Obama blinders :lol:

pan, I don't rightly see how you can write that last post and accuse anyone of wearing 'blinders'...the irony tastes very, very strong at this point

Remind me again just what Obama is 'doing' and how is it giving him unchecked 'power' in the manner of the neo-liberals of the last administration. I really need for you to clear this up for me, thanks.

I agree with ratbastid's assessment, as well.

Clinton's welfare reform certainly was moderate to conservative, as was his trade policies and financial regulatory reform.

And I too have to chuckle at pan @ Obama blinders given the misrepresentation of the facts in this health care discussion alone.

To be crystal clear: the above category doesn't include me. I'd be surprised if you could find one person on TFP who had zero policy differences with Obama.

One MAJOR approach the right has taken is to put "Obama is perfect" in the mouths of anyone who's not on the right. Ever since the primary, when they started saying he was "your messiah". It's manipulative bullshit, pan. Don't get sucked into it.

EDIT: BTW, pan, when I say "the right", I'm clear I'm not talking about you. You're your own critter. For a while you looked to me like a good liberal but I know better than to think that now. ;)

For someone who has been proven wrong without ever acknowledging it so many times, it is certainly funny to see you claim anyone has blinders on. Especially when at one time or another over these past 2 months you've either claimed that Obama was far left AND the same thing as Bush.

But hey, if that is the case, please point to the members here who apparently have those blinders on. Please cite everyone who hasn't criticized Obama recently.

Ah, but people here did the exact same thing to Bush followers. I was one and at the time I did so won some acclaim from people here who now can't stand my posts and do all they can to make sure they point out some of my foolhardiness.

There is a difference between a "liberal" of the 80's and Clinton era and now. Hell, Clinton here has been called a full moderate. LOL

And I have said before on numerous occasions and while somethings have been pointed out this for whatever reason doesn't. I am my own critter (as you point out), I have my own warped, foolhardy, weird, wild extremist views. (I am neither left nor right in my views, I consider myself socially liberal, fiscally conservative with a sense of patriotism and belief the US needs to work on itself and fix itself first, then help the rest of the world.)

Beyond that, there are things where I can bring out truly good points, I can bring out points that will be heated on one side or the other... or I can just fuck with people so I don't get loopholed into any one belief.

My goal is to find people that freely think for themselves and stop using "talking" points or seemingly post whatever to try to "show their intelligence and win some form of praise from whichever "clique" they are trying to impress here. If I found someone that truly didn't give a fuck how they appeared to others here and truly spoke their own beliefs (no talking points, no BS polls or data that can be swayed because both sides manipulate facts to benefit themselves), I would probably have a great talk and honest debate with. And probably have a good friend in the end.

But in the end I am someone who loves my country and believes it can do better. However, I firmly believe we are in the midst of the Barrack Room Emperors" W being the first Obama being the second. And yes, to me they are one in the same. They may have different items that they push and sell to different groups, but in the end Iraq, Afghanistan, Oil, minimum wage, programs to help people advance, the infrastructure, Federal Reserve, deficits and so on remain relatively unchanged. Just a different wrapping paper and sales technique.

Just MY opinion. I'm sure people here will jump all over it to prove me wrong, just as W people did the same thing 6 years ago.

Anyway, people will think what they want. Truth is I don't care, I will be who I am, warped as I am.

:thumbsup:

can we stop with the "b-b-but you did it to Bush!" retort? It doesn't justify any current behavior

Tellya what; we'll stop with "You did it to Bush!" when y'all stop with "It's all Bush's fault!" and "But Bush did it too!"

Deal?

so wait...what you want is for those of us who opposed the bush administration to stop mentioning his actual record and in exchange you will stop making shit up about obama?

what kind of trade is that?

Huh. How'd you manage to misread a two-sentence post that badly?

that would be correct. my post was two sentences. but i think you screwed up with your pronoun usage. pity, as it makes your post confusing, lending an implication that you could theoretically be trying to address me.

no deal. I will continue pointing out those instances that it WAS Bush's fault.

I don't think I've ever used the "Bush did it too" excuse, but feel free to prove me wrong

Oh, don't get me wrong, it's a completely understandable mistake. 'Bush' looks just like 'Obama', it's really easy to confuse the two names.

But just for fun, go back to Dunedan's post and count all the instances of 'Obama'. I promise you won't have to use your toes.

so....context is not important to you when you interpret a statement?
just wondering.

or are you misconstruing the pronoun "you" in the two sentences i wrote as a mode of addressing the dunedan directly?
that would be wrong.
that's an example of why looking to context helps.

This is what I meant when I said I'm not all that interested in consistency. Not given the gaping chest-wound Bush left. Not given the blind eye turned on those who opposed him and the free pass and bullhorn given those who are blustering against Obama.

Here's one place you can see the asymmetry of this thing: People who protested Bush's actions largely were protesting Bush's actions. Yes some names got called, but whatever conclusion people came to about Bush's intellectual capacity were brought about by observation of his policies and decisions.

By contrast, these tea party people are against Obama personally. They don't know enough about any policy (for instance the actual health care legislation) to formulate an argument against the policy itself. They have to change its name to "Obamacare" as a signal to fellow anti-Obamites that it's a Bad Thing, because Obama's a Bad Man. And then their reasoned, specific response to the legislation is "It's a gummint takeover!".

We looked at what Bush did and called him an idiot. People call Obama a communist muslim nazi, and then are against anything he does. To treat the two like they're ANYTHING like the same is just ridiculous.

And look, the things Obama has done that Bush did too (ie. extending USA Patriot, wiretapping, etc), I'm as against those when Obama did them as I was when Bush was doing them. I don't give Obama any passes on those things. I didn't expect anything different--he told us during the campaign he would be doing that. So it doesn't surprise me or particularly disappoint me, but I do disapprove.

No, what I want is for sauce to be applied to both rabid goose and distempered gander equally.

It's not so much a misreading as a deliberate misrepresentation. A classic tactic of many collectivists is to force an incorrect definition, position, or context into/onto someone and then force them to defend it, while denying that the person's -actual- definition, position, or context is relevant, cogent, coherent, or even extant. It's a refined version of "So Senator, have you stopped beating your wife?" and is especially popular among collectivist brainwashers with captive audiences dependant upon them and their whims for grades, jobs, and promotions. You run into this kind of thing most predictably from the Left at Universities, and the Right in the military and in business.

I don't know if you have/did or not, and frankly couldn't be paid to care. Since collectivists are so comfortable dealing with, judging, and assigning blame to people based upon group membership rather than actual actions taken or words uttered, I decided to speak your language. I see this hasn't made it any easier for me to be understood. Pity.

Since you replied directly to my post (both sequentially and thematically), used the singular personal pronoun "you" without any collective modifier (y'all) or indicator of collectivity (you all, you guys, you lot, etc), yes. As you say, context.

Part of the contextual/metacultural problem is also the fact that, as a collectivist, you personally seem to view a group of individuals as an individual and feel comfortable addressing and dealing with them as such. I as an individualist do not. This has a linguistic reflection.

As opposed to "bushco," "bushworld," and "bushitler," which I saw bandied freely here and even used myself on occaision?

Yes, and people called Bush a faschist Christian-reconstructionist chimpanzee, and were against anything he did.

Pardon me if I cannot see the difference between a kick in the teeth and a punch in the balls. Both hurt a lot, neither will improve my luck with the ladies, and neither were probably my idea.

It's funny when someone accuses someone else of being a "collectivist" while only describing society in collective terms.

And whatever Bush and Obama have been called, to equate the two is to engage in a game of false equivalency.

Whatever you think Obama has done so far, it does not compare to starting a war under false pretenses. Reasonable minds can disagree on whether it is better to leave Iraq straight away or gradually, but there is no disagreement that the war was started under false pretenses and that over a hundred thousand people lost their lives as a result.

Likewise, it is insane to compare "accusing" Obama of being a secret muslim bent on destroying the country to the statement that Bush was a born again Christian who let that influence his agenda, and who based a lot of his political career on the support of other born again Christians.

You've missed my point entirely. I'm saying there's no goose and gander. There's goose and tomahawk missile. There's no kick in the teeth vs punch in the balls. It's kick in the teeth vs knife through the heart.

I reject entirely that there's ANY equivalency between what's being said about Obama and what was said about Bush, and I assert that an attempt to create an equivalency both minimizes the disaster Bush was, and rationalizes away the damage these sore losing tea partiers are doing.

No, it doesn't but I truly get sick of people who act as if it is the lowest of lows to attack Obama when they would say ANYTHING they wanted about Bush.

To sit there and yell about how someone is attacking Obama, the SAME way Bush was attacked (you can find polls and stats that support just about anything on the net) is hypocritical. And to say "stop with the you did it to Bush".... well stop crying over attacks to Obama. Isn't that what you told W people.

Me, I like to just bitch about both because if I were king.......

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:24 PM ----------

I just like this post, someone who I can relate to in some ways....lol scary.

is not on your side here either.

Just read more carefully next time and take more care not to misrepresent the words of others. A moderator, of all people, should be practiced in this.

o please. don't be absurd. you're making a ridiculous point based on your confusion over a pronoun (whether it was used in a singular or plural sense) in the context of a thread that had devolved onto a series of assertions of a false equivalence from some of the more conservative folk who have participated. the restatement i made of the dunedan's point simply pushed it into the overall train of argument, such as it is, from the more conservative posters. in doing that, all i did was restate the false equivalence that the dunedan's post was about.

there is no particular logic problem, nor is there are reading problem.
it is not a great concern to me whether you like the argument or not, fool them all. it really isn't.

it is, however, a bit of a concern that you try to pull some cheap move* regarding the fact that i am a mod.
when i act in moderator-mode, you will know.
otherwise i participate in threads like any other member.

if you have a problem with that, take it up with me or another staff person by pm.

* later: i removed an intensifier. it wasn't necessary.

Your restatement isn't a restatement. It's not what he said. That's all that matters here.

Instead of admitting as much when it's plainly obvious, you go on with some imaginary pronoun nonsense.

I'm reminded of why I don't frequent this board as often.

Likewise.

I disagree.

And -I- reject entirely that there is any workable difference between the two, -or- what was said about them, -or- the damage they have done and will continue to do to this country. Bush fucked the economy (more). Obama took that fucked-up economy, propped up the people who fucked it up, and nationalized a significant portion thereof, thereby hitching my (and everyone else's) collective wagon to that enormous collection of bipartisan up-fuckery for the rest of forever whether we wished it or supported it or no. Two roads are being taken to the same horrible destination; stagflation, loss of national and international prestige and influence, eroded personal, economic, and civil liberties, devalued currency...I can go on, but won't.

Mr. Bush started wars under false pretenses.
Mr. Obama is continuing those wars, under equally false pretenses.

Mr. Bush fucked up the economy and nationalised the results, what several Wall Street Journal commentators at the time referred to as "Socialization Of Debt."
Mr. Obama has instituted steps that will, I believe, -further- fuck up the economy, nationalised much thereof, and will further nationalise any further up-fuckery just as his predecessor did.
Both people carried out these actions at the behest of vested-interest parties only out to aggrandize their power and enlarge their purses. Mr. Bush made his payments in deference to various Wall Street banks and multinational trading conglomerates, Mr. Obama to leftist pressure groups and Unions. Both sold their constituents a bill of goods in order to pass favours to the people who both got them elected and pull their strings.

Mr. Bush was a right-collectivist with his thumb on the Big Red Button.
Mr. Obama is a left-collectivist with his thumb on the Big Red Button.

Given that collectivism in general is built upon the premise that "the needs of the many (no matter how many) outweigh the needs of the few (no matter how few, and no matter the needs)," I do not trust collectivists with their thumbs on buttons to not destroy the world. If a large/persuasive enough collective wants some destructive act to occur, collectivism guarantees that it will occur. I have been "reminded" here repeatedly that "there is no right or wrong; political consensus is all that's required." I do not trust that mentality, whencever it springs, with the power to destroy.

Attack the writer or some minute detail rather than debate what was written. Classic tactic used by those who wrote here to defend Bush and now those writing to defend Obama.

pan, speaking only for myself, I try to defend the facts and debunk the myths and I have seen you characterize that defense of the facts as a defense of Obama.

I think you often see what you want and not what is written.

We ALL do. We see things from our perspective and life experiences and apply them to our posts and how we interact on here and IRL. It's the way the human condition is.

I would agree to some extent. But some, more than others, let their emotions override the facts far more frequently.