probably be just as interested (mild to moderate interest). Two million people on the Mall in DC.... for what? U2 giving a concert the day before....for what? The most expensive Inauguration in history ($150mil compared to $43 for Bush and $32 for Clinton, staggering)

[Glurin]

We know Glurin you think he is some kind of idiot that has somehow fooled the majority of America and we are all dummies next to you.

I didn't say idiot. I said figurehead. Obama hasn't fooled anyone. He's not skilled enough for that. The people playing him up as the second coming of Jesus are the ones who have you fooled.

ANd please tell me, why is Obama not Honorable and Respectable? A real fact please.

Honor and respect are earned. Obama has yet to earn either one.

Anyways. Glurin, the 1997 senate and house were republican - just so you know. And, to preempt something, the notion of a president sitting in the White house Vetoing every bill is absurd.

Perhaps you missed the word "unanimous". 95-0. Are you trying to tell me that every single seat in the entire senate was republican?

And yes, vetoing every bill that comes across his desk for his entire presidency would be stupid. Not sure why you would even bring that up. Might be nice for a very short while though, if only to make the message clear to congress that passing laws left and right just to make people feel better is not a good thing. Couldn't be too long though, or you'd never fix what the previous administration broke.


But back to Obama. I don't know how anyone could think he's dishonest or unrespectable. what's he done to be that way?

Again, didn't say dishonest. He hasn't earned that particular title. Yet.

Not saying he's honest either though.

As for "unrespectable", I say again, respect is earned. Ordinarily I would be inclined to give him some respect as a successful politician, but I can't even do that much. His success is not his doing. He had a whole group of people propping him up at every turn. His speeches weren't all that great, yet they were lauded as something that should be put on memorials across the nation. He said things and had affiliations that any one of which would have destroyed a politicians career, and yet he was let off the hook each and every time. In fact, anyone who called him on these things were quickly set upon by a lynch mob.

He didn't even have any real ideas. Just flowery words that built on the general public's jealousy and greed. In fact, most of the time he was just repeating the words "change" and "hope", leading everyone in a chant like they were in some kind of cult. Not that the republicans offered up a choice that was much better, but still, I think I'd prefer someone who didn't pretend he was god.

He has no history, he's naive, he has no backbone, and he's even part of a minority group. No experience, a wife that shares his ignorant beliefs, decent looking, and prone to go along with what the party says. Add it up. It makes him an excellent distraction for anyone who wants to rule (the exact word used by democrats FYI) from the background.

So congratulations America. You've elected your first black man to the office of president. Unfortunately you failed to elect a president.

[jschild]

The most expensive Inauguration in history ($150mil compared to $43 for Bush and $32 for Clinton, staggering)

Actually, that number is BS. That 150 counts both the Inauguration and Security expenses. The Inauguration costs were actually about 45 million and security costs were comparable to Bush's. His 43 million inauguration was actually about 145 million with security costs included.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_barack_obamas_inauguration_really_cost_4.html

Too bad we don't have an honorable and respectable man that is going to hold it.

That is what you said Glurin. Not that he hasn't earned it, but that he is not honorable nor respectable. You at the very least heavily implied that he already is not honorable nor respectable.

As to all your other stuff, lets see what he did his first real day.

Called every major leader involved with the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Froze the pay of every white house official making over 100,000 (not a major move, but better than handing out raises during a bad time as many CEO's have done, as their companies fail, usually to their own doing).
Restored the Freedom of Information Act to its original intent.
Made it much harder for any President to restrict their records.

No, he won't walk on water, and if you think he only talks about change, but no specifics, you obviously have never looked at anything he has said (hell, he wrote a book about what he would do, and seems to be on track with it).

I guess he's taking order from Pelosi, who he is already having problems with? I know the right must hate everything he is doing considering how much they are fighting and condemning his picks for his cabinet. Except they haven't, and most have welcomed his picks. In fact, our puppet president who will socialize everything seems to be getting the biggest flak from the progressive blogs, although, thank god, Rush wants him to fail. Way to be Patriotic there Rush, guess we only want the good 'ol USA to succeed under republicans.

Again, it's nice to have actual facts to back things up, Glurin and you give none. Even TPMdm's error was honest, since many in the media repeated that value without checking the context of the facts (Apples to Oranges, instead of Oranges to Oranges).

I will agree with you on one thing. Anyone expecting miracles or a heavy progressive agenda will be disappointed.

[Glurin]

That is what you said Glurin. Not that he hasn't earned it, but that he is not honorable nor respectable. You at the very least heavily implied that he already is not honorable nor respectable.

What part of honor and respect being earned don't you understand?

You do realize that when it comes to a lot of things, facts are rarely facts, right? Especially concerning politics. Any facts I post will largely be ignored, being dismissed as "crazy right wing propaganda" or faulty arguments or what have you, whether I post a link to a website or not. When you focus on so called "facts", the entire discussion then degrades to each side doing as many google searches as they can. I've been through this enough times to know for a fact that it will happen. Quite frankly, I'm not interested in an internet hyperlink pissing contest. I find it more enjoyable to tear gaping holes in the blind devotion and logic of others' arguments.

Back to the topic at hand, he released a memo and called a few friends. Yay! Lets all hold hands and sing about peace and love! Our savior is here!

Its more smoke and mirrors. Something to make the crowds happy. Do you honestly think these are great accomplishments? They haven't even had time to cook yet. Nobody can accomplish much of anything on their first day.

Oh, one more thing. Did you read the transcript you posted about Rush wanting Obama to fail, or did you just read that Rush said "I hope Obama fails." and go berserk about how idiotic he is?

From transcript: "Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work.......................Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?"

Also this: "Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? Why do we have to play the game by their rules? Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed?"

[clevins]

Respect is earned, Glurin? Sorry, but in that case I have none for you.

Cuts both ways, you see - if you insist Obama starts with zero honor and zero respect, then so does everyone. Including you.

[jschild]

From transcript: "Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work.......................Why not? Why is it any different, what's new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what's gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it?"

Actually yes I read it. And statements like this are pure hyperbole, supported by no facts at all. And typically when one brings exactly zero facts to the table, that generally means that don't have anything to bring to the discussion period. No proof of what Rush says, just more BS emanating from his mouth.

And what I stated about his first day is just a point that he isn't sitting around doing nothing. But since you have no facts or real statements about anything to discuss, it doesn't matter what anyone wants to say anyway. You have your fantasy and no reality will ever change it. The very fact that you refuse to put forth one single bit of evidence for this massive grand conspiracy that you know about speaks volumes. The silence is indeed deafening.

[Tikki]

Obama hasn't fooled anyone. He's not skilled enough for that. The people playing him up as the second coming of Jesus are the ones who have you fooled.

Um, people aren't playing him up as the second coming of Jesus. It’s people who only see hope in a “upper class, white, red neck, born into politics” president. None of the Obama supports are praising him to be the next Jesus. What they’re praising is the fact that a man of minority had the ga’hoons to run, and then win. This gives hope to people who thought they would never see someone like themselves in a place of such great honour (i.e. people of minority…and it’s not just blacks. It’s blacks, Hispanics, women, ANYONE who is oppressed by the dominant upper class, white man syndrome that plagues the US and other countries).

Honor and respect are earned. Obama has yet to earn either one.
Clevins said it all.

His success is not his doing. He had a whole group of people propping him up at every turn.
Umm…this could be said about any president. Actually, I’m fairly certain this is the case with 95% of the presidents and anyone in power. Obama is no different, not that it’s a good thing, it’s just not an uncommon thing.

His speeches weren't all that great, yet they were lauded as something that should be put on memorials across the nation.
Let me remind you of this great timbit taken from the speech of such an eloquent and ingenius man of power.. *ahem* “One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis” or “People say, well, do you ever hear any other voices other than, like, a few people? Of course I do” or “Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people” I could go on, but you get the drift.

He said things and had affiliations that any one of which would have destroyed a politicians career, and yet he was let off the hook each and every time. In fact, anyone who called him on these things were quickly set upon by a lynch mob.
Ummm…your last president affiliation to Bush senior didn’t seem to hurt him. Listen, people make mistakes. Some of these affiliations where when he was just a boy. Lord knows I’ve dated a few questionable characters, I’m sure you know some too…What you do when your 20, the beliefs you hold then, what you’ve let to learn- changes. Um, we can certainly dig up a few questionable things from other presidents’ lives.

He didn't even have any real ideas. Just flowery words that built on the general public's jealousy and greed.
Sure, compared to “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice…umm…shame on…shame on you!” Obama looks like Mark Twain. I like Obama’s speeches. He’s clear, well spoken, and I think they’re very eloquent. I like how he approached international affairs in his speeches, and I like how he brought history and unity in.

In fact, most of the time he was just repeating the words "change" and "hope", leading everyone in a chant like they were in some kind of cult.
Obama’s speeches may be filled with words that are greater than 3 sylablles, or even perhaps some that many need to look up in the dictionary. But there’s nothing Manson like about them. Just because people are happy, and are wanting to support the president of THEIR nation, doesn’t make them “cult” like.

Not that the republicans offered up a choice that was much better, but still, I think I'd prefer someone who didn't pretend he was god.
Once again, he’s not. Until he dresses in sandals, a white robe, and grows the beard Tom Hank wore in Castaway, you can be sure he’s not pretending to be God, Jesus, or any other member of the divine. Just because he’s happy, and proud, doesn’t make him God like. Really, I’d like you to give me facts/reasons why you keep linking him to some religious power.

He has no history, he's naive, he has no backbone, and he's even part of a minority group. No experience, a wife that shares his ignorant beliefs, decent looking, and prone to go along with what the party says.
Ok, so you’re talking about experience, personality, ok…I can handle people criticizing these aspects. They can be changed, molded, and so forth…but then what does “even part of a minority group” have to do with his credibility and ability in running a country. And what are these “ignorant beliefs”? Gay rights? Bringing home your soldiers? Oh, letting Iraq (a county NOT part of American) run itself? Mmmhmm…please tell me these “ignorant beliefs”.


IMO though this topic has gone far astray of where I was hoping it would go. I guess my point is even if "my guy" had won I know there wouldn't have been as much hype and build up, but I also know I would probably be just as interested (mild to moderate interest). Two million people on the Mall in DC.... for what? U2 giving a concert the day before....for what? The most expensive Inauguration in history ($150mil compared to $43 for Bush and $32 for Clinton, staggering)

OK, I agree. But you have to understand that the media is capatilizing on the celebrity support the Obama has. He can't help it. A lot of Hollywood is behind Obama. Hollywood=ratings=money. That can't be avoided. Obama isn't cashing in on this though...sure he's getting good press...and sure the public is googoo over his dancing, and canoodling with his wife. But you can't blame him for having the star power to get him the attention. Clinton was practically the same way later in his career.

I'm just really surprised. The mass of America is happy. They feel hope, and encouraged. Obama has done nothing different than any other president in his speeches, his promises, etc. Why are you blaming him for other people's hope? Sure he's promising good things, promising changes, promising sunshine- but so does every other president. The only difference is people are actually hoping that it's true this time. If he fails on his promises, well, he's just like the last president- really...and the one before that...and the one...well you get the drift.

[jschild]

Clinton was practically the same way later in his career.

Reagan had one of the most watched Inaugurations in history, even rivaling Obama's, also. Anyone who think this is the first time the electorate has gotten excited over a new president has a very, very, limited, and selective view of history.

And again, going from a lower middle class family, getting a full scholarship to Harvard, becoming the first African-American to become president of Harvard Law Review.

I guess he was magically handed all those things as well by the phantom left wing cabal running his presidency. More like you will create any rationalization, bereft of any facts, to support your reasons why he could get elected.

If you want to come with any real discussion of facts about the issue, I welcome it. If you are going to spout unprovable bs and refuse to even try to support your arguements, then good luck to you. I won't continue the conversation with you however.

And if belonging to the KKK, spouting hate speech, supporting torture, rendition, dealing arms to terrorists don't prevent you from getting elected, I doubt going to a church where a preacher has said bad things about America's actions from time to time is going to prevent you either. Again, having a broad knowledge of history helps in understanding this is not something new, but something that has happened before.

[TPMdm]

Actually, that number is BS. That 150 counts both the Inauguration and Security expenses. The Inauguration costs were actually about 45 million and security costs were comparable to Bush's. His 43 million inauguration was actually about 145 million with security costs included.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_barack_obamas_inauguration_really_cost_4.html



I gotta call BS there then too. They're trying to tell me that the Security and crowd control for 2 million people (biggest estimate I've seen) was roughly the same as for 400k people (biggest estimate I've seen) for Bush's second Inaugural? If that is the case then I do have to side with those further right than me and say the country was safer under Bush than it will be under Obama or I suppose I could go further left and say Obama's spending was more efficient?


I will agree with you on one thing. Anyone expecting miracles or a heavy progressive agenda will be disappointed.

Indeed which is why I am wondering where the hoopla is coming from aside from the historic perspective of his race. He won't be as liberal as most conservatives fear nor will he be as "progressive" as most liberals hope. That is where consensus building and true politics come into play.

For too long politics in the US has been seen as a zero sum game by both side. You have to lose for me to win. I much prefer "What do I concede to you to get what I really want."

[jschild]

I gotta call BS there then too. They're trying to tell me that the Security and crowd control for 2 million people (biggest estimate I've seen) was roughly the same as for 400k people (biggest estimate I've seen) for Bush's second Inaugural? If that is the case then I do have to side with those further right than me and say the country was safer under Bush than it will be under Obama or I suppose I could go further left and say Obama's spending was more efficient?



Indeed which is why I am wondering where the hoopla is coming from aside from the historic perspective of his race. He won't be as liberal as most conservatives fear nor will he be as "progressive" as most liberals hope. That is where consensus building and true politics come into play.

For too long politics in the US has been seen as a zero sum game by both side. You have to lose for me to win. I much prefer "What do I concede to you to get what I really want."

As to the spending for security, since all people are screened and have to go to certain areas, I doubt that simply adding more people adds much cost since every spot has to be covered regardless of whether 5 people are there or 1000.

As to the rest, Obama appears so far to be reaching out to the right, meeting with many of their top people. Whether this lasts, I cannot say, but I fear his biggest problems will not come from the Republicans (since he only needs 1 for a fillibuster proof majority in the senate and the house is easily his) but from the House Democrats (a much greater concentration of far lefties there) that don't seem to want to reach out as Obama has.

He has already had some issues with Pelosi and I fear they might try to push through stuff that not only does Obama not want, but might not be able to pass.

I truly do hope he does want to reach out (all his writings and actions so far seem to support that he does want to). Time will tell, as in all things. If he does, lets hope both sides (at least enough of them to matter) are willing to comprimise to pass laws that the majority of both sides can live with.

EDIT: TPMdm, I also want to apologize for saying that number is BS. Many people in the media threw out the number without any context. We will have the official numbers probably by April to know exactly how much was spent. I shouldn't have said that so harshly and regret it.

[WatcherZero]

How can you cockup two swearing in ceremonies in two days?

Im impressed at the start hes made :P

[TPMdm]

....
EDIT: TPMdm, I also want to apologize for saying that number is BS. Many people in the media threw out the number without any context. We will have the official numbers probably by April to know exactly how much was spent. I shouldn't have said that so harshly and regret it.

Nah.... BS, Shenanigans, dubious....it's all the same to me: inaccurate with a potential bias. Didn't sound harsh at all.

The more things go the less I fear any kind of "Liberal Agenda" coming from an Obama administration. Honestly I don't think we'll get anything stranger than "don't ask, don't tell".

We've gone from "ZOMG! teh Obama is closin Gitmo!!!!! Terrorizts for evah!!!" to "He's issued the order to close it in a year with no real plan and no releases"

[jschild]

He's issued the order to close it in a year with no real plan and no releases"

He's going to do exactly what should have been done in the first place. Find out who was rounded up with no reason. Release them in their home country. Find out those who are threasts but not major ones and either charge them or release them to be taken care of in their home countries. Lastly, deal with those who are the true and serious threats and try them, most likely in court martial courts as has been done in the past.

Also do not believe the numbers that the Pentagon under Bush had released and claimed that had returned to terrorism. Their numbers have had no basis in most part and often included people whose worst crime since being released from Gitmo was condemning the Administrations actions in the NYT.

http://law.shu.edu/administration/public_relations/press_releases/2009/shl_defense_dept_wrong_on_gtmo.htm

http://law.shu.edu/center_policyresearch/reports/urban_legend_final_61608.pdf

http://foia.fbi.gov/guantanamo/detainees.pdf - if you want to know why this has been a stain on your reputation and puts the lie to the "We don't torture" statement.

Again though, if anyone thought Obama would just release all the detainee's will be surprised. I expect it will be closed within 1 year. Maybe 1/3rd to 1/2 of the detainee's will be sent to their home countries, while the rest will be held, most likely in military prisons.

[Glurin]

Closing Gitmo was a purely political move, though not unexpected. It has few practical benefits. Plus, as has been pointed out already, he did it with no real plan in place as to how to go about it (Iraq anyone?). Politically speaking, it will help his poll numbers. In this nation and others. Don't expect any real changes from this.

Cuts both ways, you see - if you insist Obama starts with zero honor and zero respect, then so does everyone. Including you.

Indeed. I take it you are unfamiliar with normal social graces. Everyone starts with no more than is afforded by common courtesy, which isn't much. Its up to them to lose it or earn more. Obama has as yet done neither.

Nobody starts as a saint or a devil, despite what you seem to think.

Um, people aren't playing him up as the second coming of Jesus.

What rock have you been living under? :shocked:

It’s people who only see hope in a “upper class, white, red neck, born into politics” president. None of the Obama supports are praising him to be the next Jesus. What they’re praising is the fact that a man of minority had the ga’hoons to run, and then win. This gives hope to people who thought they would never see someone like themselves in a place of such great honour (i.e. people of minority…and it’s not just blacks. It’s blacks, Hispanics, women, ANYONE who is oppressed by the dominant upper class, white man syndrome that plagues the US and other countries).

Thank you for providing an example of what I mean when I say people are taking obama's race too far. Its worthy of a historical footnote and nothing more. It doesn't matter what color your skin is, it doesn't make you a good president, Tikki. Being a good and wise leader makes you a good president.


Umm…this could be said about any president. Actually, I’m fairly certain this is the case with 95% of the presidents and anyone in power. Obama is no different, not that it’s a good thing, it’s just not an uncommon thing.

Not really. Clinton had a fair hand in his own success, as did Bush and quite a few other world leaders throughout history. Some even had a very large influence in their own success. Obama had none. He was carried the entire way. All he had to do was smile and nod.

Let me remind you of this great timbit taken from the speech of such an eloquent and ingenius man of power.. *ahem* “One of the very difficult parts of the decision I made on the financial crisis was to use hardworking people's money to help prevent there to be a crisis” or “People say, well, do you ever hear any other voices other than, like, a few people? Of course I do” or “Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people” I could go on, but you get the drift.

Your point being? Did you ever see me praise bush as a man we should build monuments to?

Ummm…your last president affiliation to Bush senior didn’t seem to hurt him. Listen, people make mistakes. Some of these affiliations where when he was just a boy. Lord knows I’ve dated a few questionable characters, I’m sure you know some too…What you do when your 20, the beliefs you hold then, what you’ve let to learn- changes. Um, we can certainly dig up a few questionable things from other presidents’ lives.

Are you kidding? Look, I can make Ghandi appear to have been evil incarnate if I wanted to. Nobody looks good under a microscope. The problem is you don't have to dig very deep at all to find dirt on Obama. He hasn't changed his opinions, and if he has, he hasn't shown it. Nor has he adequately explained his affiliations with questionable characters. What he has done is offer up some pretty statements about how he doesn't agree with some things that were said and let the masses fawn over it. As they say, "The devil is in the details."

For example, reverend wright. In this case, Obama would have been better off with an option that involves sticking with wright as his pastor. This post is already getting lengthy, so I won't go into details here. Dumping your pastor of 20 years or so right in the middle of your presidential campaign claiming it was because you don't agree with him is not a good move. Also highly risky politically for anyone without a significant political machine backing them. Only thing worse would have been to say you agree with everything the man says.

Obama’s speeches may be filled with words that are greater than 3 sylablles, or even perhaps some that many need to look up in the dictionary. But there’s nothing Manson like about them. Just because people are happy, and are wanting to support the president of THEIR nation, doesn’t make them “cult” like.

No, chanting his name as he promises false hope and spouts vague rhetoric on changing things is a political party. Blindly praising everything he says and does, even things that would kill any other politician or have disastrous consequences if implemented. Crying blasphemy when others criticize him or simply do not praise him. Holding him up as the one and only hope for a better world, despite his complete lack of qualifications for this role. Wishing him to make all your decisions for you and everyone else. That is a cult.


Once again, he’s not. Until he dresses in sandals, a white robe, and grows the beard Tom Hank wore in Castaway, you can be sure he’s not pretending to be God, Jesus, or any other member of the divine.

That's funny. I would have thought God was more than sandals, robes, and beards. So it really is all in the costume then? Guess I'll go dye my undies and wear them on the outside of my pants. Then I'll have super strength and I can save the world! Or maybe I'll just put on a black cape and a top hat and grow a weird mustache. Then I can rule the world! Or at least rob a bank or two. :rolleyes:

Really, I’d like you to give me facts/reasons why you keep linking him to some religious power.

You mean aside from the masses of zealots crawling over each other to bask in his glory and the snarling dogs of the mass media ready to pounce on the non-believers?

Ok, so you’re talking about experience, personality, ok…I can handle people criticizing these aspects. They can be changed, molded, and so forth…but then what does “even part of a minority group” have to do with his credibility and ability in running a country.

Absolutely nothing. It's all about PR.

OK, I agree. But you have to understand that the media is capatilizing on the celebrity support the Obama has. He can't help it. A lot of Hollywood is behind Obama. Hollywood=ratings=money. That can't be avoided. Obama isn't cashing in on this though.

Unless you consider that he was just elected president of the united states...

I'm just really surprised. The mass of America is happy. They feel hope, and encouraged.

Real hope is good. False hope is dangerous, and is difficult for most to recognize. People forget that the death of freedom without full blown war is usually heralded as a glorious new age of peace and prosperity.


The more things go the less I fear any kind of "Liberal Agenda" coming from an Obama administration. Honestly I don't think we'll get anything stranger than "don't ask, don't tell".

Its been two days. Give it time, and remember to read between the lines. He's not going to just announce tomorrow morning that we are converting to socialism.

[clevins]

You continue to not earn respect. And bruit about your wingnut fantasies. Welcome to the ignore list....

[surodat]

"There is no such thing as false hope. There is only hope."

Blindly [negating] everything he says and does... Crying blasphemy when others [praise] him or simply do not [revile] him. That is a cult.

...I can save the world! ... I can rule the world! Or... rob a bank or two.

You mean aside from the masses of zealots crawling over each other to bask in his glory and the snarling dogs of the mass media ready to pounce on the non-believers? ... People forget that the death of freedom without full blown war is usually heralded as a glorious new age of peace and prosperity... Remember to read between the lines... We are converting to socialism.

I read between the lines. Now I will leave this conversation.

"A rational argument can never change an irrational thinker's mind."

In your mind I'm irrational, in my mind, you are. So, that's the end of this.

[ptarn]

For the love of all that's holy: Give the guy a chance, will ya? I mean, come on: NO ONE ever expects a newly elected leader to immediately leave a mark on history, to do earth-shattering stuff. I'm from the Netherlands and I've been watching the whole election with more than normal interest, because most of us Europeans don't want another Bush! Really we don't! That man came across as being absolutely stupid with all the strange and really conservative decisions he made.

Give Obama a fighting chance, just like you did with every other president that has ever been elected. Don't throw him in the trash just because you have some crazy ideas about him being idolized as some sort of god-like figure and him making America more socialist. And what is wrong with being a bit more socialist anyway? As if capitalism has produced such 'good' results for you.

I mean, sheesh... Being prejudiced much? Statements like that, that display an amount of arrogance mingled with severe prejudice and plain ignorance, are EXACTLY why a lot of people do not like the US at all. Mind you, not the individual Americans, just the overall politics and how the US appear to the world.

[TPMdm]

For the love of all that's holy: Give the guy a chance, will ya? I mean, come on: NO ONE ever expects a newly elected leader to immediately leave a mark on history, to do earth-shattering stuff.

Except they are. That was basically the point of my starting this thread, all the undue hoopla surrounding The Presidential Inauguration of Barack Obama.

I'm from the Netherlands and I've been watching the whole election with more than normal interest, because most of us Europeans don't want another Bush! Really we don't! That man came across as being absolutely stupid with all the strange and really conservative decisions he made.

Sorry, better GPA and SAT scores than Al "Nobel Peace Prize" Gore.

Give Obama a fighting chance, just like you did with every other president that has ever been elected. Don't throw him in the trash just because you have some crazy ideas about him being idolized as some sort of god-like figure and him making America more socialist. And what is wrong with being a bit more socialist anyway? As if capitalism has produced such 'good' results for you. (snipped the rest)

I don't want to get into a "my country is better than yours" argument. Let me just say that between free market capitalism and communism we have the US which is closer to capitalism and we have European style socialism which is closer to communism. Communism is a failure.

Honestly I think this thread has veered too far off topic for my tastes. I think I'm done with it.

[jschild]

Except they are. That was basically the point of my starting this thread, all the undue hoopla surrounding The Presidential Inauguration of Barack Obama.

To be fair, I think he was referring to Glurin and not you. You have been very reasonable on this whole issue and I know I've enjoyed discussing it with you.

Sorry, better GPA and SAT scores than Al "Nobel Peace Prize" Gore.

My wife has a friend, super brilliant and has about 170 IQ. She lacks, however, one bit of sense. There is smart and there is "smart". I agree with ptarn that Bush didn't make alot of "smart" decisions. He speech skills magnified that perception as well. Pure intelligence means nothing, whether you are liberal or conservative, if you don't have the sense (or wisdom) to use it. Ask the greeks about that one.

I don't want to get into a "my country is better than yours" argument. Let me just say that between free market capitalism and communism we have the US which is closer to capitalism and we have European style socialism which is closer to communism. Communism is a failure.

Honestly I think this thread has veered too far off topic for my tastes. I think I'm done with it.

I do agree it has veered off greatly, to which I am at least partly guilty.

My single biggest belief for why so many people are excited? By far, the majority of the american population believe the last 8 years have not been ideal or even as good as they should have been. Some of those failures have to do directly with Bush. Many do not. Regardless, for good or bad, Obama has given many people hope again. He has truly inspired many people.

Whether he restores hope in the long term and continues to inspire people, only time will tell.

[Glurin]

"There is no such thing as false hope. There is only hope."

Its that kind of thinking that allows evil to thrive. False hope is all around you. Real hope is rare.

(Note: I'm using "evil" as a general reference, not an Obama reference.)

Give Obama a fighting chance, just like you did with every other president that has ever been elected. Don't throw him in the trash just because you have some crazy ideas about him being idolized as some sort of god-like figure and him making America more socialist.

Excuse me, but I never said we should just axe him now and pick someone else. I've pointed out numerous times that he hasn't actually done anything himself yet. He'll have his chance to prove himself, but among the many things he MUST do to be a good president is wise up and realize that socialism is not the direction America needs to travel in.

Also TPMdm is correct. People are expecting him to be the greatest president in history, completely reshaping America into some kind of utopia. Now, I can forgive the drones who vote for the party rather than the issues. I cannot, however, forgive the racists who base his greatness on his blackness, whether they realize they are doing it or not.

And before you say anything, I don't care what color anybody is. It makes no difference to me, good or bad, with the exception of certain subjects that can involve taking advantage of the difference others see in it.


And what is wrong with being a bit more socialist anyway? As if capitalism has produced such 'good' results for you.

Are you serious? Capitalism has produce fantastic results! There is no way we'd be the superpower we are and have the high standard of living we do under socialism. Government interference is what is causing most of our troubles right now. Not only that, government interference is also dragging out the problems and making recovery take much longer than it should.

I mean, sheesh... Being prejudiced much? Statements like that, that display an amount of arrogance mingled with severe prejudice and plain ignorance, are EXACTLY why a lot of people do not like the US at all. Mind you, not the individual Americans, just the overall politics and how the US appear to the world.

So, because you don't understand our politics, your system is superior? And you wonder why Americans do not like Europe and view it as arrogant, severely prejudiced, and just plain ignorant.


To be fair, I think he was referring to Glurin and not you. You have been very reasonable on this whole issue and I know I've enjoyed discussing it with you.

Unreasonable huh. I'm not surprised you see me that way. After all, I strongly disagree with what you are saying, and I do have a tendency to be a bit blunt in my arguments. I'll give you some advice. Don't try to stick me in a category. You'll be arguing with a group of people whom I don't belong to. The discussion doesn't go anywhere when that happens.

My single biggest belief for why so many people are excited? By far, the majority of the american population believe the last 8 years have not been ideal or even as good as they should have been. Some of those failures have to do directly with Bush. Many do not. Regardless, for good or bad, Obama has given many people hope again. He has truly inspired many people.

Our reasons may differ greatly, but we do agree on this point. In fact, I think probably 85-90% of the country would agree. And the ones that don't, well, they deserve the stereotype they have.

As for inspiring people and giving them hope, I think I've made it clear where I stand. Bad things are approaching on the horizon, and there are a lot of people ready to welcome them with open arms. We'll just have to wait and see what happens after things have settled down some.

[everytimeidie]

I think everyone forgets he's HALF black...

[Shellar]

I'd take Obama over the cyclical dynasty of Putin/Medvedev.

[WatcherZero]

I think everyone forgets he's HALF black...


Half black, raised by a upper middle class white grandmother in Hawai while his mother and father-in-law went to live in Indonesia.

From what ive heard he tried really hard to get in touch with black culture, gatecrashing university parties and sports events, almost creepily hard some tales ive heard from his college freinds.

[SithDrummer]

Closing Gitmo was a purely political move, though not unexpected. It has few practical benefits. Plus, as has been pointed out already, he did it with no real plan in place as to how to go about it (Iraq anyone?). Politically speaking, it will help his poll numbers. In this nation and others. Don't expect any real changes from this.
Are you dense? No one cares about artificially, cynically boosting their poll numbers a week into a four-year term. Gitmo's existence makes the country look bad internationally & internally, and unabashedly betrays our purported values, and Obama had promised to close it - three solid reasons to get the gears moving toward its closure.

But then again, this - like most other statements of yours I've seen in this thread - is yet another solely rhetorical comment unaccompanied by any comprehensive explanation, support, or reasoning from you. Please, explain yourself.


I think everyone forgets he's HALF black...
Normally I don't touch comments like this, but this one in particular has cropped up multiple times since the election, and it's annoying. The most common line of racism in the U.S. hasn't been white and black, but white and non-white. Unless you think that half-black people were allowed to sit as far up as the middle of the bus in the 50s?

[Glurin]

Are you dense? No one cares about artificially, cynically boosting their poll numbers a week into a four-year term. Gitmo's existence makes the country look bad internationally & internally, and unabashedly betrays our purported values, and Obama had promised to close it - three solid reasons to get the gears moving toward its closure.


All purely political. Before you try to argue the second reason you gave again, let me point out that it gained that reputation through the political maneuvering of the bush haters, not through any grand indignity or horrific act done there. They turned it into a symbol, and symbols have strong political power. But it is and never will be anything more than a symbol.

And really, anyone who was shocked or horrified by what was happening at a military prison holding known and suspected terrorists needs a serious reality check. (Unless it was by the suspention of habeas corpus in particular.) Far worse things happen in regular county jails.

By the way, the first week or two are extremely important in a president's time in office, as it "sets the tone" for things to come. I'm not saying closing Gitmo wasn't a good move politically speaking. But it is only a political move.

[WatcherZero]

Your alleging county jails torture inmates?

Ouch, Makes the US prison system sound as bad as Middle eastern prison systems. Though I have heard before that prisoners prefer federal prison.

[jschild]

Your alleging county jails torture inmates?

Ouch, Makes the US prison system sound as bad as Middle eastern prison systems. Though I have heard before that prisoners prefer federal prison.

Yes, our county jails regularly waterboards, binds in the fetal position for hours so they crap themselves, strip nude and act gay, set dogs on inmates, refuse sleep for days, and blinds and deafens our prisoners with bright lights and sound.

Only in crazy conspiracy world where no backing up of outlandish statements are needed.

[Glurin]

You people really need to expand your horizons beyond a NYT article or a MSNBC hour long propaganda fest. You have no idea what real torture is.

Obama was right to order the closing of Gitmo at this time. Reckless, arrogant, idealistic, but correct politically. Since it has been turned into a symbol of evil bush conspiracies and heartless military personnel, he can't just let it continue standing. It was a symbol that was created and intended for him (or someone else in his party) to destroy, and a backup tool for launching an even greater anti-republicans campaign if the opposite party had won.

[jschild]

If you abandon your values whenever they get in your way, they are no longer values.

Are there worse forms of torture going on in the world? Yes.

Does that mean that what happened there isn't torture? No.

It was a symbol that was created and intended for him (or someone else in his party) to destroy, and a backup tool for launching an even greater anti-republicans campaign if the opposite party had won.

Paranoid Schizo much?

[ptarn]

I don't want to get into a "my country is better than yours" argument. Let me just say that between free market capitalism and communism we have the US which is closer to capitalism and we have European style socialism which is closer to communism. Communism is a failure.\

I'm just so glad to know that I live in a Communist country! Never mind the fact that individualism and capitalism are the main part of Western Europe's societies and economies and let's all say that all form of Communism - and let's not forget Socialism - is inherently BAD because of the horrendous misuse of the Communist ideology by dictators. Oh my god, I'm just so glad to know that I'm a Communist at heart and that the US capitalists are gonna save me from my own evil!

...

Let's just say the statement that made me type all this confirms everything I said in my previous post in this thread. Not to mention the fact that someone else said that capitalism made the US the superpower it is today. Yeah, that's probably why the country's whole debt is so big it can't even be shown on the specially made counter anymore. Uh-huh.

[WatcherZero]

Even Cheney just before leaving office admitted Torture took place at Gitmo.

anyway the UN definition that the US and every major country is signed up to is:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

– Convention Against Torture, Article 1.1

There is additionally an optional protocol created in 2002 and signed by 40 countries that allows free access to independant inspectors at any time to monitor allegations of torture. No country accused of torture has signed this protocol.

[SithDrummer]

And really, anyone who was shocked or horrified by what was happening at a military prison holding known and suspected terrorists needs a serious reality check. (Unless it was by the suspention of habeas corpus in particular.) Far worse things happen in regular county jails.
This is pretty much where we're done. Holding someone indefinitely, without trial or charges, on a guess is not acceptable, period. Adding in torture just seals the deal.

[everytimeidie]

Normally I don't touch comments like this, but this one in particular has cropped up multiple times since the election, and it's annoying. The most common line of racism in the U.S. hasn't been white and black, but white and non-white. Unless you think that half-black people were allowed to sit as far up as the middle of the bus in the 50s?

It's not 1950 anymore, it's time to realize this.

[jschild]

Because things were so equal in the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's.

We certainly don't have racial profiling, harsher sentences for non-whites vs. whites, pay inequalities for white men vs. everyone else, or anything else these days thankfully.

[everytimeidie]

So are you implying it's worse or easier than it was?

[SithDrummer]

The entire point is that it's a tremendous milestone for a non-white person become President, particularly when that same non-white person half a century ago would have been made to sit at the back of a bus. Saying, "What's the big deal? He's only half-black." is an attempt to cheapen its significance, and is a sign that the person completely misunderstands the nature of our racist history. Discrimination has never been limited to those with 100% black/hispanic/irish/japanese/etc. heritage.

[Glurin]

Yes, but again, being non-white does not make him a great president. It is a footnote in the history books that people are blinding themselves with.

If you abandon your values whenever they get in your way, they are no longer values.

Are there worse forms of torture going on in the world? Yes.

Does that mean that what happened there isn't torture? No.

The world isn't black and white you know (no pun intended). I mean, come on. People were whining that feeding the prisoners enough that they gain some weight was torture. Are you really going to put that on the same level as, say, a car battery? (Use your imagination.)

Yeah, that's probably why the country's whole debt is so big it can't even be shown on the specially made counter anymore. Uh-huh.

Don't blame capitalism for something it didn't do. The country's debt is so big because we've got idiots in charge of the federal budget who's solution to everything is to take away successful peoples' money and give it to those that squandered their own wealth. That's not exactly a capitalist solution. If anything, it undermines capitalism, which would otherwise allow the economy to heal, better and stronger than ever before.

You see, capitalism is a little like riding horses. If you fall off, the best solution is to learn from it, pick yourself up and get back on. Those that get back on the horse will do well. Those that don't pick themselves back up are going to be stuck walking in the mud.

Kicking someone who succeeded off their horse and giving it to someone who didn't learn from the experience only gets everyone covered in ****.

[jschild]

From the reports filed by FBI Agents who were concerned about the abuses there.

1) Keeping detainees awake for days on end with strobe lights and loud music.

2) Dressing as a priest and "baptizing" a detainee. (I'd love to see the outrage if that was done to Christian - being forcibly converted to another religion. But they are muslim so who gives a crap right?)

3) Interrupting detainees' attempts to pray by putting fluid on their faces and telling them it was menstrual blood. (again, would love to see the outrage if that was done to a Christian).

4) Beating a detainee who said he had recently undergone abdominal surgery

5) On several occasions witnesses saw detainees in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor with no chair/food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves and were left there 18, 24 hours or more

6) One FBI witness saw a detainee "shaking with cold," while another noted a detainee in a sweltering unventilated room was "almost unconscious on a floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out through the night)

7) Another personnel in a different report noted that in late October 2002, FBI special agent was observing interrogation of a a detainee by a civilian army contractor who was in charge of the Army's interrogators. The FBI agent "came into the observation room and asked SA (special agent xx) to come see something. SA (xx) then saw an unknown bearded, long-haired detainee in another interrogation room. The detainee had been gagged with duct tape that covered much of his head. SA (xx) asked Mr. (xx) whether the detainee had spit at the interrogators. Mr. (xx) laughed and stated that the detainee had been chanting the Quran and would not stop. Mr. (xx) did not answer when SA(xx) asked how the duct tape would be removed from the detainee."

8) Another FBI person who responded to the investigative survey reported that on October 4, 2002 one detainee was questioned all night by a military interrogation team, with them screaming and yelling at the detainee during the interrogation. Then he was moved that same afternoon to another location fir further interrogation, where a "Quran had been placed in front of (the detainee) and captain (name blocked), United States Marine Corp, began to interrogate the detainee. At some point during the interrogation, Captain () squatted over the Quran, which incensed (the detainee) and caused him to reach for the Quran." (Again, if this was done with a bible in the US, that person would be a pariah and would be lucky to ever work again).

Of course, none of those come close to your straw man about feeding. As for car batteries, I guess you forgot about what we did in Iraq?

[Twoflower]

That's not exactly a capitalist solution. If anything, it undermines capitalism, which would otherwise allow the economy to heal, better and stronger than ever before.


i think it has been proven since the middle of the 19th century that pure capitalism does not only benefit the economy. And dont even start about the people living in such a system.

[SithDrummer]

Yes, but again, being non-white does not make him a great president. It is a footnote in the history books that people are blinding themselves with.
No one I've heard, and certainly no one with sense, is making a correlation between his being black and being a great president.

[jschild]

Glurin is well known for using the 1% of left wingnuttery to paint broad brush strokes with.

See his ignoring the evidence of torture the FBI gathered into what they called its "War Crimes" file, and instead talking about them being overfed, which I believe I heard talked about exactly 0 times.

[Glurin]

Glurin is well known for using the 1% of left wingnuttery to paint broad brush strokes with.

See his ignoring the evidence of torture the FBI gathered into what they called its "War Crimes" file, and instead talking about them being overfed, which I believe I heard talked about exactly 0 times.

More like a good 70-80%. You're not exactly innocent of using a large brush either though. As far as those "abuses" are concerned, people hear what they want to hear. I've seen the overfeeding mentioned several times on different media outlets, only one or two of which pointing out how ridiculous the claim was. This was back when the torture panic was in full swing. And your FBI claims:

1) Keeping detainees awake for days on end with strobe lights and loud music.

So?

2) Dressing as a priest and "baptizing" a detainee. (I'd love to see the outrage if that was done to Christian - being forcibly converted to another religion. But they are muslim so who gives a crap right?)

LOL! Oooo...The big scary fake priest just splashed water on me. I'm so terrified! :rolleyes:

BY the way, Christians are just beheaded as "infidels", but apparently splashing water on people is much worse than executions in the public's eyes.

3) Interrupting detainees' attempts to pray by putting fluid on their faces and telling them it was menstrual blood. (again, would love to see the outrage if that was done to a Christian).

(So would I.)

4) Beating a detainee who said he had recently undergone abdominal surgery.

If it was because he said he had surgery, you may have something.


5) On several occasions witnesses saw detainees in interrogation rooms chained hand and foot in fetal position to floor with no chair/food/water; most urinated or defecated on selves and were left there 18, 24 hours or more

Borderline.

6) One FBI witness saw a detainee "shaking with cold," while another noted a detainee in a sweltering unventilated room was "almost unconscious on a floor with a pile of hair next to him (he had apparently been pulling it out through the night)

Shave his head next time.

7) Another personnel in a ........... asked how the duct tape would be removed from the detainee."

Shave him too. Its cleaner and healthier anyway.

8) Another FBI person ..... (Again, if this was done with a bible in the US, that person would be a pariah and would be lucky to ever work again).

So? (And no, I doubt much of anything would be said about it at all.)


All of this is displeasing to the general public, to be certain. But when it gets right down to it, it only just touches on the fringes of actual torture.

On a somewhat more personal note, now I'm curious as to whether or not you yourself truly understand the reason why methods like these are used at all. You seem more rational than the average person, but I'm wondering just exactly how much more rational you are.


No one I've heard, and certainly no one with sense, is making a correlation between his being black and being a great president.

There are a couple in this very thread. :unimpressed:

i think it has been proven since the middle of the 19th century that pure capitalism does not only benefit the economy. And dont even start about the people living in such a system.

You're right. It does not only benefit the economy. It benefits a lot of things. But then, I'm not so sure that that's what you meant to say, is it. :wink:

The fact of the matter is you only need a tiny, tiny bit of guidance from a government level to keep the evil corporation holocaust scenario from playing out. You don't need government telling you how to run every aspect of your business, and you certainly don't need them mandating that you make unsustainable business decisions.

[WatcherZero]

Glurin scares me

[TPMdm]

Honestly I haven't followed this thread since my post saying I would stop because of the derailment. In an effort to further illustrate my original point: Why was Obama interviewed for roughly 10 minutes during the Pre-game show of the Super Bowl?

He was dressed fairly casually, asked a couple American Football questions, a couple foreign policy questions couched in sports and then they signed off......why?

[SithDrummer]

No one I've heard, and certainly no one with sense, is making a correlation between his being black and being a great president.There are a couple in this very thread. :unimpressed:
I don't trust you enough to go scouring the thread for whatever posts you might be referring to. Cite some to back up your statement.

[surodat]

/wanders back into this thread wondering what's happened since I left

O.o

@ Glurin

It is bad enough if you think this sort of thing should be done to people who are guilty of something.

It is appalling that you think this should be done to gather information from people who have been convicted of no crime.

I would wish that you become subject to an equivalent abuse - but that is exactly how Sayyid Qutb came to form the philosophy that went on to influence radical groups like Al Qaeda.

It has been argued that the only reason Al Qaeda exists is because Qutb and his peers were tortured by the Egyptian government. You can trace the evolution of ideology from that turning point.

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”

@ TPM
My original point still stands. "Because people will read/watch it."
All television is entertainment - and right now people are being entertained by the President. /shrug

[Glurin]

It is bad enough if you think this sort of thing should be done to people who are guilty of something.

It is appalling that you think this should be done to gather information from people who have been convicted of no crime.

Depends a lot on circumstances really, but let me ask you a question. How do you expect to get important information out of somebody who is determined to not give it to you and who you know has that information? Its not like they are going to give in just because you say "please".

“The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral; returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”

Which isn't true. Guy attacks me, I kill/disable him, violence is pretty much ended right then and there. People who think violence only begets violence are locked in this "I kill your brother, you kill me, my brother kills you, your son kills my brother, etc., etc." mentality. Its a tunnel vision view of the extreme, and I shouldn't have to point out why that is not a good thing to do.

[jschild]

Except when we directly kill tens of thousands of Iraqi's, i'd be the height of stupidity to not realize that in 10 years or more that it could come back and bite us hard. For evidence, please see the whole Iran situation.

[surodat]

Depends a lot on circumstances really, but let me ask you a question. How do you expect to get important information out of somebody who is determined to not give it to you and who you know has that information? Its not like they are going to give in just because you say "please".

Yes, you could do this. Although it is just as likely that they will say anything and turn in anyone just to end the torture. So - how can you trust any "important" information that you get out of someone who has been tortured.

Which isn't true. Guy attacks me, I kill/disable him, violence is pretty much ended right then and there. People who think violence only begets violence are locked in this "I kill your brother, you kill me, my brother kills you, your son kills my brother, etc., etc." mentality. Its a tunnel vision view of the extreme, and I shouldn't have to point out why that is not a good thing to do.

Did you just skip over what I said right before that quote? It was a clear example of violence begetting violence on an international scale. I can give more.

A Palestinian child watches his father die in a Israeli rocket attack. The child grows up with a hatred for Israelis and at 17 blows himself up in a nightclub.

An Iraqi teenager sees his brother shot by coalition forces in Iraq. A year later the teenager drives a car laced with explosives into an American checkpoint patrol.

So, these are... what exactly? The creations of a left-wing deluded tunnel vision? Or a reality of cycles of violence that are occurring in this world?

These things have happened. And I believe that causality from what I have read. Do you propose an alternative causality?

Yes you do have to point out "why this is not a good thing to do" because it's not really "doing" anything other than noticing reality. Also elliptical statements don't really go well with people who disagree with you. State your arguments, don't assume we get them.

[Glurin]

Although it is just as likely that they will say anything and turn in anyone just to end the torture. So - how can you trust any "important" information that you get out of someone who has been tortured.

Are you seriously suggesting that as soon as a prisoner says "They are going to attack from the east at noon next tuesday." that's the end of it? That our military personnel just send massive amounts of resources to the east on one man, one enemy's say so!?

Boy, I bet that would make police interrogations a lot easier. "He said Roy did it, so we all know Roy is guilty. No need for a trial."

I'm sorry, but the world is a hell of a lot more complex than television makes it out to be. You need more than one man's word, but you often do need his word.

And besides, if he lied, you can use that against him in further interrogations.

Did you just skip over what I said right before that quote? It was a clear example of violence begetting violence on an international scale. I can give more.

Doesn't matter how many examples you think you can give. It doesn't make it true any more than a man dying because of a stuck seat belt proves seat belts are dangerous.

Except when we directly kill tens of thousands of Iraqi's, i'd be the height of stupidity to not realize that in 10 years or more that it could come back and bite us hard. For evidence, please see the whole Iran situation.

You really think vengeance is the motivator behind the Iran situation? That it has nothing to do with the massive religious turmoil that has been going on in that region for thousands of years?

[jschild]

Hmmmm, lets check our history.

CIA operatives help overthrow legit mostly secular government in Iran and have the Shah put into power.

Shah is friends with us, but not so great with his own people.

People are so pissed off for so long at their bad treatment by the Shah that they turn to religious leaders opposing him.

They have their happy religious fueled revolution over in Iran and get rid of the Shah and the Ayatollah is put in power.

They immediately lash out at the country responsible for putting the Shah into power, the US, by taking its people hostage.

Nope, you are right. Our actions in no way whatsoever were reasons for them to not like us or lash out at us.

I guess they just hate our freedoms cause life is that simple.

[surodat]

Yes, jschild, I think you are right. All the arab countries are just religious fanatics, I mean that what I see on the teevee and since it's happening now, that's how it must have been always.

...

Glurin, if you flat out refuse to believe that there is such a thing as vengeance, I don't know what else I can do.

I guess that's why you don't think there's anything wrong with your personal beliefs - they are themselves a vengeful construction.

You never did impart your own thoughts about causality. You just seem to say that we're wrong. I suggest Letters to a Young Contrarian, by Christopher Hitchens (http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Contrarian-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/0465030327).

/wanders off again, and hopes Glurin never holds a position of power

[Glurin]

Oh yes, I forgot. Its all our fault that they have been killing each other for thousands of years. We are responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. If someone is angry, its because we did something to them. Silly me for thinking there could be more to it than that. :rolleyes:

@surodat:

Excuse me, but could you point out exactly where it is that I denied that vengeance occurs? I'll give you a hint. I didn't.

I'm challenging your notion that violence can only breed vengeance. That view is ignorant and narrow minded. Not to mention dangerous. Come back after you learn why tunnel vision is a bad thing and maybe I'll feel like discussing it in more detail.

[jschild]

Oh yes, I forgot. Its all our fault that they have been killing each other for thousands of years. We are responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. If someone is angry, its because we did something to them. Silly me for thinking there could be more to it than that.

You seem intent on missing the point. Actions, for good or bad, have ramifications. That does not mean we always deserve what is thrown at us, but to deny that someone might have reason or motive to want to hurt us, is willful ignorance.

Russians inherently distrusted and disliked us not because of Capitalism vs. Communism but because we invaded Russia and fully supported the Czar vs. the communist uprising. That cemented, at the very start of what would become the USSR, a hate and distrust that would come back to bite us.

As did our actions with the Iranians.

And if you don't understand why so many in the middle east dislike us, with our propping up of tyrants whenever it suits us, turning a blind eye to them murdering thousands of people, supplying both sides in the Iraq/Iran conflict against each other, and supporting Israel even when they step out of line, and you think we share zero blame for their hatred for us? Does that mean it justifies something like 9/11? Hell no, but to claim we are blameless and innocent in the matter is insulting to say the least.

I don't believe in blaming America first (as if anyone really does), but I do believe in accepting blame for our actions and the repercussions of those actions.

[WatcherZero]

Im British and freely admit the Arab-Israeli conflict was initially our fault, we in control of Palestine after the fall of the Ottoman empire during World War 1 gave them some territory to set up a state alongside an arab palestinian state. After WW2 as planned in 1917 Israel was given independance unfortunatley with its neighbours a series of wars were fought with it as both the aggressor and the victim on seperate occasions and it ended up in control of a vast area far exceeding its original League of Nations approved borders and gobbling up the independant palestinian state it was intended to coexist peacefully with.

However since then the US has had a policy of keeping it strong by supplying it billions every year in military aid and vetoing any resoloution which even mentions its name as well as working against a lasting peace in the area meanwhile in response the neighbours turned to the Soviet Union and later Russia for military aid with which to counterbalance Israels strength.

Of course this isnt the only reason the US is hated in the area, the Persian debacle, supplying both sides in a war with weapons so as to prolong it and cause higher casualties (Iran-Iraq War), supplying chemical weapons and targetting information for use against Civilians (Iraq) stationing nuclear missiles in a country to point at the USSR (Turkey). Many policies over the last50 years have collectivley built up to come back as a pain in the ass.

[surodat]

Excuse me, but could you point out exactly where it is that I denied that vengeance occurs? I'll give you a hint. I didn't.

Here.


Which isn't true. Guy attacks me, I kill/disable him, violence is pretty much ended right then and there. People who think violence only begets violence are locked in this "I kill your brother, you kill me, my brother kills you, your son kills my brother, etc., etc." mentality. Its a tunnel vision view of the extreme, and I shouldn't have to point out why that is not a good thing to do.

...

Doesn't matter how many examples you think you can give. It doesn't make it true any more than a man dying because of a stuck seat belt proves seat belts are dangerous.



I also asked for causality, you have yet to articulate an argument. I feel like Michael Palin arguing with John Cleese.


You really think vengeance is the motivator behind the Iran situation? That it has nothing to do with the massive religious turmoil that has been going on in that region for thousands of years?

Saying there has been religious turmoil is not an argument, and barely factual.

Oh yes, I forgot. Its all our fault that they have been killing each other for thousands of years. We are responsible for everything bad that happens in the world. If someone is angry, its because we did something to them. Silly me for thinking there could be more to it than that. :rolleyes:

HOW is it more than that. Make a point!

I'm challenging your notion that violence can only breed vengeance. That view is ignorant and narrow minded. Not to mention dangerous. Come back after you learn why tunnel vision is a bad thing and maybe I'll feel like discussing it in more detail.

HOW are you challenging it? You are just saying no, adding in "only", and saying it's ignorant and narrow-minded.

Explain your ideas, or no one will understand you.

[Glurin]

I want you to read this very, very, carefully.

"Which isn't true. Guy attacks me, I kill/disable him, violence is pretty much ended right then and there. People who think violence only begets violence are locked in this "I kill your brother, you kill me, my brother kills you, your son kills my brother, etc., etc." mentality. Its a tunnel vision view of the extreme, and I shouldn't have to point out why that is not a good thing to do.
.....
Doesn't matter how many examples you think you can give. It doesn't make it true any more than a man dying because of a stuck seat belt proves seat belts are dangerous."



Now I ask you, in the simplest terms that this question could be presented in, WHERE THE **** DOES THAT SAY VENGEANCE DOES NOT HAPPEN?!?!?!?!



I also asked for causality, you have yet to articulate an argument.

You and jschild seem more than eager to just make up my argument for me. I've dropped bits here and there and they've gone completely ignored. You've both shown clear willingness and intention to put words in my mouth, and that tells me there's no point in going much deeper than the surface with you two at this time.

"Empty your cup."

Many policies over the last50 years have collectivley built up to come back as a pain in the ass.

Not all of them being U.S. policies. (The U.N. has its reputation of being angry letter writers for a reason, after all, and its not because of the U.S.) U.S. policies certainly haven't helped matters, and its prominence in world affairs lends it to being an easy scapegoat. But to lay the blame for all the conflict that has happened in the region at the feet of the U.S. ignores deeper issues.

Setting aside the internal conflict for a moment, you might want to look into what Russia's interests in the region would be for starters. I guarantee you that they want more than to simply prevent another U.S. foothold in the area.

[jschild]

Lol, you say we place intent in your words (by reading you actually write), yet you say we said the USA should take all the blame, where not one person said even anything close to that.

[surodat]

I want you to read this very, very, carefully.

I want you to read this very, very, carefully.

Which isn't true.

Guy attacks me, I kill/disable him, violence is pretty much ended right then and there.

People who think violence only begets violence are locked in this "I kill your brother, you kill me, my brother kills you, your son kills my brother, etc., etc." mentality.



Vengeance : Punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense.

In your little universe you created right there, there is no such thing as Vengeance.

You don't say: "Vengeance doesn't happen". But you say that vengeance doesn't happen.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.


You and jschild seem more than eager to just make up my argument for me. I've dropped bits here and there and they've gone completely ignored. You've both shown clear willingness and intention to put words in my mouth, and that tells me there's no point in going much deeper than the surface with you two at this time.

"Empty your cup."


You made absolutely no supported points. I have to assume at this point that you actually have no informed opinions on anything, but that you just take in what ever information is provided and make an uninformed opposition based on strong emotion an understanding of history gleaned from the sidebars of the newspaper.

It seems that even after forcing you to reread your work you cannot understand the simple implications of what you write.

Even in your "explanation" just above on how the US isn't the only country that screwed up the Middle East. (Which I inherently agree with.) You provide no supporting evidence, or even a hint at anything factual besides a wink and a nudge to go look at what the Russians are doing. Yes, of course Russia has an interest in the Middle East. So does China, Canada, Britain, France, Germany... well, to list every Country that uses oil would be a bit excessive.

What of it?

[SithDrummer]

"Which isn't true. Guy attacks me, I kill/disable him, violence is pretty much ended right then and there. People who think violence only begets violence are locked in this "I kill your brother, you kill me, my brother kills you, your son kills my brother, etc., etc." mentality."


WHERE THE **** DOES THAT SAY VENGEANCE DOES NOT HAPPEN?!?!?!?!
This is quite astounding.



So is this:
You and jschild seem more than eager to just make up my argument for me. I've dropped bits here and there and they've gone completely ignored. You've both shown clear willingness and intention to put words in my mouth, and that tells me there's no point in going much deeper than the surface with you two at this time.
So because you admittedly choose not to fully explain your own position and because people have to start assuming where it is you actually stand, you're not going to expound on your position? Do you even have a coherent stance to defend?

[jschild]

This is quite astounding.



So is this:

So because you admittedly choose not to fully explain your own position and because people have to start assuming where it is you actually stand, you're not going to expound on your position? Do you even have a coherent stance to defend?

You haven't seen many of Glurin's post's have you?

Presenting facts and supporting evidence for anything he says is not his strongest point. Passionate in his beliefs but seems to be a big supporter of truthiness.

[TPMdm]

And all this started because I asked why such a big fuss over our Celebrident's inauguration. I'm truly boggled.


PS
For the record I do understand a fuss, and even a big fuss. This just seemed wholly out of proportion.

[waflob]

yep - strange the way threads can pan out :-)

My own personal feeling is that the US folk are setting themselves up for a huge disappointment. One day, it will dawn on them, that he can't walk on water.

Also, I think a lot of the celebrations are due to that idiot Dubya leaving

DelBoy

[det]

And all this started because I asked why such a big fuss over our Celebrident's inauguration. I'm truly boggled.




Anything with religion and politics (especially american politics) will go that way...

[Glurin]

Vengeance : Punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense.

In your little universe you created right there, there is no such thing as Vengeance.

You don't say: "Vengeance doesn't happen". But you say that vengeance doesn't happen.

I don't know how much clearer I can be.

Ah, I see now. You, and SithDrummer, are translating any retaliation at all as vengeance or "punishment". Unfortunately for you, that is exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about. If I'm responding to someone attacking me, it is not because I'm seeking to punish him for his transgression. In fact, vengeance is the furthest thing from my mind at that time.

You made absolutely no supported points. I have to assume at this point that you actually have no informed opinions on anything, but that you just take in what ever information is provided and make an uninformed opposition based on strong emotion an understanding of history gleaned from the sidebars of the newspaper.

This is directed at jschild as well. As I said before, facts are not facts. I actively avoid presenting a shopping list of facts because it presents a false reality. People tend to swallow them whole and not give them time to digest.

My approach is one of interpretation rather than regurgitation. I would rather find out what a fact actually says and what it doesn't say than join in on a monkey **** fight.

Even in your "explanation" just above on how the US isn't the only country that screwed up the Middle East. (Which I inherently agree with.) You provide no supporting evidence, or even a hint at anything factual besides a wink and a nudge to go look at what the Russians are doing. Yes, of course Russia has an interest in the Middle East. So does China, Canada, Britain, France, Germany... well, to list every Country that uses oil would be a bit excessive.

What of it?

So look into it. All I hear all the time is how the U.S. screwed up everything over there. Even when someone grudgingly admits that some other country may have been involved in some way, its always followed by "but U.S. this" and "U.S. that" and "BUSH, BUSH, BUSH!". People may say that they don't blame the U.S. first, but that's rather hard to believe when they take every opportunity to do just that.

So because you admittedly choose not to fully explain your own position and because people have to start assuming where it is you actually stand, you're not going to expound on your position? Do you even have a coherent stance to defend?

Oh my stance is very coherent. Very, very difficult for most people to understand, however, as it doesn't fit into any ready-made category. You have to be willing to listen with an open mind, a truly open mind, or I'd just be wasting my time trying to explain it. I learned early on that most people, even though they think themselves reasonable and logical, have a difficult time understanding logic itself. Therefore its better, and quite a bit easier, to nudge them in the right direction than try to fully explain it all at once.

[jschild]

This is directed at jschild as well. As I said before, facts are not facts. I actively avoid presenting a shopping list of facts because it presents a false reality. People tend to swallow them whole and not give them time to digest.

My approach is one of interpretation rather than regurgitation. I would rather find out what a fact actually says and what it doesn't say than join in on a monkey **** fight.

Except you don't even present facts, then interpret them. You just supply your interpretation. Facts are indeed facts and are information. You seem to avoid them so you can come to your own conclusions fact free - or it is how it appears since you provide no support for the things you say.

So look into it. All I hear all the time is how the U.S. screwed up everything over there. Even when someone grudgingly admits that some other country may have been involved in some way, its always followed by "but U.S. this" and "U.S. that" and "BUSH, BUSH, BUSH!". People may say that they don't blame the U.S. first, but that's rather hard to believe when they take every opportunity to do just that.

Because we are often the country that either initiated it, or the one most responsible. We are the world's sole super-power. If we do something, and get a few countries to go along (re: Iraq War II) who is the most responsible party? Is it the British? The Australians? No. They would not have been there if not for us. The British do deserve blame for their shoving together of 3 different sects of people and not expecting bad things to happen. Understanding and accepting our roles in history are required if we want to stop messing up other countries or help them correctly. Otherwise, we shouldn't be surprised when they stop appreciating our "Liberation".

Oh my stance is very coherent. Very, very difficult for most people to understand, however, as it doesn't fit into any ready-made category. You have to be willing to listen with an open mind, a truly open mind, or I'd just be wasting my time trying to explain it. I learned early on that most people, even though they think themselves reasonable and logical, have a difficult time understanding logic itself. Therefore its better, and quite a bit easier, to nudge them in the right direction than try to fully explain it all at once.

Actually it seems to fit several ready made catagories, does not seem to be well thought out, and is often, as said before, presented without any reasoning, facts, or information. It just is, which is fine, but don't act like its some grand thought process that others just cannot understand. You believe what you believe, and the evidence...well who needs that?

[surodat]

Ah, I see now. You, and SithDrummer, are translating any retaliation at all as vengeance or "punishment". Unfortunately for you, that is exactly the kind of thinking I'm talking about. If I'm responding to someone attacking me, it is not because I'm seeking to punish him for his transgression. In fact, vengeance is the furthest thing from my mind at that time.

Coming up on Round 4 and you still don't get it.

The point was not your action. The point was that you're parable stops after you kill your attacker - as if that's the end of the story and nothing else can possibly come of your actions.

The point that you were trying to make - that there is no such thing as a cycle of violence - was supported by a hypothetical which excludes the possibility of a retaliatory act for your actions.

This is what we're talking about.


This is directed at jschild as well. As I said before, facts are not facts. I actively avoid presenting a shopping list of facts because it presents a false reality. People tend to swallow them whole and not give them time to digest.

My approach is one of interpretation rather than regurgitation. I would rather find out what a fact actually says and what it doesn't say than join in on a monkey **** fight.


That would be fine, except that no two people have the same information at their disposal. There are gaps in my knowledge as well as gaps in yours. A discussion is stimulated by providing information, then allowing differing opinions on that information to be discussed - whether that be concerning the reliability, or implication of that information.


So look into it. All I hear all the time is how the U.S. screwed up everything over there. Even when someone grudgingly admits that some other country may have been involved in some way, its always followed by "but U.S. this" and "U.S. that" and "BUSH, BUSH, BUSH!". People may say that they don't blame the U.S. first, but that's rather hard to believe when they take every opportunity to do just that.


I have looked into it. And those people who are saying that all the time aren't me, so please take that brush away from me.

I ask you: what makes Russia's interest in the region more sinister than anyone else's?


Oh my stance is very coherent. Very, very difficult for most people to understand, however, as it doesn't fit into any ready-made category. You have to be willing to listen with an open mind, a truly open mind, or I'd just be wasting my time trying to explain it. I learned early on that most people, even though they think themselves reasonable and logical, have a difficult time understanding logic itself. Therefore its better, and quite a bit easier, to nudge them in the right direction than try to fully explain it all at once.

You don't have to provide me with a manifesto. We've never asked you for a grand unified theory. We've asked you for specific supporting arguments for your statements.

[TPMdm]

Related to the OP:

CNN is running coverage of "From Lincoln to Obama" supposedly tracking parallels between Abraham Lincoln and Barak Obama. Fine line of discussion, actually. However I saw a segment and the irony of it's title struck me and I thought of this thread (I can't remember the precise name and I can't find it on their website). The segment was something like, "Lincoln: History or Hype?" The segment itself was the tired old argument that Lincoln freed the slaves for less than purely altruistic motives (duh?), and to their credit they did present a balanced perspective (Lincoln was probably as "un-racist" as any man of his generation).

But between the two men, Obama and Lincoln, who the hell has more hype? WTF CNN?

I'm also curious if their "Tracking the First 100 days" coverage will turn into "Tracking the first year in office" then into "Tracking his re-election campaign" (campaigning starts so early now, not Mr. Obama's fault).

Michelle Obama is on the cover of Vogue magazine btw.

(edit)
Geez I sound like I'm media stalking them....I'm not honestly. I'm just very aware of their presence in media. I find myself thinking "Would this coverage have been done this way with any former president I can think of?"

[jschild]

Related to the OP:

CNN is running coverage of "From Lincoln to Obama" supposedly tracking parallels between Abraham Lincoln and Barak Obama. Fine line of discussion, actually. However I saw a segment and the irony of it's title struck me and I thought of this thread (I can't remember the precise name and I can't find it on their website). The segment was something like, "Lincoln: History or Hype?" The segment itself was the tired old argument that Lincoln freed the slaves for less than purely altruistic motives (duh?), and to their credit they did present a balanced perspective (Lincoln was probably as "un-racist" as any man of his generation).

But between the two men, Obama and Lincoln, who the hell has more hype? WTF CNN?

I'm also curious if their "Tracking the First 100 days" coverage will turn into "Tracking the first year in office" then into "Tracking his re-election campaign" (campaigning starts so early now, not Mr. Obama's fault).

Michelle Obama is on the cover of Vogue magazine btw.

(edit)
Geez I sound like I'm media stalking them....I'm not honestly. I'm just very aware of their presence in media. I find myself thinking "Would this coverage have been done this way with any former president I can think of?"

To be fair, they tracked Bush's first 100 days as well, its a well worn tradition of 24 hour news to track the president's first 100 days. Also, if I recall correctly, Mrs. Bush was in Redbook or a similar magazine very early on as well.

Alot of this also has to do with everything going on with the economy and alot has to do with the changeover from Bush.

[Superspam]

"With the exception of Bess Truman, every First Lady since Lou Hoover has been photographed for the fashion magazine. However, Mrs Obama is only the second to make the cover, after Hillary Clinton in 1998.

Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/michelle-obama/4590523/Michelle-Obama-in-Vogue-First-Lady-of-American-fashion.html)

[clevins]

Related to the OP:

CNN is running coverage of "From Lincoln to Obama" supposedly tracking parallels between Abraham Lincoln and Barak Obama. Fine line of discussion, actually. However I saw a segment and the irony of it's title struck me and I thought of this thread (I can't remember the precise name and I can't find it on their website). The segment was something like, "Lincoln: History or Hype?" The segment itself was the tired old argument that Lincoln freed the slaves for less than purely altruistic motives (duh?), and to their credit they did present a balanced perspective (Lincoln was probably as "un-racist" as any man of his generation).

But between the two men, Obama and Lincoln, who the hell has more hype? WTF CNN?
...



Remember that today is the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birth. That, plus Obama's decision to be sworn in on the Lincoln Bible and the obvious race tie-in spark stories like this.

[TPMdm]

"With the exception of Bess Truman, every First Lady since Lou Hoover has been photographed for the fashion magazine. However, Mrs Obama is only the second to make the cover, after Hillary Clinton in 1998.

Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/michelle-obama/4590523/Michelle-Obama-in-Vogue-First-Lady-of-American-fashion.html)

From that same source:
Vogue's editor at large, Andre Leon Talley, interviewed Mrs Obama for the eight-page feature and called it "one of the best experiences of my life".

Really? Really?

@Clevins and jschild
I know about the 100 days coverage, I'll wager 100G that it doesn't stop at 100 days however. I didn't know about Lincoln's Birthday. Still, between the 2 men Barak Obama and Abraham Lincoln, currently (since we can't view news coverage of future events) who's career should best be described as "hype"? Aside from a few executive orders and town hall news conferences what has he done? Has he even signed any legislation (I honestly don't know)?

Like I've said before, he wasn't even my 3rd choice for President, but I don't hate the man. I'm willing to give him the opportunity to prove me wrong before I criticize. I'm getting bothered by the media coverage. Another example from today: Is it really "news" that The President (whoever it may be) is shocked and saddened by a plain crash? I can see putting it in the crawl at the bottom of the screen but the anchor commenting on it?

[clevins]

Your bias is showing. If it was Bush who said he was shocked and saddened and the anchor reported that would it be hype? Of course not. 48 people died, the President will always issue a statement like that and almost always the anchor will mention it using language along the lines of "The President issued a statement saying he was 'shocked and saddened at the tragic loss of life..." You'd be fine with this if it was Bush or McCain, but it's offbase if it's Obama? Hmm....

I don't see your point, actually. Any president gets heavy coverage initially and this one's is heightened by 1) he's the first black man to hold the office, 2) he's a generational shift (see the coverage Clinton got in 92 for the same reason), and 3) he's taking office during the worst recession since at least the early 70s. I'd be more surprised if there wasn't heavy coverage. Will he continue to get coverage past 100 days? Of course. He's the freaking President. During a HUGE economic crisis. What are the news media supposed to do, ignore him?

The Lincoln thing is an obvious tie because of the 200th birthday and the race thing. Obviously you can't compare accomplishments as one has been history for a long time while the other isn't even a month into his first term. It's just a hook for news people to use.

Turn off Faux News, CNN etc if it annoys you. There are plenty of ways to staty informed without watching TV news.

[elsegundo]

From that same source:
Vogue's editor at large, Andre Leon Talley, interviewed Mrs Obama for the eight-page feature and called it "one of the best experiences of my life".

Really? Really?

@Clevins and jschild
I know about the 100 days coverage, I'll wager 100G that it doesn't stop at 100 days however. I didn't know about Lincoln's Birthday. Still, between the 2 men Barak Obama and Abraham Lincoln, currently (since we can't view news coverage of future events) who's career should best be described as "hype"? Aside from a few executive orders and town hall news conferences what has he done? Has he even signed any legislation (I honestly don't know)?

Like I've said before, he wasn't even my 3rd choice for President, but I don't hate the man. I'm willing to give him the opportunity to prove me wrong before I criticize. I'm getting bothered by the media coverage. Another example from today: Is it really "news" that The President (whoever it may be) is shocked and saddened by a plain crash? I can see putting it in the crawl at the bottom of the screen but the anchor commenting on it?

i think obama news is quite refreshing lately now that Chris Brown is all over the news.

[TPMdm]

Your bias is showing. If it was Bush who said he was shocked and saddened and the anchor reported that would it be hype? Of course not. 48 people died, the President will always issue a statement like that and almost always the anchor will mention it using language along the lines of "The President issued a statement saying he was 'shocked and saddened at the tragic loss of life..." You'd be fine with this if it was Bush or McCain, but it's offbase if it's Obama? Hmm....

I'd like to think I'd be just as bothered by it if it was "my guy". But you are making my point. Who the hell isn't shocked and saddened by the deaths of 49 people (they upped the count by 1 btw, an off duty pilot). Yes the president (whoever it is) issues a statement whenever something like this happens, it's nice to be told that in a news crawl or maybe and anchor mentioning it, but reading his statement of sadness? That isn't really "news" and I don't recall an instance of being told Bush was shocked and saddened in the same way.... I know I would have had the same reaction, "This is News?!?!?!" Perhaps my bias is "showing" because I'm not shy about it :grin:

I don't see your point, actually. Any president gets heavy coverage initially and this one's is heightened by 1) he's the first black man to hold the office, 2) he's a generational shift (see the coverage Clinton got in 92 for the same reason), and 3) he's taking office during the worst recession since at least the early 70s. I'd be more surprised if there wasn't heavy coverage. Will he continue to get coverage past 100 days? Of course. He's the freaking President. During a HUGE economic crisis. What are the news media supposed to do, ignore him?

Indeed, that was part of my initial post "Is it just me or is President Obama getting an undue amount of coverage". Apparently it IS just me and everybody is fine with this?

The Lincoln thing is an obvious tie because of the 200th birthday and the race thing. Obviously you can't compare accomplishments as one has been history for a long time while the other isn't even a month into his first term. It's just a hook for news people to use.


I agree again. Lincoln and Obama present interesting options for comparing and contrasting I'm not arguing that generally. It was the specifics of one segment. Again, whose career at this point, should be classified as hype?

Turn off Faux News, CNN etc if it annoys you. There are plenty of ways to staty informed without watching TV news.

This is breakroom viewing for the most part which is part of my point as well. I'm guessing I watch less than 30 minutes of CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/C-span on any given day. Either I'm overly sensitive to this or there is a ton of Obama coverage. Since the only person agreeing with me derailed this discussion to such a HUGE degree it wasn't even recognizable..... it is probably just me.

[jschild]

I'd like to think I'd be just as bothered by it if it was "my guy". But you are making my point. Who the hell isn't shocked and saddened by the deaths of 49 people (they upped the count by 1 btw, an off duty pilot). Yes the president (whoever it is) issues a statement whenever something like this happens, it's nice to be told that in a news crawl or maybe and anchor mentioning it, but reading his statement of sadness? That isn't really "news" and I don't recall an instance of being told Bush was shocked and saddened in the same way.... I know I would have had the same reaction, "This is News?!?!?!" Perhaps my bias is "showing" because I'm not shy about it


I know I saw on the news several times Bush speaking out after an accident of this sort, and to be fair, Obama was there to do something else and just spoke about it before doing what he was there for.

Indeed, that was part of my initial post "Is it just me or is President Obama getting an undue amount of coverage". Apparently it IS just me and everybody is fine with this?

While Obama is getting more coverage than average, it's not solely because of Obama himself. Beyond him being black we also have easily the 2nd worst economic crisis in US history to deal with, major troubles overseas with multiple nations, and Obama is trying to be actively engaged in them (we'll have to wait to see how effective he is). He seems to be aware of these issues as opposed to Bush who was shocked when a reporter brought up the spector of $4 gas (which it hit less than 2 months later I believe) or his adament refusal to admit we were likely heading into a recession until well after everyone had pretty much agreed we were in one. These are serious times and any president that seemed engaged and willing to speak about the issue with the press will get alot of air time.

As with all things, the press will soon focus on something else, since they appear to have a short attention span and we will get sick of hearing them talk about the NEXT BIG THING, whatever it is.

[clevins]

But your bias is coloring your perception of reality too much. In a 24x7 news cycle, yes a presidential statement about a plane crash is going to get some play. It would have with McCain, Bush, etc too. Yet you would not be posting "This is news???" in those cases. Bias is one thing - hypocrisy is another.

jschild makes the other point well - this isn't the typical first 100 days for a president. A LOT is going on in the world. Any president would have had to deal with this and would thus be getting a lot of press for what they were doing.

You seem desperate to classify Obama as hype - why don't you let him accomplish something (or not) and see where we are in a year or two or 4? No one is saying he's as great a president as Lincoln or even that he's a great president. He's 3 weeks in!! In other words, let's all sit down, shut up and see what happens.

[Shellar]

http://d3gkbha1s7sr56.cloudfront.net/someecards/filestorage/soto_927.jpg

[everytimeidie]

Hahaha, I love it.

[surodat]

This is breakroom viewing for the most part which is part of my point as well. I'm guessing I watch less than 30 minutes of CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/C-span on any given day. Either I'm overly sensitive to this or there is a ton of Obama coverage. Since the only person agreeing with me derailed this discussion to such a HUGE degree it wasn't even recognizable..... it is probably just me.

Well, TPM, I have to jump to your defense... sort of, since you're getting down on yourself and finding yourself in Glurin's company.

There is a big difference in the coverage that Obama is getting compared to previous presidents, yet I don't think that you're entirely correct in attributing the cause.

Personally, my opinion as to why you see Obama everywhere has nothing to do with the political inclinations of the networks or newsworthiness of the stories.

The 24 hour news networks that launched in the mid 90s have gradually changed the way our news is delivered. Because of the nature of the beast, the focus is on who obtained something first, rather that who is consistently correct. On who can consistently pull the most numbers, rather than who has the most in-depth reports. On who can provide the most information in a short amount of time rather than providing the most important information.

Watching a 24 hour news network is like watching a Kindergarten student with ADD during free play. They wander from one area to another picking up every toy and playing with it for a couple minutes before seeing something else and running to play with that.

Obama is just the shiniest toy in the room right now because (in their own thinking):

1. People are interested in him, so therefore any banality about him will get people to watch, and increase the ratings.
2. He is somewhat historical in his presidency, so "in depth" reporters can make pieces about him to try to justify the banality of the regular coverage.
3. He is charismatic and engaging, making him a great performer. If they make reference to performance, they can criticize it along the same lines.
4. The American Cult of Celebrity. Once consigned to the pages of tabloid rags and newspaper pages labeled "gossip", the cult of celebrity has found its way onto the screens of the cable news shows. Who are those people that I see all the time, but have never met? We'll tell you all about them! Obama's just another target.

So, he works as a political story, a celebrity story, a special interest story, an overcoming adversity story, a family story, a "did-you-know" story...

In the reverse Orwellian world, Big Brother doesn't watch you, you watch Big Brother. (see Amusing Ourselves to Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death) by Neil Postman)

[TPMdm]

But your bias is coloring your perception of reality too much. In a 24x7 news cycle, yes a presidential statement about a plane crash is going to get some play. It would have with McCain, Bush, etc too. Yet you would not be posting "This is news???" in those cases. Bias is one thing - hypocrisy is another.

You are right my bias is what prompted me to post, but it doesn't make my point wrong. If Bush or an alternate reality President McCain was getting the same press treatment it wouldn't be me making the post, I'd like to think somebody would.

jschild makes the other point well - this isn't the typical first 100 days for a president. A LOT is going on in the world. Any president would have had to deal with this and would thus be getting a lot of press for what they were doing.

No doubt, these are troubling times of historic proportions. I like to think I support my president regardless of his political affiliations. If he does a good job we all have a better life. I don't wish him failure.

You seem desperate to classify Obama as hype - why don't you let him accomplish something (or not) and see where we are in a year or two or 4?

I'm actually classifying the coverage of him as hype. I'm all for letting him do his job (or not). I currently hold him quote blameless in all of this mania.

No one is saying he's as great a president as Lincoln or even that he's a great president. He's 3 weeks in!! In other words, let's all sit down, shut up and see what happens.
Amen Brother, you summed up my point quite nicely :grin:

@Surodat
Thanks for jumping to my defense...sort of :)
Thanks for also vindicating at least a little of my perception of the media hype/main surrounding this President. I certainly will consider more closely the modern 24/7 news cycle and personality driven consumption of news over the liberal media bias.

[jschild]

TPMdm: If you don't ever watch The Daily Show you should. They regularly mock all the 24hr news channels for their over-hyping everything. That and talking for hours on ends about something that has happened but no info is known about it yet. With wonderful phrases like "Well, we don't know exactly what has happened but lets speculate....."

They have the most wonderful montages of Cable News making fools of themselves.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189139&title=Who-the-F@#k-Is-That-Guy?---Political-Experts

and....

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=87155&title=News-I'd-Like-to-F@#k

Edit..... This is the one I was looking for...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=113566&title=Headlines---Breaking-News

[Glurin]

I've made it a point to pay close attention to the 24 hour news networks for a while now, just to see for myself what bias is and is not there. They've been hyping Obama since he was first mentioned in an interview with Oprah. MSNBC was the worst by far. Hour after hour, month after month of "Will he run?" "Will he run?" "Will he run?". I didn't see the interview itself though. I saw the news story they did on the interview the day after. And the day after that. And the day after that.

You could have gotten an actual donkey elected with that much favorable coverage, not just someone who's party uses it as a symbol.

The over hyping thing isn't limited to politics though. There's all sorts of stories they stick with for months at a time that are barely even worth mentioning IMO. At least politics have a real effect on the world. A story about a celebrity getting a DUI is about as useful as a broken foot.

[surodat]

@Surodat
Thanks for jumping to my defense...sort of :)
Thanks for also vindicating at least a little of my perception of the media hype/main surrounding this President. I certainly will consider more closely the modern 24/7 news cycle and personality driven consumption of news over the liberal media bias.

Well, we can't always disagree on everything. :D

Although, again, I would strongly recommend reading Amusing Ourselves to Death if you haven't read it yet. It was one of the books a few years back that challenged my perception of what it is to be literate.

It clearly contrasts public discourse of print and television and it can be argued that it is the touchstone for some branches of modern media criticism.

You could probably pick it up at any used book store for a couple bucks. Even new it's only about 10 dollars.

The over hyping thing isn't limited to politics though. There's all sorts of stories they stick with for months at a time that are barely even worth mentioning IMO. At least politics have a real effect on the world. A story about a celebrity getting a DUI is about as useful as a broken foot.

Thanks for agreeing with my point Glurin.

[TPMdm]

I'm aware of the daily show, haven't really watched it and sadly my flash blocker is being a dunce even when I tell it to show flash from that site...

@surodat
Challenged your perception of what it is to be literate? That is a strong statement. I'll have to give it a look (Checked out the Wiki on it, very interesting). I wonder what Postman would think if me wiki'ing his book :)

[surodat]

@surodat
Challenged your perception of what it is to be literate? That is a strong statement.

I read this book at the point in my life that I was "learning to read". Although I've have been able to read since I was four or five - from my current perspective I wasn't actually literate until a few years ago. This book was one of several that helped illuminate for me the purpose of the written word and my own relationship with it.

I'll have to give it a look (Checked out the Wiki on it, very interesting). I wonder what Postman would think if me wiki'ing his book :)

I don't think he'd disapprove of wiki. He'd just try to make everyone aware of the dangers of such an enterprise. He was a strong believer that every technological advancement is a double-edged sword - every time something new is created, something old is destroyed - our goal should always be that the new must retain the most valuable parts of the old it destroys.

He has a quote to that effect somewhere, about how the printing press essentially destroyed classical poetry as a popular art form, but gave rise to long form prose.

edit: In doing a quick search for that quote, I came across the one that serves this topic much better. Here he is contrasting the two Dystopias presented in Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.

Orwell feared those who would deprive us information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.

Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy

[Glurin]

Thanks for agreeing with my point Glurin.

Well, not really. I don't completely agree with the reasons you gave for them to hype a story so much. The things that are not related to politics in any way can be chalked up to wanting to be the first to report it easily enough. However, I've seen enough to recognize that when it comes to politics, there is definitely some deeper motivation behind what they report and how. What I can't say for certain is exactly what that motivation is. Journalists subconsciously letting their opinions color their reports, group think, something more sinister, I don't know. But there is absolutely no doubt that it is there.

Nice job on those quotes by the way. They certainly peaked my interest in that book.