I sympathize to a degree with Ultra because I know what it's like to have a president you hate prove you right. And I don't like the attitude
that's going around that you are not supposed to dissent to a president, AGAIN (not saying it is here). I also think that some could be a bit less rude.
But of course my opinion is quite opposite of what he's saying.
It's convenient that this is first because this is the common argument I most want to respond to.
What is with the obsession with infrastructure as the only real stimulus? You can call the other programs pork if you want, but to me they sound far more useful. You do realize that any stimulus to education and science puts the same money into the same economy as infrastructure, right? And on top of that it improves US education which is pretty darn important considering that millions of menial workers begrudge illegal aliens their sub-minimum wage dirty work while we are importing educated people from other countries because the local population can't meet demand.
This is an argument I would like explained by a user of it because the best explanation I can come up with is that infrastructure evokes an image of sweaty muscle men using power tools that make a lot of noise, and republicans love to fetishize stereotypical masculinity.
Because that is a far more useful and meaningful address than generic lip service and does more for our relations with both the middle east and everybody else. Again, mistaking intelligence for weakness. Intelligence generally involves doing things which are counter-intuitive, which is why it is so difficult to be intelligent and succeed as a politician. The reason many of us intellectual elitists are so excited about him is that he is so charismatic he can be intelligent and win.
Oh no, they are emboldened into underestimating him! That is so different from how they've been emboldened the whole damn time since the Iraq war defeated their biggest rival and made it impossible for the US to credibly threaten force.
So you would tell the government to keep them there permanently even though many of them have been proven to be innocent? And any security risk of letting some of them go to other countries or even the US is nothing compared to the security risk or ethical monstrosity of that prison.
No enemy could be deterred by 20% as many bombs that could each individually destroy them and us!
Do you seriously suggest that, other than specific events, they were not doing those things before Obama and would continue regardless of him?
I dislike the notion of patriotism and addressed the right to dissent earlier, but there is an obvious difference in degree and context. That's one quote of him complimenting some senators who GASP worked with him to compromise instead of plugging fingers in their ears and refusing to do anything but tax cuts.
The congruity is obvious to me and quite amusing. I would share the outrage if I didn't agree with the goals and agree that the danger is very real. While that is a good point, a major difference is that if Bush had just increased the effectiveness of security services, instead of being against human rights, I would not be complaining much about him using a legitimate threat as a reasonable argument for his proposal. And call me when Obama sends out a system to alert the media to the economy level.
So prosecute them. I am not going to defend legitimately corrupt politicians. But if they were not appointed after the issues came up, how is that against Obama. Some of those you lisated were appointed and he does deserve demerits for some of them. His cabinet is mediocre and my primary complaint.
Bush had a lot of Iraqi Information Ministers to repeat obvious lies to the public so I am amused you only criticize the one who had the principles to quit. And also surprised since you called Bush treasonous also.
- Nearly pushed through a catastrophic "stimulus" bill (with only a minuscule fraction going to infrastructure, with most of it consisting of pork) that he says we must pass or else the economy will slide into a depression that we could 'never recover' from. (Accompanied with plenty of partisan sniping. Whatever happened to the 'Great Uniter'?)
It's convenient that this is first because this is the common argument I most want to respond to.
What is with the obsession with infrastructure as the only real stimulus? You can call the other programs pork if you want, but to me they sound far more useful. You do realize that any stimulus to education and science puts the same money into the same economy as infrastructure, right? And on top of that it improves US education which is pretty darn important considering that millions of menial workers begrudge illegal aliens their sub-minimum wage dirty work while we are importing educated people from other countries because the local population can't meet demand.
This is an argument I would like explained by a user of it because the best explanation I can come up with is that infrastructure evokes an image of sweaty muscle men using power tools that make a lot of noise, and republicans love to fetishize stereotypical masculinity.
- Used his first opportunity to speak to the world to address nations antagonistic to us, rather than our allies (during which he virtually groveled on Al Arabiya)
Because that is a far more useful and meaningful address than generic lip service and does more for our relations with both the middle east and everybody else. Again, mistaking intelligence for weakness. Intelligence generally involves doing things which are counter-intuitive, which is why it is so difficult to be intelligent and succeed as a politician. The reason many of us intellectual elitists are so excited about him is that he is so charismatic he can be intelligent and win.
- Emboldened Iran to make obscene demands of us before they will "sit down and talk" with Obama.
Oh no, they are emboldened into underestimating him! That is so different from how they've been emboldened the whole damn time since the Iraq war defeated their biggest rival and made it impossible for the US to credibly threaten force.
- Ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay terrorist prison(hmm, wonder where they're going to go now).
So you would tell the government to keep them there permanently even though many of them have been proven to be innocent? And any security risk of letting some of them go to other countries or even the US is nothing compared to the security risk or ethical monstrosity of that prison.
- Spoke of reducing the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal by 80%, on the way to his eventual goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons. A terrifyingly foolish and suicidal notion (you know, expecting Russia to do the same; good luck with that).
No enemy could be deterred by 20% as many bombs that could each individually destroy them and us!
- To complete this little list (which can be much longer), the Obama Administration is asking Iran to help control the drug trade in Afghanistan.[/quot]
Oh no, using an enemy to our advantage!
[quote]During just a single day, the Iranians verbally spat in our faces then launched a satellite into orbit (anyone remember why we were so worried about Sputnik in the 1950s?), North Korea announced a long-range missile test, and Russia has begun saber-rattling. Again.
Do you seriously suggest that, other than specific events, they were not doing those things before Obama and would continue regardless of him?
Though Bush-Hitler supposedly used to demonize his opponents as un-American, we get silence as Obama now dubs those who jump the Republican ship to vote for his trillion-dollar package as "patriotic" in the way that those who will be willing to pay Joe Biden's new higher taxes are: patriotic?
I dislike the notion of patriotism and addressed the right to dissent earlier, but there is an obvious difference in degree and context. That's one quote of him complimenting some senators who GASP worked with him to compromise instead of plugging fingers in their ears and refusing to do anything but tax cuts.
And after eight years of "Bush is trying to terrify us" we are told that anyone not voting for a new trillion dollars of debts is ushering in catastrophe, and without sudden change California will have no farms, no agriculture even.
The congruity is obvious to me and quite amusing. I would share the outrage if I didn't agree with the goals and agree that the danger is very real. While that is a good point, a major difference is that if Bush had just increased the effectiveness of security services, instead of being against human rights, I would not be complaining much about him using a legitimate threat as a reasonable argument for his proposal. And call me when Obama sends out a system to alert the media to the economy level.
A bunch of appointees and legislators
So prosecute them. I am not going to defend legitimately corrupt politicians. But if they were not appointed after the issues came up, how is that against Obama. Some of those you lisated were appointed and he does deserve demerits for some of them. His cabinet is mediocre and my primary complaint.
And for the incompetent, deer-in-the-headlights Scott McClellan, we got...incompetent, deer-in-the-headlights Robert Gibbs?
Bush had a lot of Iraqi Information Ministers to repeat obvious lies to the public so I am amused you only criticize the one who had the principles to quit. And also surprised since you called Bush treasonous also.
