U.S. Politics: lt's not hard

[Inigima]

Well, fuck that.

[Fez]

The Washington Post Company has sold the paper to Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, for $250 million. He says that he won't be getting involved in day-to-day operations and that the current leadership team will remain in place, and there's no reason to really doubt him. The important point is that the Koch brothers did not manage to buy the paper, although last I heard they were still trying to buy the Los Angeles Times, so the danger of them getting a veneer of mainstream news support is still out there.

[Shryke]

Well, fuck that.

Why?

[Lightsnake]

I'll address several of the most glaring of these at the moment and will look at the remainder later this evening. I stand by the assertion that you are offering a particularly rose-tinted view of the Obama administration and all it's policies, while ignoring it's inadequacies and trumping up any faults you find in the previous administration.

From your source:

Now here is mine, you might appreciate the source.

Blaming Gitmo on republican interference is being completely oblivious to the fact that Obama mailed in the effort and then bailed at the first "obstacle" (if you can even call it that).

And then? If you want to source something on the ARRA try looking for long term studies that aren't in place immediately following the legislation's planning and implementation. Virtually none of the promises that ARRA was sold to us on have actually come to pass.

False. http://www.factcheck...spin-jobs-data/

Your chart conveniently ignores job losses under Obama and only seems to target creation. It also shifts the argument. When I say look at the unemployment figures, you turn the discussion to look at the job creation numbers. Job creation, one would expect, should be higher in a recovery than in a prolonged period of growth where everyone was already employed. It's aconvenient way to ignore the fact that unemployment figures are still staggeringly high.

Now that being said, I hardly hold either Bush or Obama responsible alone for private sector growth and losses as it is simply out of their hands (for the most part), but every metric we use in this line of discussion is geared toward evaluating the "success of administration policies" and unemployment figures are a key tool in that evaluation (rightly or wrongly).

This was a continuation of a policy started in 2008 under the previous administration. It was also not nearly as successful as you are making it out to be.

http://www.nytimes.c...7home.html?_r=0

Let's go over this: You pretty much tried to alter to debate entirely turning it from "Obama is different from Bush and here is why" isn't "debate on the policies of the Obama Administration."

Merentha pointed it out well. They have been different on foreign policy, the environment, social policy, gay rights, women's right, disaster relief, diplomacy, economic policy, how they manage social programs and Entitlements and Wall Street...

But nope. All the same. Completely. Utterly. Both parties suck, etc etc.

Completely ignoring that Congress pulled the plug on Gitmo's closing despite Obama ordering it closed, and there being other things in bills besides Gitmo, without Obama having line item veto power. But Glenn Greenwald said otherwise, so it MUST be true.

I can admit where I was wrong re job growth. Doesn't change Obama's different approaches, nor does it change that the Republican Party decided "let's wreck the country to get elected again" when Obama was elected.

[Stag Country]

Let's go over this: You pretty much tried to alter to debate entirely turning it from "Obama is different from Bush and here is why" isn't "debate on the policies of the Obama Administration."

Merentha pointed it out well. They have been different on foreign policy, the environment, social policy, gay rights, women's right, disaster relief, diplomacy, economic policy, how they manage social programs and Entitlements and Wall Street...

But nope. All the same. Completely. Utterly. Both parties suck, etc etc.

Completely ignoring that Congress pulled the plug on Gitmo's closing despite Obama ordering it closed, and there being other things in bills besides Gitmo, without Obama having line item veto power. But Glenn Greenwald said otherwise, so it MUST be true.

I can admit where I was wrong re job growth. Doesn't change Obama's different approaches, nor does it change that the Republican Party decided "let's wreck the country to get elected again" when Obama was elected.

Your problem is that you can't handle someone that doesn't agree with you about Obama being this pinnacle of hope and change that you believe him to be, and you can't formulate a coherent defense of democratic principles or actions without dropping into straw man criticisms of republicans. No one shifted anything. You tried to present little bits of random information that you believed supported your claim that he was different. I countered several of them with more relevant information and several sources that outright discredited your manufactured talking points on the matter.

Gitmo: Obama could have closed gitmo had he chosen to. His plan was not to close it, however, as any source on the matter, including the executive order you cited will tell you. It was only to move it.

Women's Rights: He hasn't done anything here. Lily Ledbetter expands a reporting time frame, it doesn't expand any rights.

Disaster Relief: The difference between Sandy and Katrina had to do with the difference in the responses with the state government. Obama as president didn't do anything differently other than doing a storm tour two days earlier.

Economic policy: He continued the Bush tax cuts, and continued to back TARP. Throwing in criteria for executive compensation rules doesn't materially change the policy in any way, shape, or form. That is more of your rampant fanboyism for this guy.

Foreign Policy: He isn't different at all. In fact, he carried out virtually an identical policy, persuing many initiatives that were started under the previous administration.

The only point you've raised that's been even remotely valid that I haven't already acknowledged prior to you even entering this discussion is gay rights where his administration has made a lot of progress. And that issue can hardly be claimed to have materially effected the economic or foreign policies which have scarcely changed at all under this administration.

[Madfunkymonkey]

This is a logical fallacy called the illusion of asymmetrical insight where you ascribe to your opponent a particular viewpoint and motivation based on your interpretation of their ignorance rather than an alternative and completely plausible explanation.

Seems pretty accurate to me.

[Commodore]

good read by Williamson on Obama's Nixonian contempt for the law

It is a testament to the success of free-market ideas that it is impossible to imagine President Obama making the announcement that President Richard Nixon did on August 15, 1971: “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States.” President Nixon created not one but two IPABs, the Pay Board and the Price Commission, which were to be entrusted with managing the day-to-day operations of the U.S. economy. President Nixon, too, was empowered by a Congress that invested him with that remarkable authority, through the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, whose provisions were to be invoked during times of economic emergency. There was no economic emergency in 1971, but it is a nearly iron-clad rule of the presidency that powers vested will be powers used. That President Obama has adopted President Nixon’s approach but limited himself to health care might be considered progress if he had not adopted as a general principle one of Nixon’s unfortunate maxims: When the president does it, it isn’t illegal. President Nixon’s lawlessness was sneaky, and he had the decency to be ashamed of it. President Obama’s lawlessness is as bland and bloodless as the man himself, and practiced openly, as though it were a virtue. President Nixon privately kept an enemies list; President Obama publicly promises that “we’re gonna punish our enemies, and we’re gonna reward our friends.”

Barack Obama’s administration is unmoored from the institutions that have long kept the imperial tendencies of the American presidency in check. That is partly the fault of Congress, which has punted too many of its legislative responsibilities to the president’s army of faceless regulators, but it is in no small part the result of an intentional strategy on the part of the administration. He has spent the past five years methodically testing the limits of what he can get away with, like one of those crafty velociraptors testing the electric fence in Jurassic Park. Barack Obama is a Harvard Law graduate, and he knows that he cannot make recess appointments when Congress is not in recess. He knows that his HHS is promulgating regulations that conflict with federal statutes. He knows that he is not constitutionally empowered to pick and choose which laws will be enforced. This is a might-makes-right presidency, and if Barack Obama has been from time to time muddled and contradictory, he has been clear on the point that he has no intention of being limited by something so trivial as the law.

[Stag Country]

This is a logical fallacy called the illusion of asymmetrical insight where you ascribe to your opponent a particular viewpoint and motivation based on your interpretation of their ignorance rather than an alternative and completely plausible explanation.

Yeah, you haven't been paying attention. In 6 out of 6 posts directed at me, rather than defend democrats and their actions on their merits, he has taken the 'but the other side is worse' tact. It also doesn't help that he sources himself right out of his own arguments, by developing narratives that aren't supported by anything other than a very active imagination. The comments about Gitmo being a prime example.

[DanteGabriel]

Yeah, you haven't been paying attention. In 6 out of 6 posts directed at me, rather than defend democrats and their actions on their merits, he has taken the 'but the other side is worse' tact. It also doesn't help that he sources himself right out of his own arguments, by developing narratives that aren't supported by anything other than a very active imagination. The comments about Gitmo being a prime example.

This is spectacularly dishonest. Lightsnake tries to talk about good Obama policies, and you call him a hopeless cheerleader. You started this debate by saying Obama was different from Bush -- and then criticize people who point out the differences by saying that they're doing the "the other guy is worse" defense. Well, that was the issue at debate. You are essentially criticizing people for engaging the talking point you were so intent on defending. I guess it's true what they say -- never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both get dirty and the pig will like it.

Using "hope and change" as an attack line against Obama is a few years out of date. Try catching up with the last few years.

[awesome possum]

You guys are being spectacularly trolled.

[Stag Country]

This is spectacularly dishonest. Lightsnake tries to talk about good Obama policies, and you call him a hopeless cheerleader. You started this debate by saying Obama was different from Bush -- and then criticize people who point out the differences by saying that they're doing the "the other guy is worse" defense. Well, that was the issue at debate. You are essentially criticizing people for engaging the talking point you were so intent on defending. I guess it's true what they say -- never wrestle with a pig, because you'll both get dirty and the pig will like it.

Using "hope and change" as an attack line against Obama is a few years out of date. Try catching up with the last few years.

Same goes for you. You haven't been paying attention. My part in this conversation started with offering a markedly less liberal perspective on the debt ceiling debate....which was instantly seized on by you and several others as an opportunity to dive right into soapbox speeches about how republicans are destroying the world while either holding democrats blameless for all their inadequacies or finding an excuse for why they aren't as bad. When I suggest that Obama has continued many of the policies of Bush and hasn't been anywhere near the change agent he billed himself as and his followers voted for him for....you launched into some nonsense about that being a 'right-wing canard'.....apparently ignoring the overwhelming amount of predominantly liberal writers, reporters, bloggers, and media figures who all reached a similar conclusion.....no, to you, it's just a "right-wing" talking point.

As for lightsnake, there is a difference between talking about policies in an objective manner and shamelessly overlooking faults and embellishing achievements of those policies in an effort to paint a rosey picture of the person they are intended to support.

Just look at the information in post 208:

- Outright fabrication and changing of the subject of job numbers,

- Trumping up the closure of detention facilities while ignoring the continuance and the increase in the use of rendition,

- Willfully ignoring the reality of gitmo,

- Touting the homebuyer tax credit as some new policy even though it actually started under Bush....and then overselling it's actual benefit,

- Suggesting the American Jobs Act is some lifesaving piece of legislation that is only held up by republicans.....and ignoring that democrats think it stinks too....and that Obama actually lied about the cost,

- Pretending that 'liberals forced the bush administration to adhere to oversight and rules' with regard to wiretapping......conveniently ignores Obama's "No warrantless wiretapping if you elect me' pledge from the new hampshire primary

It's one shameless fact alteration after another. So yeah, I'll stand by my assertion that those points were the product of an active imagination rather than fact.

[DanteGabriel]

Lightsnake has done more to support his position than you ever have -- all you can do is keep whining about how we actually bothered to challenge you on your asinine "they are all the same" assertion. You said they're the same and you've spent the last few pages pussyfooting back that assertion and trying to spin it like you didn't say what you said. And you keep referring to this consensus of people that you think agree with you without actually showing us any support for that.

[Stag Country]

Whose whining? I'm correctly pointing out embellishments in his post....yet this constitutes whining to you? Interesting theory.

He already refuted his own point about Gitmo with his very own source and I furthered that with one of my own.

Do I really need to provide a source that the homebuyer tax credit was initiated under Bush's administration? That isn't common knowledge? Fine. Guess I need to hold your hand through this, I mean its not like this wasn't a major piece of legislation when it went through or anything.

You need a source about the American Jobs Act? 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Explain how that the GOP is at fault there?

Obama on wiretapping?

The reality is, I'm baffled why you need sources for most of this information as much of it is common knowledge....or why the ones already provided aren't enough for you to determine that a person is overreaching with their statements.

[Lord Mord]

I think you're talking past each other. "Different from Bush" is so vague and intangible it's not hard to find goalposts somewhere it sails through, so that arguing they can only be seen as the same is as asinine as saying they can only be seen as worlds apart. Guys, it's okay: you can all be petty pretty.

I'm not impressed by Stag's needless and cheap speculations on motive, but I'm also disappointed his opposition is disinterested in even engaging his points, especially wrt jobs numbers and Gitmo. Forget whether or not it's like Bush or how like Bush it is: is Stag full of shit, and if so, how, and if not, then shouldn't we say, "Yeah, we should probably stop using that as a talking point, because the facts don't support it. Sorry about that"...?

[DanteGabriel]

the overwhelming amount of predominantly liberal writers, reporters, bloggers, and media figures who all reached a similar conclusion.....no, to you, it's just a "right-wing" talking point.

Support this assertion.

[The Progressive]

Alright stag country, let's have a discussion about fiscal policies and gitmo.

1) On Gitmo: seems that you don't like Obama's plant to shut it down and transferred the prisoners to U.S. facilities .......... what do you suppose we are to do with them?

2) On fiscal policies: are you arguing that the expansionary fiscal stimulus pushed by the Obama administration are failure? What do you base that on? What else could have been done to achieve lower unemployment rates? Also, how do you explain the higher unemployment rates in other first world countries who had opted for fiscal austerity instead?

[Stag Country]

Support this assertion.

Here's a few to get you started.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/18/112346/obama-ran-against-bush-but-now.html

http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/05/judge_says_obama_governs_like_bush_on_reproductive_rights.html

http://gawker.com/5187911/rachel-maddow-and-michael-moore-say-barack-obama-is-just-like-george-bush

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20130706/OPINION01/307060002/Editorial-Bush-Obama-like-minded-Africa

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/02/1228460/-John-Perkins-My-Favorite-Former-Economic-Hit-Man

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/06/06/189266242/on-national-security-obama-follows-bush-s-lead

http://www.mediaite.com/online/congrats-everyone-you-voted-for-nsa-overreach-under-obama-and-bush-now-can-we-all-finally-end-it/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82710.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/obama_s_speech_he_s_just_like_bush_in_pushing_the_limits_of_executive_power.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/5_ways_obama_has_doubled_down_on_george_w_bushs_policies/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/obama-george-bush_n_3145804.html

http://blogs.redding.com/mbeauchamp/archives/2013/07/redding-progres.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/30/obama-is-the-true-george-w-bush-clone-on-failed-economic-policy.html

http://www.policymic.com/articles/50273/watch-bush-and-obama-say-literally-the-exact-same-thing-on-the-nsa-scandal

http://www.policymic.com/articles/42853/obama-scandals-2013-why-obama-like-bush-has-gone-tyrannical

http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/08/bush-20-100-ways-barack-obama-is-just.html

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2009/12/libertarians_sa.html

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama-bush-policies-terror/2013/04/25/id/501384

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/welcome-to-the-bush-obama-white-house-they-re-spying-on-us-20130606

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/bush-obama-war-on-terror/

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-11/democrats-outraged-that-bush-spied-on-them-dont-mind-that-obamas-doing-the-same-thing

These all aside one of the more telling signs on this is the countless number of liberal leaning media publications like Mediamatters, or pundits like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart (both of whom I find to be knowledgable and entertaining...btw) who will frequently point out Republicans as hypocrites.......for bashing Obama when he conducts the exact same action or policy as Bush (which several here have done as well).

[awesome possum]

And you all wonder why conservatives don't post that often in the political threads.

Ooh ooh, I'll take "because far too many, like you, regurgitate stale tea party talking points and forwarded e-mail chain letters as if they're witty banter that adds something to the discussion" for 1000 Alec!

[Stag Country]

Alright stag country, let's have a discussion about fiscal policies and gitmo.

1) On Gitmo: seems that you don't like Obama's plant to shut it down and transferred the prisoners to U.S. facilities .......... what do you suppose we are to do with them?

Gitmo:

It's not a matter of me liking it or disliking it. It's the exact same policy that Bush had, which is to illegally hold people without even charging them under the bullshit auspices of them being "enemy combatants" and not POWs. It's a flagrant violation of international law and it was a stated goal of his to close it down. He paid lipservice to that by offering up a plan to move them either domestically or abroad....but not to actually charge them and but them on trial. He than pulled a 180 on the prisoners from Yemen refusing to let them even go under military tribunals and then has let the whole thing get swapt under the proverbial rug by the media's lack of attention to it.

My problem is with us violating the basic human rights of these people by not according them what are supposed to be international protections against indefinite imprisonment without trial. Put them on trial and sentence them accordingly and then move on.....there's no reason he can't do this.

2) On fiscal policies: are you arguing that the expansionary fiscal stimulus pushed by the Obama administration are failure? What do you base that on? What else could have been done to achieve lower unemployment rates? Also, how do you explain the higher unemployment rates in other first world countries who had opted for fiscal austerity instead?

Economic growth has remained almost stagnant, in spite of nearly a trillion dollars infused into the economy and several bouts of qualitative easement. Another seemingly liberal poster a few pages back was trying to argue that we are still in a recession. While that's obviously not true, the perception still exists that nothing is inherently better, and that perception isn't terribly far off from reality. In spite of all this money we dumped into the economy, growth was, and is still, very slow and unemployment is still increased and is now sitting at around 7.5%.

As far as comparing that to Europe, I'm not sure I follow. Many of the European countries that did not practice austerity were, are, or are near to becoming a mess. Germans are widely considered the masters of the practice and they are sitting at 5.4% right now. France and the UK both have higher unemployment rates than the US rigth now but you certainly can't say they've been utilizing austerity measures.

[Stag Country]

Ooh ooh, I'll take "because far too many, like you, regurgitate stale tea party talking points and forwarded e-mail chain letters as if they're witty banter that adds something to the discussion" for 1000 Alec!

And you and your ilk don't repeat bogus, completely invented talking points like this gem?

There were more jobs under Obama created in 2010 alone than Bush did in eight years.

Pot meet Kettle.