Whatever. You clowns are going to hate Obama no matter what he says or does.
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 08:40 PM
#
feedback.pdxradio.com
Portland radio, the world & beyond
feedback.pdxradio.com » Politics and other things
Obama the liar!
(82 posts)-
-
I'm sure you know this, but Lord DUHbya could do no wrong according to his minions. They STILL bow to him even when he outright lies to this day.
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 08:41 PM # -
"Whatever. You clowns are going to hate Obama no matter what he says or does."
I don't hate Obama. Just his politics and everything he stands for. In those instances, you are correct.
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 08:50 PM # -
That would be why I didn't like what DUHbya and Co. did to America. Your seeing the after effects as we speak...
If DUHbya lived next door to me I would have him over for dinner but I don't want him anywhere around politics PERIOD!Posted on January 6, 2010 - 08:53 PM # -
I feel exactly the same way about Obama.
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 08:55 PM # -
But DUHbya and Co. got 8 years to F up America. Your not even willing to give Obama and Co. 14 months to try and correct what they F'd up....
That makes no sense coming from a man of God.... Or am I wrong?
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 08:57 PM # -
To me it doesn't matter how long he's had or will have.
I just don't like the way he's leading us into socialism and I don't agree with any of his politics.
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 09:01 PM # -
I didn't like the way DUHbya was leading us into Fascism and recession but I stuck it out... You'll be okay... It's only 4 or 8 years...
Grab a seat and hang on for the ride. DUHbya sent us catapulting into a brick wall and you said nothing... Get ready for this ride brother cause it's gonna be fun....Posted on January 6, 2010 - 09:16 PM # -
Skybill: I'm sure you know this, but Lord Obama can do no wrong according to his minions. They will bow to him even when he outright lies.
You mean like you kissed Lord Reagan's feet when he broke most of his campaign promises and lied to you?
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 09:21 PM # -
Teletype: Exactly! Just grin and carry on. When you hear that bitching, without also hearing the solution, people to support, calls to action, and other similar things, it's just partisan, "dammit, my guy lost and it sucks" bitching. Useless.
What's great is during the Bush Presidency we heard, "respect him!", "deference!", and a load of other crap all surrounding the idea that we need to back Bush 100 percent. Well, we tried, and people died.
The few things Bush got right were recognized, and throughout his Presidency, the "bitching" was always followed by good alternative ideas and policy support advocacy.
What do we see now?
"Don't fuck with Limbaugh, because he's... well, he's Limbaugh dammit!" "Hope Obama fails" "The great one", etc...
Chaps their ass that he won, and won so big as to just nail it. No question kind of nail it, while their guy was selected, not elected the first time, and his "win" was highly debatable the second time, coming down to not all that many votes, and on questionable machines too.
What I find even more humorous is most of us are saying, "go ahead and bitch, but just support it".
Hell, I'm bitching! I think Obama is taking the Clinton path, and that's the wrong damn path to recovery.
We do it that way on this side of the asile, where they just don't. Either tow the line, or get out. Hardly a Democracy, and from the evidence left us, completely ineffective at governance.
Skybill, I know you really, really want to believe Obama supporters think he can do no wrong. That's absolutely not true at all. The party is split along corporate lines, and abortion, usually corporate = pro-life, populist = pro-choice.
Obama is a good President, but he needs some pressure from the ranks for his own good, and as leverage over Congress. Not only that, but he's bent over backward to do "bi-partisan" work, to make the most of everybody's representation, and the GOP just said, "fuck you" and refuses to do anything, and that's a huge problem, in that they are actually making it difficult to come to legislation that would work, by empowering asses like Lieberman.
Then they are going to try and come back and bitch about how bad it was?
LOL!!!
I don't think the majority of people are going to play that kind of rope a dope this time.
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 09:51 PM # -
Skybill, I know you really, really want to believe Obama supporters think he can do no wrong. That's absolutely not true at all.
He just doesn't want to believe it because he and the MILLIONS of minions were lock-step with DUHbya right down the drain... It pisses them off that the last 2 R's in the White House have been disappointments to America and the world...
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 10:16 PM # -
Seriously, I believe a lot of this is about exactly that.
The one thing the GOP, in general, does not want to see is an alternative to their economic ideas, sold to us by Reagan, invalidated.
They are failed ideas, and all it's gonna take is one piece of actually Progressive legislation (and I mean that not as done by Progressive caucus, but actually Progressive in nature) to show how and why "trickle down" doesn't work, and all that comes from it, like "free markets" don't work either.
That is what all the slander and childish "no" stuff is about.
Their end game only leads to power, if:
Dems hose it up, without showing cause (Progressives are beginning to grok how this works, refusing to own bad legislation, so they can build the movement)
There is some horrible event that can serve as a distraction, (validating their fear based agenda).
If the GOP actually was to step up and present real solutions to real problems, they would invalidate themselves!
Right now, that means they are completely useless, and as such, part of the problem.
It's one thing, if they had some legislative success to build on, so that they could say they are better than Democrats are, but they don't. They've got the most cost, the most risk, the most failures, and all the negative, regressive social issues.
Go ahead, ask! Just ask, "what would you do that Bush didn't?", and you will get nothing, because going down that road marginalizes the party!
(and that's what they get for going all in to support criminals and social regressives in the first place)
Posted on January 6, 2010 - 10:22 PM # -
Bush campaigned on privatizing Social Security. So he lied, unless you are holding Obama to a different standard than Bush.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 12:26 PM # -
Obama promised certain actions that his administration would take that are within his control. Those were change and transparency.
Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, but couldn't get others to go along with his wishes.
Vitalogy, I know this stuff goes past you kind of fast, and it's hard for you to grasp the difference, but take your time and give it some thought. It'll come to you with some time.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 12:40 PM # -
Bush said he would fire anyone who was responsible for outing Valerie Plame. Where was your outrage with that whopper of a lie Deane?
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 12:43 PM # -
"Bush said he would fire anyone who was responsible for outing Valerie Plame. Where was your outrage with that whopper of a lie Deane?"
And just who outed her? My understanding is that it was her husband.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 01:14 PM # -
-
And just who outed her? My understanding is that it was her husband.
Actually it was Libby, Rove and Armitage that revealed her to the press.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 02:54 PM # -
I actually see some similarities between Obama and the health care/transparency and Bush's privatizing social security.
I believe that both were honest in wanting to do what they campaigned for, and I don't think that either one "lied" on the promise.
I also believe that Congress acted in their own interests to trump some of those campaign promises of Obama and Bush.
As Missing states, the progressives could actually move things along where we the people like, but the progressives are sadly outnumbered by the partisan hacks on both sides. It isn't just the GOP hacks, it's the Pelosis and Reids too, that are just as guilty of the bickering and fingerpointing without getting anything done.
Maybe a few of the old-school Democrats retiring, and some fresh young blood, is a good thing. Whether it be GOP or Democratic fresh young blood, as long as they listen to the people and not the lobbyists and special interests, they could make a difference.
I know, a pipe dream.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 03:33 PM # -
There is a changing of the guard coming, and I think we are in it right now, maybe at the beginning.
I think how it's going to go is a shift.. All about the money types, corporate, vs progressives, with social issues continuing to be the wedge. Left -vs- right is going to be blurred somewhat, and this health care reform debate has really clarified that.
We've got the cube in play. I think that model is within striking range, in that the axis are real.
The shift is in the prominence of them, and with that will come a change in the lexicon that I'm already seeing, and the party struggles that are going on with both parties. And check out Steele! He said either leave me be to get things done, or tell me to STFU! They told him to STFU!
Republicans have a strong pro big business, pro wealthy core, and they have a socially regressive core, and those are clashing! 23 percenters are well aligned on social issues, but nobody else cares. Economically, they are very individualistic, but not populist at all, and that makes them ineffective. Government doesn't work, when the core idea is government doesn't work.
I'm beginning to think the 23 percenters might win the day. That's where the core strength is, and those people have no-where to go. Economically, many of them struggle with the Reagan realities, where "trickle down" just doesn't. They may well end up with the corporate power base diminished, seeing more populist, but socially regressive "proper" people come on strong.
The Dems have a split right down the pro-Reagan / anti-Reagan lines, but are unified socially, for the most part. So that's the Progressive -vs- Older School, Clinton type Democrats facing off. Corporations have a good grip on both parties, but anger is growing.
Progressives are going to continue to grow, and capture more and more of the party, eventually seeing significant leadership positions. Maybe even offer up a President. (They latched onto Obama and helped get him elected huge, but he doesn't come from the movement, and that's clear right now too)
With that growth, corporations grip might slip some on the Democratic side, with maybe Independents taking up the slack. Will be interesting to see what happens there.
What will the Republicans do, particularly when their "Progressives" start to grow, as they surely will? The ongoing need for better, populist policy will drive that, unless some miracle happens, or some very ugly event...
Will we see a truce, kind of like the one that exists now, where the powerful corporations and wealthy tolerate the social gaffes, in exchange for growing their empires? Or... will we see a growing body of people, who all want "Progressive" (in quotes to express the direction, not the movement) legislation, "deal" with one another in a similar fashion, perhaps trading womens rights, or privacy, or other things, for a more reasonable economic balance?
Or, will we be split by something else, leaving the traditional lines of battle intact, rendering populist movements largely ineffective as they are now, limited to indirect influence at best?
So, maybe not a pipe dream. Shifts are occurring, and in new ways. I think we are going to live through some very interesting times. The economic pressures are NOT going away anytime soon. We've done the damage, and are out of bubbles to float, or if we have them, the world doesn't want them to pop, because they take some of the hit too!
I doubt an ongoing and consistent reduction in standard of living will be acceptable either. Nobody wants that.
War? (I worry about this, because that can often mask other problems, and is very profitable)
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 07:30 PM # -
Interesting observations Missing. I think there is little doubt we're going to see changes in Washington, but they'll be slow and subtle. The 2010 election will see a beginning.
People are fed up with what the Republicans did with their turn at bat, and now a great number of people are fed up with the Democrats over the handling of the health care bill. They're also fed up with the economy, a situation where they have seen billions and billions spent and little to show for it that is within their focus.
Missing, you have a complicated mind on this subject and spend a lot of time observing what is going on. The masses do not. They react to what they see on cable news, and they don't like it. They were promised change and they don't see it happening.
All of this is going to make an interesting campaign season this year.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 07:41 PM # -
"They're also fed up with the economy, a situation where they have seen billions and billions spent and little to show for it that is within their focus."
The thing is, it's going to take a number of years (yes YEARS) for the billions being spent now to bear fruit. FDR was elected in 1932 with the New Deal and he didn't waste any time implementing Alphabet Soup and all those social and work programs, at great cost, and it took a few years for the economy to start turning, and we weren't truly out of the recession until 1940-1941 with the kickstart of our war machine first for Lend-Lease, then for our own effort.
We just need to be a bit patient. The problem is, the American voter isn't know for its patience.
"Missing, you have a complicated mind on this subject and spend a lot of time observing what is going on. The masses do not. They react to what they see on cable news, and they don't like it. They were promised change and they don't see it happening."
And this can be good AND bad. Bad for people like Dodd and Reid, who IMHO are a big part of the problem, but at the same time bad for America because it could push out good progressive folks in Congress who get wrapped up in the backlash from the public that things aren't happening fast enough.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 08:33 PM # -
Yeah, I think that's a distinct possibility Brian. Not happy to see that potentially becoming a trend.
On the other hand...
If Progressive minded people can organize, there might be a fair number of openings there for the taking!
Deane, one variable in all of this that I continue to struggle to understand is the Internet. We have a lot more people engaging in a lot more dialog! We saw the potential impact of that in the Obama campaign, where it's clear that Internet politics has an impact now, where it didn't in say 2000. 2004 was debatable, but to me significant as that time was kind of a break through time for a lot of new media political things. Bush taking a second term motivated a lot of people, and there were groups well organized enough to leverage that.
I myself became aware and involved at that level, about that time. Took about 3 years to figure out my own politics and get a great grasp of the dynamics. Clearly that education continues...
Another is "new media". Technically, I still mean Internet, but not completely. Podcasts, streaming audio, video, often combined with actual broadcast efforts these days, all are having a growing and significant impact. I'm meeting more and more ordinary people, who consume these things in a surprising number of ways.
Finally, the news cycle is short, short! It's getting more and more difficult to just blow garbage through. The up and coming generations will often tune out and talk among themselves when deciding who and what to align with.
Generally, these things are advantage to the people. And that's why we see ongoing and regular attacks on Net Neutrality. Where things are monetized, there is control and the control rests with those that have the money, and we see the same old, same old.
Brian, as for "fast enough", I'm not sure that's the core problem. The core problem is direction.
We've not yet reached a change in norms that comes from acceptance that it just does not "trickle down" and that "free markets" are not some magic force for good.
Part of the problem then is direction. We got a Stimulus that was perhaps a third of the size needed, spread out over a very long time, and that was composed of half tax cuts!
The product of that was tepid, as in enough to prevent mass trouble and rioting in the streets, but not enough to make the case for progressive solutions to things. This was by design, and the desire of the financial industry to cover it's bet with the sweat off our backs, and the value in our savings...
That kind of thing is getting noticed.
Bank bill is the same way. Tepid. It will do some good, but the delay tactics allow the banks to really gouge people solid, then "reform" starts from there. Nice. It's a lot like a sale at Krogers! Mark it up double, then a little more just because of the neon, then brag big about a 40 percent off sale!
That's how the health care thing is shaping up, and it's not pretty at all. Many of the provisions are so clever, I'm amazed actually. It's as if the best word smiths, and the bought off politicans and private insurers all did lunch, coming out with this difficult to frame, easy to spin as reform, mess that doesn't really make a meaningful impact.
The hook is that a lot of people will be insured. The toxic part is the lack of serious competition based cost controls, and this damn excise tax, where plans will get diluted every year "to save costs" by distributing cost and risk onto us annually to avoid the tax. Lovely, and I would like to kick the shit outta the fucker that thought that up.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 09:50 PM # -
A realization I thought I would share:
A lie is differentiated from an error or gaffe by intent; namely, with said intent to disceive.
What that means here is that, until we know WHY, we cannot assert a lie has occurred. I'm open to it being flat out a lie, but I'm also open to the idea that we just don't know why we are seeing what we are seeing.
Just thought I would explain my earlier post where somebody else called "semantics". No. Really, it's just accurate.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 11:36 PM # -
A lie is differentiated from an error or gaffe by intent; namely, with said intent to disceive.
What that means here is that, until we know WHY, we cannot assert a lie has occurred.
On the other hand, if someone makes a statement without bothering to check if its factual, then he has made a lie. They have to come out and stay up front that they're guessing, even if its just a little bit. You're either pregnant or you're not.
Posted on January 7, 2010 - 11:44 PM # -
If somebody makes a statement without checking, what's the intent?
lie{2} vi. lied, ly'ing 1. a) to make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive b) to make such statements habitually 2. to give a false impression; deceive one [statistics can lie] vt. to bring, put, accomplish, etc. by lying [to lie oneself into office] n. 1. a false statement or action, esp. one made with intent to deceive 2. anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression 3. the charge of lying --give the lie to 1. to charge with telling a lie 2. to prove to be false; belie --lie in one's throat (or teeth) to tell a foul or outrageous lieThat looks like it could be a gaffe to me
Main Entry: gaffe Pronunciation: \ˈgaf\ Function: noun Etymology: French, gaff, gaffe Date: 1909 1 : a social or diplomatic blunder 2 : a noticeable mistakeYou have to meet the burden "intent to deceive" for it to be a lie. Your statement: "if someone makes a statement without bothering to check if its factual." Does not contain that element of intent; therefore, no assertion of there being a lie is proper.
It could be a lie, likely is, but it is a gaffe actually to declare it a lie, without discovering the intent with any real clarity.
Secondly, there is a negative, or bad connotation associated with lies. The degree of that connotation is linked to the intent, diminishing all the way to gaffe, if there really isn't any malicious intent.
If you want the negative connotation to have any credence at all, then the element of intent needs to be solid.
We have a lot of basic words for these things. It's well worth exploring them to understand the little distinctions people make, and why they make them.
Posted on January 8, 2010 - 09:14 AM # -
So then, does this statement...
"if someone makes a statement without bothering to check if its factual, then he has made a lie. They have to come out and stay up front that they're guessing, even if its just a little bit."
...contain an element of deception?
I don't see one stated. There is one implied, in that one should always check to see whether or not a statement is factual, but no direct element of deception is there.
Why didn't they check?
Not possible to check? , Ignorance?, Incomptence?, Deception by another? (person being a fool accepting successful lies from another), what?
That's why it's not really proper to declare lie, particularly with the negative connotation so often associated with it.
Usually, when confronted with a statement like that, we associate a burden with it, as in we need facts to understand what it means. If one were to declare "lie" on that basis, they would have the burden of intent, or suffer loss of credence themselves.
Noun Singular credence Plural uncountable credence (uncountable) 1. Acceptance of a belief or claim as true, especially on the basis of evidence. Based on the scientific data, I give credence to this hypothesis. 2. (rare) Credential or supporting material for a person or claim. He presented us with a letter of credence. 3. (religion) A small table or credenza used in certain Christian religious services. Verb to credence (third-person singular simple present credences, present participle credencing, simple past and past participle credenced) 1. (obsolete) To give credence to; to believe.Note the third definition, one I have always found very interesting. A device can be used to establish credence. The table in a religious context is the old form, but we have badges, insignia and other devices today that lend credence to a body, person, or thing. One outstanding example of this is Budweiser Beer.
The label has devices of various kinds to lend credence to the brew, as in "it's a good brew". Brilliant use of old world culture association to convey some extra stature to what is otherwise a rather ordinary beer.
Posted on January 8, 2010 - 09:29 AM # -
So then, we have to come full circle around to Obama and this "open government pledge" he made during his campaign.
We know it's not possible at that time to fully vet the statement. The discussion then surrounds intent. Did he know it was not possible to vet? I think that's absolutely true. Does that show intent to decieve?
Seems to me, it all about whether or not he actually intends to open things up, doesn't it? There have been some openings of things, denied us by the last administration. And we've not seen the full term yet, perhaps opening things is difficult.
If there is a lie there, it's not very negative as there just isn't that strong of intent statement to be made, as we are not yet in a position to see facts which would clarify it.
The point I am making here, and I know it's painful, is that anyone declaring "LIAR!" has very low credence given these things. That statement may be true, but the "may be" seriously diminishes it's weight, and on that basis should be largely ignored until such time as more facts are in.
Anyone else want to play word games
BTW: You won't find "credence" and "gaffe" used in language very much. That should tell you something about the weight of many of the stuff we consume.
Posted on January 8, 2010 - 09:45 AM # -
How about saying his statements of transparency were naive and delusional?
Is that better?
Posted on January 8, 2010 - 10:33 AM # -
I would go with naive way more than lie. Delusional has a burden that speaks to his general mental state being not solid. That's a tough one. The guy is sharp, and rational.
Naive is on the table with me at least, and I don't think that's a bad thing either.
And make no mistake, I'm not a happy Obama camper on economic matters, and his position on health care so far is just annoying. We need more from him.
On the other hand, his most recent speech on how we don't let "little" terrorists define us is excellent!! I'm 100 percent there, and that's real leadership in that FINALLY, we have a President who won't validate these guys and cultivate fear about them. Good. A+
On a macro scale, I don't see any intent to fuck us over, and an awful lot of the negative commentary implies just that, and it's BS.
Some will call me on "parsing", and they would be right too. However, when there is regular abuse of the language, I don't see an option, but to make that the subject and get the air cleared, so that's what I did.
Posted on January 8, 2010 - 10:42 AM # -
I think because of the internet and the thousands of blogs availiable it is very tough to be transparent. You can't get much done when you have everyone on the planet kibitzing on your every step in real time. Nsive works for me. I don't think you'll see transparency from any White House in the future.
Posted on January 8, 2010 - 10:47 AM # -
" You won't find "credence" and "gaffe" used in language very much."
I use the word "Credence" every time I speak of my favorite all time band and quite possibly the most perfect band that has ever been!!! (IMHO, of course!)
Posted on January 8, 2010 - 11:02 AM #
Reply
You must log in to post.