or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault - Page 5

post #161 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post



A POLICE FORCE? In an ANARCHIST STATE?

A private police force. With the power to arrest people? Yes, and private courts, with the power to try people. And private prisons, to keep those people in.

Except, no, you can't have prisons in an anarchist state because, as every anarchist knows, "whoever lays his hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant and I declare them my enemy."

But this private fire department, that's just... such an excellent idea.

"We'll prevent this forest fire from burning down this house and this house, but not this one, because they subscribe to our rival fire department."

Of course, none of this would have happened if we's had a private forestry management company to dig fire channels and post safety notices.

Anarcho-capitalism

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #162 of 419
Actually this private anarchist police force is a BRILLIANT idea.

Say, I've got an idea! Why don't we see if we can get as many people as possible to contribute! Then we can have a really GOOD private police force! It can research techniques of policing, and detection, and might even work to prevent crime!

Just think... gosh, I'd even CONTRIBUTE SOME OF MY INCOME to such a private police force in this anarchist state.

post #163 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Of course, none of this would have happened if we's had a private forestry management company to dig fire channels and post safety notices.

I'm curious, does anyone how how frequently forest fires occur in privately owned vs. publicly owned forest land?
post #164 of 419
It already exists.

I very much recommend that you and SpamSandwich go and see this tax-free paradise for yourselves.
post #165 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

My ideal is a minarchy, yours may be a socialist paradise. Thus, neither will ever be satisfied.

Actually, I'm satisfied with the US form of government. Even now as messed up as it is. We oscillate between too much and too little control and too much and too little socialism but it has worked out in the end thus far.
post #166 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Actually this private anarchist police force is a BRILLIANT idea.

Say, I've got an idea! Why don't we see if we can get as many people as possible to contribute! Then we can have a really GOOD private police force! It can research techniques of policing, and detection, and might even work to prevent crime!

Just think... gosh, I'd even CONTRIBUTE SOME OF MY INCOME to such a private police force in this anarchist state.


Now you're getting it.

The difference would be that you can voluntarily contribute of your property if you wish to receive the services of the private police force. You are not forcefully deprived of your property if you do not wish to receive the service.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #167 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Now you're getting it.

The difference would be that you can voluntarily contribute of your property if you wish to receive the services of the private police force. You are not forcefully deprived of your property if you do not wish to receive the service.



What a fantastic police force that would be.

Say, I think you could extend the same principle to the armed forces!

Of course, the nation would be invaded within minutes by a properly-funded state army, that of Mexico, say. But it's the principle.

By the way, did you know that in an anarchist state I could declare myself a dentist?

Why, so could you. Dentists have SO MUCH MONEY ALREADY. Think how rich they'd be if they didn't need to prove they were competent, and pay taxes, and spend money on hygiene and stuff!

HOIST THE BLACK FLAG HIGH!

post #168 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post



What a fantastic police force that would be.

Say, I think you could extend the same principle to the armed forces!

Of course, the nation would be invaded within minutes by a properly-funded state army, that of Mexico, say. But it's the principle.

By the way, did you know that in an anarchist state I could declare myself a dentist?

Why, so could you. Dentists have SO MUCH MONEY ALREADY. Think how rich they'd be if they didn't need to prove they were competent, and pay taxes, and spend money on hygiene and stuff!

HOIST THE BLACK FLAG HIGH!


This is not a black and white issue as you are trying to make it.

There are several degrees and forms of anarchy. I don't think anyone here is advocating total chaos and lawlessness.

Anarcho-capitalism has an interesting approach to law and order and the use of violence.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #169 of 419
Some people will never get it. And so it goes.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #170 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Actually this private anarchist police force is a BRILLIANT idea.

Say, I've got an idea! Why don't we see if we can get as many people as possible to contribute! Then we can have a really GOOD private police force! It can research techniques of policing, and detection, and might even work to prevent crime!

Just think... gosh, I'd even CONTRIBUTE SOME OF MY INCOME to such a private police force in this anarchist state.


I know you're just brimming with sarcasm, but I think you may have just contributed to naming my first movie:

Anarchist Police Force!

Thanks.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #171 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post



What a fantastic police force that would be.

Say, I think you could extend the same principle to the armed forces!

Of course, the nation would be invaded within minutes by a properly-funded state army, that of Mexico, say. But it's the principle.

By the way, did you know that in an anarchist state I could declare myself a dentist?

Why, so could you. Dentists have SO MUCH MONEY ALREADY. Think how rich they'd be if they didn't need to prove they were competent, and pay taxes, and spend money on hygiene and stuff!

HOIST THE BLACK FLAG HIGH!


Think how fast they would be either out of business or taken down by the Anarchist crowds that had their teeth screwed up by their stupidity. I think that portion would take care of itself. People will do stupid things until they find out that it could be a danger to their lives. This even happens in a capitalist society with a government police force and regulations. The difference is, in government regulated environment, the rich doctors go to club fed. In an anarchist society, who knows what may occur...

I am not for or against the idea, but as has been stated, this is not as black and white as you seem to pretend it is.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #172 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

This is not a black and white issue as you are trying to make it.

There are several degrees and forms of anarchy. I don't think anyone here is advocating total chaos and lawlessness.

Anarcho-capitalism has an interesting approach to law and order and the use of violence.

Lawlessness is the sine qua non of anarchy. You cannot have anarchy with laws. Anarchy and law are absolutely, by their very definitions, incompatible.
post #173 of 419
According to Wikipedia...

Quote:
Anarchist communities

Icelandic Commonwealth

Gaelic Ireland

Libertatia (late 1600s)

The Free Territory (January 1919 – August 1921)

Shinmin Free Province (1929–1931)

Anarchist Catalonia, Spain, (July 21, 1936 – June 14, 1937)

Anarchist Aragon (October 6, 1936 – August 10, 1937)

Freetown Christiania, Denmark, (September 26, 1971 – present)

The human mind hates disorder, and will always strive to impose order in a chaotic situation. Also, a power vacuum is typically a window for opportunistic politicians. When excessive "order" leads to a lack of freedom, then revolution arises.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #174 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Lawlessness is the sine qua non of anarchy. You cannot have anarchy with laws. Anarchy and law are absolutely, by their very definitions, incompatible.

By one definition, yes.

However, there are several possible interpretations and definitions of the word "anarchy".

You can quabble over which definition you choose to go with, or you can admit that the issue is not as cut and dry as you are making it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #175 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

According to Wikipedia...



The human mind hates disorder, and will always strive to impose order in a chaotic situation. When excessive "order" leads to a lack of freedom, then revolution arises.

Yes, and there is a prevailing assumption that the only way order can emerge is through the state. The lack of imagination these days is truly sad.
post #176 of 419
Christiania isn't an anarchist community; it doesn't declare itself anarchic. It's a pantisocracy: it has laws and rules, it's just that they're decided and enforced by unanimous consent. There are rules about drugs, about who's allowed to live where (you can't just turn up and build a house) and there are sanctions for those who don't take their obligations to the community seriously (some essential tasks are divided among everyone capable of performing them.)
post #177 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

By one definition, yes.

However, there are several possible interpretations and definitions of the word "anarchy".
.

No, there aren't. 'Anarchy' is a term with a definition and a mountain of literature discussing it.

Can you find me a single definition of anarchy that doesn't require an absence of rule and an emphasis on absolute personal freedom?

You can't. Anarchy requires lawlessness. It's what the word means.
post #178 of 419
Quote:
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: \\ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker>
3 : anarchism

Quote:
Main Entry: an·ar·chism
Pronunciation: \\ˈa-nər-ˌki-zəm, -ˌnär-\\
Function: noun
Date: 1642
1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles


Probably best to clarify which definition is being used.

Here are a couple of books related to the topic:

http://bit.ly/7uIB2N

http://bit.ly/5VdfzD


And one article that provides a bit more nuanced explanation:

http://mises.org/daily/348
post #179 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No, there aren't. 'Anarchy' is a term with a definition and a mountain of literature discussing it.

Can you find me a single definition of anarchy that doesn't require an absence of rule and an emphasis on absolute personal freedom?

You can't. Anarchy requires lawlessness. It's what the word means.

One definition clearly mentions lawlessness.

Other definitions do not.

Tell me, do you believe laws can exist without government?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #180 of 419
post #181 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Anyone else noticed that jimmac is on the verge of exploding with frustration? His arguments have been picked apart so badly that he has nothing left but ad-homs and cheap debate tactics. After he gets called on those, he quits. Its about time.

More like embarrassed for a grown man who can't use logic.

Quote:
His arguments have been picked apart so badly that he has nothing left but ad-homs and cheap debate tactics. After he gets called on those, he quits. Its about time

Ad-homs like the time you called me " Dick " or was it the time you called me " A piece of work "?

You can't even play by you own rules. I really loved it when Lundy started laying down the new rules here and you were all paranoid about someone reporting you.

Crow all you want SDW. You didn't really win anything so it's is really kind of lame.

Oh by the way I missed the part where you picked apart my arguments. Funny coming from someone who runs when he gets backed into a corner. But then again there's that logic thing.

By the way none of this has anything to do with the fact that it's still Bush's fault.

And just because here's a little something to be proud of from the past :
Quote:
As much as you or anyone disagrees with GWB...as much "damage" as you think he's done...it's not possible to make a historical judgement while the man's in office, nor do I see the reason for attempting to other than to make yourself feel better about your own political views.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...light=SDW+2001


Now how does that fit with your views on Obama?

Have fun!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #182 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

More like embarrassed for a grown man who can't use logic.

Yet, you've failed to demonstrate a single statement or position of mine that is "illogical."

Quote:

Ad-homs like the time you called me " Dick " or was it " A piece of work "?

You can't even play by you own rules. I really loved it when Lundy started laying down the new rules here and you were all paranoid about someone reporting you.

See, this is what I mean by my comments on your ability to read and understand English. You don't know what ad-hominem is. In that situation, I got irritated with you and called you a name. While that is an infraction-worthy event, it's not arguing ad hominem. Here is the definition of ad-hominem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Quote:
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an argumentum ad hominem or a logical fallacy.[4][5][6][7][8] The fallacy only occurs if personal attacks are employed in the stead of an argument to devalue an argument by attacking the speaker, not personal insults in the middle of an otherwise sound argument or insults that stand alone.

In other words, ad hominem arguments are those made about the person, rather than issue. This is something that is the basis for your posts here. Of course, you consider my comments on your usage of English arguing ad hominem, but they are not intended to be. I point those out because they often make your statements difficult if not impossible to understand. They also can alter the very meaning of what (I think) you're trying to write.

Quote:


Crow all you want SDW. You didn't really win anything so it's is really kind of lame.

I don't know what we're trying to "win." I thought we were discussing and debating various issues. We have different opinions...that's fine. However, after years of discussion it's clear that yours aren't based on facts, just a few key phrases and visceral reactions.

Quote:

Oh by the way I missed the part where you picked apart my arguments. Funny coming from someone who runs when he gets backed into a corner. But then again there's that logic thing.

It would be hard to miss every post over 9 years, wouldn't it? Your central points in that time can be boiled down to a few points:
  • No WMD
  • Where's bin laden?
  • SDW is always wrong
  • I'm older than you
  • Cycles
  • Deregulation

Really...that's it. Those six things comprise everything you've ever said on this board. Ever.

Quote:

By the way none of this has anything to do with the fact that it's still Bush's fault.

My mistake...7 things. And yes, I realize you're just trying to be cute. Didn't work.

Quote:

And just because here's a little something to be proud of from the past :

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...light=SDW+2001


Now how does that fit with your views on Obama?

Have fun!


I see no problem with that quote nor with my current statements. The Bush presidency...like any presidency...cannot be judged in total in years down the road. That doesn't mean one had to agree with his actions at the time. However, it does invalidate all of the "worst president in history" comments that were going on near the end of second term.

Notice that I've made no such judgements about Obama. I disagree strongly with his policies in most areas. I think they are wrong and have been proven not to work, historically speaking. I believe that adding piles of debt, ramming through healthcare, massive goverment control over private industry, apology tours (etc) are all wrong and will have serious consequences, but I have no idea how Obama will be judged historically. For all I know, 2012 or 2016 could look very different. We could have an economy in rebound. We could be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could sign a treaty with Israel. GM and the big banks might be stronger than ever. We could be running a surplus. Of course, pigs could fly, too.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #183 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yet, you've failed to demonstrate a single statement or position of mine that is "illogical."



See, this is what I mean by my comments on your ability to read and understand English. You don't know what ad-hominem is. In that situation, I got irritated with you and called you a name. While that is an infraction-worthy event, it's not arguing ad hominem. Here is the definition of ad-hominem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem



In other words, ad hominem arguments are those made about the person, rather than issue. This is something that is the basis for your posts here. Of course, you consider my comments on your usage of English arguing ad hominem, but they are not intended to be. I point those out because they often make your statements difficult if not impossible to understand. They also can alter the very meaning of what (I think) you're trying to write.



I don't know what we're trying to "win." I thought we were discussing and debating various issues. We have different opinions...that's fine. However, after years of discussion it's clear that yours aren't based on facts, just a few key phrases and visceral reactions.



It would be hard to miss every post over 9 years, wouldn't it? Your central points in that time can be boiled down to a few points:
  • No WMD
  • Where's bin laden?
  • SDW is always wrong
  • I'm older than you
  • Cycles
  • Deregulation

Really...that's it. Those six things comprise everything you've ever said on this board. Ever.



My mistake...7 things. And yes, I realize you're just trying to be cute. Didn't work.




I see no problem with that quote nor with my current statements. The Bush presidency...like any presidency...cannot be judged in total in years down the road. That doesn't mean one had to agree with his actions at the time. However, it does invalidate all of the "worst president in history" comments that were going on near the end of second term.

Notice that I've made no such judgements about Obama. I disagree strongly with his policies in most areas. I think they are wrong and have been proven not to work, historically speaking. I believe that adding piles of debt, ramming through healthcare, massive goverment control over private industry, apology tours (etc) are all wrong and will have serious consequences, but I have no idea how Obama will be judged historically. For all I know, 2012 or 2016 could look very different. We could have an economy in rebound. We could be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could sign a treaty with Israel. GM and the big banks might be stronger than ever. We could be running a surplus. Of course, pigs could fly, too.

SDW if history can't judge a president during his term in office then neither can anyone else. You have judged Obama already on his performance. You've even predicted outcomes. Now this my SDW is in direct conflict with what you said. What's good for one must be good for all. You can't evaluate a president ( after only one year no less ) until he's done in office by your own standards.

Of course this just more SDW partisan sophistry and subterfuge.

Quote:
In other words, ad hominem arguments are those made about the person

It was me you were calling " Dickhead " and " Piece of work " on those seperate occasions. Other times you just call people " crazy " or " Hysterical " and yet not always saying why.

Sorry but you asked for it.

So answer this quandry. I know you'll try to twist and squirm but in the end you can't apply one standard to one president and another to a second president.

A classic example SDW Bizzaro world logic. This pig has flown before.

Quote:
I see no problem with that quote nor with my current statements

Of course you don't. Well I do and I'm guessing many would.

Please answer the question.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #184 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW if history can't judge a president during his term in office then neither can anyone else.

There are so many problems with this statement, I don't know where to begin.

Quote:
You have judged Obama already on his performance.

Yes, so?

Quote:
You've even predicted outcomes.

Have I? I don't agree with his agenda and the results thus far. That's what I know.

Quote:
Now this my SDW is in direct conflict with what you said. What's good for one must be good for all. You can't evaluate a president ( after only one term no less ) until he's done in office by your own standards.

It's not in conflict at all. It would be if I said "Obama is the worst President in history." I haven't said that. I strongly disagree with what he's done and think it will have consequences. That's all.

Quote:


Of course this just more SDW partisan sophistry.

Sorry but you asked for it.

So answer this quandry. I know you'll try to twist and squirm but in the end you can't apply one standard to one president and another to a second president.

A classic example SDW Bizzaro world logic. This pig has flown before.

I haven't used two standards. I'm not judging his Presidency in total, just his actions and policies so far.

Quote:

Of course you don't. Well I do and I'm guessing many would.

Please answer the question.

You didn't ask a question, champ. And, you don't speak for others.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #185 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

There are so many problems with this statement, I don't know where to begin.



Yes, so?



Have I? I don't agree with his agenda and the results thus far. That's what I know.



It's not in conflict at all. It would be if I said "Obama is the worst President in history." I haven't said that. I strongly disagree with what he's done and think it will have consequences. That's all.



I haven't used two standards. I'm not judging his Presidency in total, just his actions and policies so far.



You didn't ask a question, champ. And, you don't speak for others.

How do you explain judging one president one way and judging another another way SDW? Because that's what you are doing.

Quote:
And, you don't speak for others

I think you've heard plenty of what others think of your statements.

Quote:
I haven't used two standards. I'm not judging his Presidency in total, just his actions and policies so far

Then there's the possibility of improvement isn't there? Don't get me wrong I like Obama but I'm just asking from your point of view.

Please answer the question. Basically if you say anything else you're judging Obama's entire presidency on one year yet " history " can't judge Bush until he was out of office? Then how could anyone judge before any president was out of office?

No smoke and mirrors just an answer.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #186 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I think you've heard plenty of what others think of your statements.

I don't think I've told him yet, but I enjoy reading SDW2001's posts. I find them to be well thought out, well written, and articulate.

While I may not agree with everything he posts, I don't find his posts to be repetitive, vague, dismissive, or rhetorical like yours are much of the time.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #187 of 419
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

How do you explain judging one presidient one way and judging another another way SDW? Because that's what you are doing.

That is just patently false. I've judged them exactly the same. I've looked at their actions on fiscal policy, defense, growth of government, statesmanship and every area that counts. Bush did a lot of good in some of these areas, and not as much as good in others. He cut taxes, but allowed government and spending to grow. I thought he did very well on defense, but didn't do well with immigration. He helped form a good economy, but pushed for Medicare entitlements.

Obama has, in my judgement, done poorly in these areas. The stimulus is 2/3 pork. He made promised he couldn't keep on unemployment. The deficit has exploded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. He's thrust government into the banks and automakers, and now healthcare. He believes America is "one of the crowd" and nothing more on foreign affairs. He does not want us to be a superpower. He went on an apology tour and bowed the Chinese and Arabs. He's been impotent on Iran. He dallied on Afghanistan, only sending 75% of the troops McChrystal wanted, and only for 18 months. Government is exploding in terms of cost and size. So far, he's been absolutely terrible.

Quote:



I think you've heard plenty of what others think of your statements.

Some agree, some disagree. I support my positions with facts and reason. Yours are supported by the number of people that agree with you. I'll take door #1.

Quote:


Then there's the possibility of improvement isn't there? Don't get me wrong I like Obama but I'm just asking from your point of view.

Please answer the question. Basically if you say anything else you're judging Obama's entire presidency on one year yet " history " can't judge Bush until he was out of office? Then how could anyone judge before any president was out of office?

No smoke and mirrors just an answer.

At least you asked the question this time. Yes, there is a possibility of improvement. However, one must realize who Obama is at his core. Obama truly believes in redistributive economics, America being one of many (anti-exceptionalism, for lack of a better term) and the Keynesian model. His racial background and beliefs are highly questionable. It's doubtful he will abandon these positions, unless he's a Clintonesque figure who embraces politics and reelection more than ideology. I don't see him like that, but we'll see. I suppose he could also change his mind on several issues.

Notice the above is all about policy, not outcomes. Obama may also benefit from Clinton-like timing, where the natural business cycle makes his policies appear helpful. Time will tell.

Here's a question for you: Why do you "like" Obama?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #188 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is just patently false. I've judged them exactly the same. I've looked at their actions on fiscal policy, defense, growth of government, statesmanship and every area that counts. Bush did a lot of good in some of these areas, and not as much as good in others. He cut taxes, but allowed government and spending to grow. I thought he did very well on defense, but didn't do well with immigration. He helped form a good economy, but pushed for Medicare entitlements.

Obama has, in my judgement, done poorly in these areas. The stimulus is 2/3 pork. He made promised he couldn't keep on unemployment. The deficit has exploded beyond anyone's wildest imagination. He's thrust government into the banks and automakers, and now healthcare. He believes America is "one of the crowd" and nothing more on foreign affairs. He does not want us to be a superpower. He went on an apology tour and bowed the Chinese and Arabs. He's been impotent on Iran. He dallied on Afghanistan, only sending 75% of the troops McChrystal wanted, and only for 18 months. Government is exploding in terms of cost and size. So far, he's been absolutely terrible.



Some agree, some disagree. I support my positions with facts and reason. Yours are supported by the number of people that agree with you. I'll take door #1.



At least you asked the question this time. Yes, there is a possibility of improvement. However, one must realize who Obama is at his core. Obama truly believes in redistributive economics, America being one of many (anti-exceptionalism, for lack of a better term) and the Keynesian model. His racial background and beliefs are highly questionable. It's doubtful he will abandon these positions, unless he's a Clintonesque figure who embraces politics and reelection more than ideology. I don't see him like that, but we'll see. I suppose he could also change his mind on several issues.

Notice the above is all about policy, not outcomes. Obama may also benefit from Clinton-like timing, where the natural business cycle makes his policies appear helpful. Time will tell.

Here's a question for you: Why do you "like" Obama?

Quote:
However, one must realize who Obama is at his core. Obama truly believes in redistributive economics, America being one of many (anti-exceptionalism, for lack of a better term) and the Keynesian model. His racial background and beliefs are highly questionable. It's doubtful he will abandon these positions, unless he's a Clintonesque figure who embraces politics and reelection more than ideology. I don't see him like that, but we'll see. I suppose he could also change his mind on several issues.

Quote:
I support my positions with facts and reason

Any facts or reasons I've listed for you about Bush fell on deaf ears ( like my long quote from this: http://www.historycommons.org/index.jsp website which uses only researched facts not opinion you called it " An anti war site " as I recall ).

So if Obama patterned himself after Dubbya he'd be better?

Quote:
He made promised he couldn't keep on unemployment

Hey! Dubbya promised he'd smoke out OSBL!

Instead he made sure Saddam was hung out to dry. Not a great subsitute if you ask me.

Quote:
Obama may also benefit from Clinton-like timing, where the natural business cycle makes his policies appear helpful. Time will tell.

And how the hell did Clinton get into this again?

So in other words if things get better you've already mapped out your escape route. I see.

Quote:
Obama has, in my judgement, done poorly in these areas.

Sorry but it sounds like you're judging him to me. So All I have to say is wait until he's out of office ( by your own logic ) to judge him.

It'll probably only be another 7 years.

Another quote from the past on that same page :

Quote:
I'm just saying that saying he's the worst in history at this point is, well, dumb.

Well at what point would be ok? It sounds like you're damning Obama after only one year. When you made your statement about Bush he'd been in office for 7!

Sorry you were using this logic before to deflect criticism of Bush so what's good for one has to be good for another.

If you find fault with this or disagree then you still need to answer the question.

And SDW It's Still Bush's Fault!

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #189 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I don't think I've told him yet, but I enjoy reading SDW2001's posts. I find them to be well thought out, well written, and articulate.

While I may not agree with everything he posts, I don't find his posts to be repetitive, vague, dismissive, or rhetorical like yours are much of the time.

Of course you feel that way.


Why don't you ask Tonton, Addabox, Midwinter, groverat, Screener, Franksargent, Giant, @Artman, Mumbo Jumbo, or Bergermeister ( and there's many more ) if they feel the same way about SDW? I'll readily acknowledge any criticism they have of me.

Of course a good many of them have left this sand box in disgust.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #190 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Of course you feel that way.


Why don't you ask Tonton, Addabox, Midwinter, groverat, Screener, Franksargent, Giant, @Artman, Mumbo Jumbo, or Bergermeister ( and there's many more ) if they feel the same way about SDW? I'll readily acknowledge any criticism they have of me.

Of course a good many of them have left this sand box in disgust.

I would second jazzguru's sentiments of SDW2001's postings and of his assessment of your own postings jimmac. Simply choosing to selectively hear those on your side of the idealogical fence doesn't go along with your stated view of looking at all sides - but such inconsistencies I've come to expect from you.
post #191 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I would second jazzguru's sentiments of SDW2001's postings and of his assessment of your own postings jimmac. Simply choosing to selectively hear those on your side of the idealogical fence doesn't go along with your stated view of looking at all sides - but such inconsistencies I've come to expect from you.

Gee! What a surprise!

It's amazing you'd comment on an argument you know little about ( unless of course you've been around longer than than you're letting on or under another handle ).

And of course you'd ignore SDW doing the very same things you accuse me of.

For a sample of any contest of views around here I suggest you look at the results of the many polls that have been posted over the years.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #192 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Gee! What a surprise!

It's amazing you'd comment on an argument you know little about ( unless of course you've been around longer than than you're letting on or under another handle ).

You realize you don't have to log into AI to read the PO postings right? No other handle needed, you should add that to the list of new tech skills you've garnered, including useage of the AI search function.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And of course you'd ignore SDW doing the very same things you accuse me of.

I never said I ignored anyone's inconsistencies - an assumption on your part. I overlook no inconsistencies for anyone posting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

For a sample of any contest of views around here I suggest you look at the results of the many polls that have been posted over the years.


I acknowledge there are other views, otherwise how would we define a right one (conservative) if there was no wrong (left) ones by contrast?
post #193 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

You realize you don't have to log into AI to read the PO postings right? No other handle needed, you should add that to the list of new tech skills you've garnered, including useage of the AI search function.



I never said I ignored anyone's inconsistencies - an assumption on your part. I overlook no inconsistencies for anyone posting.



I acknowledge there are other views, otherwise how would we define a right one (conservative) if there was no wrong (left) ones by contrast?

Quote:
You realize you don't have to log into AI to read the PO postings right? No other handle needed, you should add that to the list of new tech skills you've garnered, including useage of the AI search function.

So how long are you " Claiming " to have been around here? SDW and I have been doing this since 2000!

Quote:
I never said I ignored anyone's inconsistencies - an assumption on your part. I overlook no inconsistencies for anyone posting.

Of couirse you don't.

Quote:
I acknowledge there are other views, otherwise how would we define a right one (conservative) if there was no wrong (left) ones by contrast?

You've just explained everything ( by your partisan nature ) that's wrong with your post making your viewpoint on the matter meaningless.

You know it's not often I run into someone who can undo their own argument.

Have a nice day!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #194 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

So how long are you " Claiming " to have been around here? SDW and I have been doing this since 2000!

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=19

We talked about it already, remember? No? Well you couldn't retain that information in your head back, even forgetting in the same thread, so I guess you can't remember it now. Of course, I already knew you ignored all viewpoints different from your liberal bias after a bit of back-for with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Of couirse you don't.

Dismissal, it's easy to do and is one of the defining characteristics that I came to note when I first interacted with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You've just explained everything ( by your partisan nature ) that's wrong with your post making your viewpoint on the matter meaningless.

Have a nice day!

By your own logic, that would make all your posts in PO meaningless, several years of your life spent posting here meaningless... Have another nice meaningless day posting here then!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You know it's not often I run into someone who can undo their own argument.

Indeed, look into the mirror much, because then you'll have identified the master at it! haha
post #195 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...7&postcount=19

We talked about it already, remember? No? Well you couldn't retain that information in your head back, even forgetting in the same thread, so I guess you can't remember it now. Of course, I already knew you ignored all viewpoints different from your liberal bias after a bit of back-for with you.



Dismissal, it's easy to do and is one of the defining characteristics that I came to note when I first interacted with you.

By your own logic, that would make all your posts in PO meaningless, several years of your life spent posting here meaningless... Have another nice meaningless day posting here then! [/QUOTE]

First you have to prove that ( as I've already done by your Previous statement ) bucko!

No wait! You actually proved it yourself!

Now you have a nice day!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #196 of 419
Still interested in getting in the last cheap shot in eh jimmac? Still the same person. Heck, you posted twice (the second time for even less apparent reason) into an old thread that wasn't active for months.

Also, unless someone new pops up, your already very well established jimmac as liberally biased - so much so that I do not need to establish it myself yet again in the thread you just posted in - again.

I still remember trumptman's words, you ask for others to provide proof when you yourself do not establish any. Why do I have any motivation to provide proof for you when I already know you don't operate at the same higher standards yourself? Bringing that old thread back onto the top of PO will only further expose you again - you did it to yourself.
post #197 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

Still interested in getting in the last cheap shot in eh jimmac? Still the same person. Heck, you posted twice (the second time for even less apparent reason) into an old thread that wasn't active for months.

Also, unless someone new pops up, your already very well established jimmac as liberally biased - so much so that I do not need to establish it myself yet again in the thread you just posted in - again.

I still remember trumptman's words, you ask for others to provide proof when you yourself do not establish any. Why do I have any motivation to provide proof for you when I already know you don't operate at the same higher standards yourself? Bringing that old thread back onto the top of PO will only further expose you again - you did it to yourself.

Quote:
Also, unless someone new pops up, your already very well established jimmac as liberally biased - so much so that I do not need to establish it myself yet again in the thread you just posted in - again.

If you had really read some of my posts you'd know this was untrue. Yes I'm a liberal but I've also said I want the Republican party back as it was before the neocons took it over. This country needs the Republicans to balance out the Democrats when they get out of hand. Just as they are currently balancing out the republicans for being out of hand for 8 long years.

But it's clear you just want to attack. What's your topic got to do with the thread? I haven't heard you mention Bush once. You're just talking about me.

The reason I posted in the other thread is because I saw you were viewing it

Quote:
I still remember trumptman's words, you ask for others to provide proof when you yourself do not establish any

You can go on saying that until you're blue in the face but I've already disproven that before as well. Just like you already proved your partisan nature.

Now either say something about the topic or I'm just not going to talk to you anymore. I don't have time for sandbox behaivor.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #198 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If you had really read some of my posts you'd know this was untrue. Yes I'm a liberal but I've also said I want the Republican party back as it was before the neocons took it over. This country needs the Republicans to balance out the Democrats when they get out of hand. Just as they are currently balancing out the republicans for being out of hand for 8 long years.

I'm pretty sure your vote for a Republican won't happen in reality - as liberals in the Democratic party don't vote Republican, blue dog Democrats do. In theory, you want the Republicans around to "balance out" the Democrats from getting out of hand. But if that were true; you wouldn't have voted in someone significantly worse for this country than Bush, Obama. It would only have been excusable had you voted for Hilary over McCain, but not for Obama over McCain... Unless you blindly vote for opposite sides every four years, it is merely a delusion or excuse to make you look reasonable that you want Republicans around.

In the end, you'll happily keep changing the goal post for your supposed Republican vote and use that as an excuse to continually vote Democrat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But it's clear you just want to attack. What's your topic got to do with the thread? I haven't heard you mention Bush once. You're just talking about me.

Now either say something about the topic or I'm just not going to talk to you anymore. I don't have time for sandbox behaivor.

Funny, because my post was provoked by your attack on SDW2001, which jazzguru and I stood up to. This post couldn't have existed had you not attempted to derail the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The reason I posted in the other thread is because I saw you were viewing it

I'm touched. Do you do this for everyone or do I get special attention?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You can go on saying that until you're blue in the face but I've already disproven that before as well. Just like you already proved your partisan nature.

Until the Democrats have viable solutions to offer for problems here and abroad, I'll be completely stuck being with the Conservative Republicans who do have viable free market solutions to offer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What? We have deficits far greater than we had under Bush. We still have two wars, it's just that Obama is ignoring them. Our alliances are no better than they ever were. Obama has failed in almost every aspect of his job. And it's Bush's fault.

At this point I begin to think he will never claim responsibility. If things don't improve though, the voters will hold his party responsible. People were willing to blame Bush for the past year. But memories are short. They will soon hold the controlling party to account.

Your thoughts.

1.) There has always been a rift between people's personal liking of Obama and his policies. The American public disagree with Obama/Democratic solutions/policies of late.

2.) Obama's ratings are continuing to drop as more Americans have buyers remorse.

3.) The day "It's Bush's fault" goes out of door is the day David Axelrod finds a better rated canned response. Axelrod may already have another line ready but wants "It's Bush's fault" to run its course (drop in ratings low enough to discard).
post #199 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon8472 View Post

I'm pretty sure your vote for a Republican won't happen in reality - as liberals in the Democratic party don't vote Republican, blue dog Democrats do. In theory, you want the Republicans around to "balance out" the Democrats from getting out of hand. But if that were true; you wouldn't have voted in someone significantly worse for this country than Bush, Obama. It would only have been excusable had you voted for Hilary over McCain, but not for Obama over McCain... Unless you blindly vote for opposite sides every four years, it is merely a delusion or excuse to make you look reasonable that you want Republicans around.

In the end, you'll happily keep changing the goal post for your supposed Republican vote and use that as an excuse to continually vote Democrat.



Funny, because my post was provoked by your attack on SDW2001, which jazzguru and I stood up to. This post couldn't have existed had you not attempted to derail the thread.



I'm touched. Do you do this for everyone or do I get special attention?



Until the Democrats have viable solutions to offer for problems here and abroad, I'll be completely stuck being with the Conservative Republicans who do have viable free market solutions to offer.



1.) There has always been a rift between people's personal liking of Obama and his policies. The American public disagree with Obama/Democratic solutions/policies of late.

2.) Obama's ratings are continuing to drop as more Americans have buyers remorse.

3.) The day "It's Bush's fault" goes out of door is the day David Axelrod finds a better rated canned response. Axelrod may already have another line ready but wants "It's Bush's fault" to run its course (drop in ratings low enough to discard).

Quote:
Funny, because my post was provoked by your attack on SDW2001, which jazzguru and I stood up to. This post couldn't have existed had you not attempted to derail the thread

Yeah well what provoked it this time?

I'm derailing the thread? Why is this so much about me ( as trumptman would say )?

But remember you've already said I'm the one who has to have the last word so what's this?

Quote:
Until the Democrats have viable solutions to offer for problems here and abroad, I'll be completely stuck being with the Conservative Republicans who do have viable free market solutions to offer.

Do you mean solutions like the ones that got us into this in the first place? Or have you forgotten who was in power when all this started?

Do you know what provoked my latest conversation here in this thread with SDW? I'd said I'd had enough. I was finding conversations with the less logical members of this forum a waste of my time and that I was coming here less and less.

SDW could have just let it go but he had to crow about it like he'd won some stupid victory. He could have just let it alone but he had to gloat.

As if.

I guess you just over looked that part of the thread with you partisan colored specs?



I'm hoping next time you'll have something new. Something on topic. Something other than personal, partisan, polarized opinon.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #200 of 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah well what provoked it this time?

I'm derailing the thread? Why is this so much about me ( as trumptman would say )?

Probable because we are both served in the process. Your happy because you get attention and I'm happy because I get to further expose the ridiculousness & hypocrisy of Liberals and their ideology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

But remember you've already said I'm the one who has to have the last word so what's this?

As in all threads in PO that we've had, you can have the last word. Also, feel free to spend some hours trying to grave-dig a thread where that hasn't been true and then come back and post a furious rant of how I should try to prove it for you. That would be a classic last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Do you mean solutions like the ones that got us into this in the first place? Or have you forgotten who was in power when all this started?

Hehe, I guess for liberals "It's Bush's fault" still works I see, but that is not surprising. Also, Bush didn't actively do anything to provoke a housing crisis, the people in power at the time was a Democratic Congress (power of the purse - economy) that did foster such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Do you know what provoked my latest conversation here in this thread with SDW? I'd said I'd had enough. I was finding conversations with the less logical members of this forum a waste of my time and that I was coming here less and less.

And still at 8,000 + posts an counting... I'm sure you'll find some reason to keep posting, it hasn't stopped you before and since nothing has changed, there is no reason to think your behavior would either.

Also, I'm not without some small sense of humor. I can fully enjoy you posting how posting is a waste of your time here and yet continue to post. It's great. You should include that statement in the next post too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

SDW could have just let it go but he had to crow about it like he'd won some stupid victory. He could have just let it alone but he had to gloat.

Therefore, you must show your superiority and win the meaningless award by continuing to post. Whatever excuse you can find to try to get that last word is completely worth it, because if you didn't, it would be an even bigger waste of your time right? You can't let the time you already sunk into it go to waste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I guess you just over looked that part of the thread with you partisan colored specs?

Ironic since you look over everything and always argue from the liberal point of view. The thing I don't know is if that is your intention or if you really think your view is any less non-partisan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm hoping next time you'll have something new. Something on topic. Something other than personal, partisan, polarized opinon.

Nothing except a Liberal point of view would satisfy your definition of that requirement - which in itself is not non-partisan. An unfortunate quandary you've put everyone in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post


Neat picture, is that what you do on your off time with fellow liberals?

Anyways: This'll be my last post in this thread unless someone else engages in the on-topic post I made before this responding to SDW. Feel free jimmac to let nature take hold and let yourself waste more of your precious time creating the last posting.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama: It's Still Bush's Fault