Obamamania

Bill's forum was the first! All subjects are welcome. Participation by all encouraged.

Moderator: Available

fivedragons
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am

Post by fivedragons »

Posted by Bill: " Hmm... Somebody just pulled the rug right out from under your argument."

Nope. :lol: I didn't posit an argument, just a re-frame.

Bill: "There's a difference in having hope and making hope your campaign mantra. "

The difference is, one sustains you, while the other gets you elected. I guess people were receptive. Maybe they were tired of the other mantra.

Bill: "This is a classic argument discussed in Econ 101."

I would never take a class called Econ 101. Do they have a skull and crossbones over the classroom door and the phrase "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"?

They probably should, considering how many colleges and universities there are and how many students have studied economics over the short history of this country.

You'd think they would have figured it out by now.

Maybe there's a little more to this picture.

Image

Edit: Wow, such a beautiful thing. Our home, and mother of life. Glorious beyond words. :cry:
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

fivedragons wrote:
I would never take a class called Econ 101.
You would never open your mind to a basic college course in economics?* And you want to argue politics?

I would never replace knowledge with hope. The former implies a desire to take control of one's life. The latter implies a wish for forces outside one's life to be the source of good fortune. That's my point all along. You just helped me make it yet another way.

- Bill

* For what it's worth, "Econ 101" is a metaphor. I've had many courses in economics, but couldn't tell you what the names of the courses were. But The law of diminishing returns is something that every student learns early on. It applies in many places in life. For example...
  • One pill makes Johnny better. Will two pills make Johnny better twice as fast?
  • Five sets of squats in a session makes my legs stronger. Will ten sets improve my leg strength twice as much?
User avatar
f.Channell
Posts: 3541
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Valhalla

Post by f.Channell »

The opposite of hope is pessimism by the way.
The old cup is half empty or full thing.
And economics 101 was boring. Hope I never do that again. :lol:
George W had plenty of supporters, Limbaugh etc... it will be interesting to see if he is held as a great protector against terror, or a guy who drove the economy into the toilet.
Give it 20 years.
As I've stated on previous threads, every President since Reagan has probably made changes putting this decline in motion.
f.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
fivedragons
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am

Post by fivedragons »

Bill: "You would never open your mind to a basic college course in economics?* And you want to argue politics?"

Why would I? Doesn't interest me.

I wasn't arguing, and it wasn't politics, or economics. This thread is called "Obamamania".
:wink:
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

I would argue that hope in this context isn't being used in the sense of "I hope it rains tomorrow" so much as "I think there's hope for this country." It's closer to optimism or confidence than fate or lack of agency, in this context. I think Obama's message of hope resonated with people who felt that the last president was horrendously awful, and that his reelection was a severe disappointment. While I'm not in love with Obama the way some are I still get some of that sense of "wow, maybe there's hope for this country after-all."

I don't personally think Obama is really going to be a new and different kind of president, but I guess I've bought into enough of the hype to think that it's at least possible he'll be a great president (vs craptastic to mediocre like the last, oh, 4-6 at least). It's that glimmer of possibility that I think for some people gets inflated into a bevy of unrealistic expectations.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Nicely stated, Justin. :)

- Bill
User avatar
Glenn
Posts: 2199
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska

Post by Glenn »

Bill,

Sent you a PM.
Glenn
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Val

I think your quite correct in that....however, for the people that think/thought that Bush was "horrendously aweful"---a big part of could arguelably be how each man was treated.

Couple of examples------

Both Obama and Bush tried to exit thu a locked door on camera (in Obamas case he mistook a window for a door)---but Bush was excoreated for being an idiot and people played him trying to open a locked door all over the place----in Obama's case alomst nobody the mainstream media, web blogers etc even mentioned it---like it never happned.

Maybe people would equally find Obama worse or Bush not so bad if they were treated in similar fashion.

During the Campaign Obama infamously said that there were more States in the Union than then there are....and even said he visted them and had plans to vist the rest.

Again, had Bush said it there would be endless tape of this being proof of his stupidity........But few mentioned it and nobody thought it proof of anything but a slip of the lip.

When people use different standards its no wonder you get different results.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
Valkenar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 6:01 am
Location: Somerville, ma.

Post by Valkenar »

Those of us who think he was awful think so for less superficial reasons than because he didn't know a door was locked. He's gone, so there's not much point in belaboring his flaws, but it's mostly his handling of the country that creates the horrendous appraisal, not his dimwitted manner (though the latter contributes a little).

That said, I agree Obama gets rosier treatment from the press. Then again, I think it's safe to say Obama really is a better speaker and makes fewer comically stupid verbal blunders. Being one of our elite liberal army of moral degenerates and weak-willed scoundrels isn't the only reason the media treats him better.

I couldn't find a video (on youtube) of Obama at the window. Obama's mistake is stupider, but the image is less funny to look at than the videos of Bush's gaff are to watch. In general a guy pulling on a locked door and looking confused is funnier than the same guy just standing in front of a window.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

Oh come on, Justin. Even SNL was all over the press in the fawning treatment of Obama vs. Hillary. The skit they did on a Demcratic primary debate was a classic, and has been replayed many times. Someone finally stuck up for "the opposition" because SNL is Live, from New York!

It isn't just nauseating for those of us who don't drink the Kool-Aid. IMO the press is being irresponsible when they don't engage vigorously in investigative journalism. Nobody should get a pass.

We're about to mortgage the country for a trillion dollars. Anyone minding the store?

- Bill
User avatar
mhosea
Posts: 1141
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:52 pm
Location: Massachusetts

Post by mhosea »

Well, my take on it is that the rational basis of what what left-wingers hated about Bush goes along party lines. Emotions, however, were exacerbated by the circumstances around the 2000 election as well as his unflappable moral certitude that whatever he was doing was right. Couple that with the myth of his stupidity (remember the Nostradamus email after the 2000 election) that has been perpetuated by his verbal gaffes. I find his gaffes amusing, but those who have called him stupid, well, how to put this...I was more tuned in to what this said about them than what it said about Bush. It's hard to appear smart while you're calling someone else stupid.

What I grew not to like about his presidency was the feeling that he was in the pocket of big business and that he wasn't fiscally conservative, not that his spendthrift ways did anything to endear him to tax-and-spend liberals. Regardless of whether a Machiavellian analysis of the invasion of Iraq will ultimately justify it, something everybody can agree on is that it has cost more and lasted longer than was figured into any pre-invasion argument in favor of the action, and we could really use some of that money now to fund bonuses for CEOs in the finance and auto industries, not to mention that thousands more of our soldiers could be walking around.

I like Bush, though, and I like Obama. As I see Obama now repaying political favors, reversing this or that as is expected of him by his left-wing supporters, I'm concerned that eventually he'll end up leading from the left and it will be business as usual, nothing more and nothing less. Of course that would portend well for Republicans. They had their chance to do things better, and they failed. Voters did not ignore that, but I am afraid that Democrats will simply repeat the same mistakes in their own way. Witness, for example, Pelosi trying to defend hundreds of millions for family planning in the "stimulus" package. I am heartened that Obama asked that it be removed, but it indicates that Congress hasn't changed, and the role of the press in bringing these things to light is more important than ever.
Mike
User avatar
f.Channell
Posts: 3541
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Valhalla

Post by f.Channell »

The historians I've talked to, (one a history professor) will tell you the New Deal did not end the depression WWII did. A wiki site I found (shaky data, but it's easy) said WWII cost in modern dollars 1.5 trillion-5 trillion.
You have to be looking at 5-10 trillion dollars to turn things around I'd say.

F.
Sans Peur Ne Obliviscaris
www.hinghamkarate.com
cxt
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 5:29 pm

Post by cxt »

Valkenar

I have my own issues with the man.........but what I'm suggesting is how he was "portrayed" could easily play into how he is viewed......not saying its "superfical".....I'm suggesting that even those that hate him might not hate him at all....or as much...if he was given the same kid gloves, protected, treatment by the press.

Take the window thing...Obama was not "standing in front of window" he mistook a window for a door and tried to open it and go thu it.....then he stood there....just as Bush did.

And Bush NEVER mistook how many States there are in the Union......nor claimed that he VISTED States that actually don't exsist and that he would be visiting the REST of the States that don't actually exsist soon.

All I'm saying is that if the media was as much behind Bush as they are Obama its possible that all sorts of impressions might be very different.

One wag quiped that if Bush got up and walked across the waters of the Potomic River like Jesus himself the headline the next day would be "Bush can't swim." :)

Look at how the media and just about everyone else effectively buried the mans Africa policies....sure he did little in the PR realm himself-----something Bob Geldof pointed out amid HIS praise of Bushs actions there.

None of it made front page news, none of it made "youtube."

And lets look at something else you mentioned, you said:

"and makes fewer comically stupid verbal blunders"

In context with our discussion----maybe the reason Bush SEEMED to make so many "commically stupid verbal blunders" is that a media with a specifc agenda made sure that people heard them all----and spun them in the in the worst possible light.

Perhaps if the media had made front page news of Obama not knowing how many States are in the Union, and endlessly replayed his verbal blunder you might feel differently about him.

(Heck Biden told a wheelchair bound man to "stand up" :roll: ---among a raft of verbal screw-ups going back decades but his "verbal blunders" were not taken to to indictive of the mans brains---go figure. ;) )

Perhaps if the media reported each and every error and slip of the tounge Obama made/makes, instead of protecting him, you would feel differently........maybe. ;)

How the man is preceived, is, in great part, by how the man was forced to fit a specific narrative by a media with an agenda
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.

HH
fivedragons
Posts: 1573
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 7:05 am

Post by fivedragons »

I'd be interested to know how much real power people think the President of the United States Really has.

Do any of us really think he pulls the strings in world affairs, or is he just a focus point or executor for the people who really hold the power.

And what is real power in this world, is it being elected president, or is there maybe something more to it. Something shall we say more substantial?

Maybe it's just a job.
User avatar
Bill Glasheen
Posts: 17299
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY

Post by Bill Glasheen »

fivedragons wrote:
I'd be interested to know how much real power people think the President of the United States Really has.

Do any of us really think he pulls the strings in world affairs, or is he just a focus point or executor for the people who really hold the power.

And what is real power in this world, is it being elected president, or is there maybe something more to it. Something shall we say more substantial?

Maybe it's just a job.
Excellent question.

The "real" power can be substantial to minimal, depending upon the initial conditions. (Boy do I sound like a mathematician. :lol:) Those conditions would be...
  • Is the party in Congress the same as in the White House?
  • If the above is true, does said Congress have a veto-proof majority?
    • How close to the beginning of the first term or end of the last term is it?
  • Is the country doing well or not? To what degree?
  • How much is the individual in the White House capable of inspiring?
    • Does (s)he know how to use the bully pulpit?
    • Does the president directly engage the public? (FDR and Ronald Reagan's radio chats. Obama's internet link. The NRA's networking power.)
  • How many Supreme Court Justices are ready to retire, and when?
- Bill
Post Reply

Return to “Bill Glasheen's Dojo Roundtable”