13
   

GOP's live streaming event backfires

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2012 08:57 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

So going in and sabotaging is okay now? Really? How are you with that when it works against your sainted Obama?


Oh, and: every time you write "sainted Obama" it just makes you look like a total jackass.

Cycloptichorn


How do you think this makes you look?


You are another who likes to write 'sainted Obama,' so why should I believe that you are expressing anything here other than sour grapes?

Both of you would be well served to examine the underlying reasons why you say such a thing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2012 08:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

I know a lot of conservatives who pretend they are centrists. I see you giving 90% of your criticism towards the Dems here on a2k, and rarely if ever commentating negatively towards the GOP; you are, of course, free to call yourself whatever name you like.


An amusing and supremely hypocritical comment from an ever faithful Democrat claque.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When I see you call out the GOP for their constant obstructionism and intentional attempts to destroy our economy for their own gain, perhaps I'll change my opinion. I would also say, if you don't want to be seen as a right-wing mouth-breather, you'd be well served to forget the 'sainted Obama' ****. You're repeating the tropes used by the dumbest and worst of that crowd, do you even realize that?

Cycloptichorn
On what factual basis can you claim to know the inner motives of whoever it is you are referring to in "the GOP"?? Sounds like bombastic adolescent bullshit to me.

Actually the phraise "sainted Obama" is merely a gently ironic ond otherwise inoffensive reference to what often appears to be the rather slavish devotion of many (not all) Obama supporters. Moreover it may be that Sturgis isn't very concerned about or even interested in the opinions of those who term their political opponents as "right wing mouth breathers". The "Sainted Obama" thing is far less crude and a much more incisive put-down.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2012 09:10 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Sounds like bombastic adolescent bullshit to me.


Sounds like I've hit a nerve to me.

"Sainted Obama" is just a less offensive flavor of the same attempts to de-legitimize the man that those who push the 'he's a Muslim!' and 'he's not born in America!' crowd push. It's surprising that you can't see that.

And I honestly believe you do it because you fear the man, as he's the only national politician of a Liberal bent in the last thirty years who has shown any real ability to inspire crowds of people. He makes powerful and logical arguments regarding the benefits of liberalism. Clinton didn't do that, he was a centrist all the way. Obama is dangerous for the future of Conservatism, at least the exceedingly toxic, greed-based brand that has captured your party; as he's young, and is likely to be influential for some time in our political scene, the only option left to you and yours is to attempt to destroy the man as quickly as possible. And that's exactly what your politicians set out to do: oppose each and every thing he proposed, continually demonize and disrespect the man, refuse to compromise in any way, and then blame him for the inability to get anything meaningful done on the national level for the last year or two. That's Romney's national election strategy in a nutshell.

Andrew Sullivan and PM Carpenter have some relevant words on this subject - he calls it the 'unethical stench' that Romney and the GOP have resorted to emanating.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/romneys-unethical-stench.html

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Jun, 2012 09:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I think the inspirational factor has become far less effective and broad in its appeal over the last few years. Indeed in several respects Obama's support appears to be unravelling.

I don't fear Obama so much as fear for my country while he is in office. Happily he increasingly appears to be self limiting and destined for defeat in November. Far rom being powerful and logical, his arguments are generally vague and abstract, increasingly vapid and laden with familiar cliches instread of concrete specifics. Moreover he is becoming repetitious and a bit shopworn. The part time university instructor (I mean Professor of Constitutional Law) looks increasingly one dimensional and in over his head.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 01:58 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I think the inspirational factor has become far less effective and broad in its appeal over the last few years. Indeed in several respects Obama's support appears to be unravelling.


Polling doesn't confrim this. In fact, his numbers are roughly 3-4% higher than they were last year, in national polling. So, I don't see any empirical evidence of a loss of support.

Quote:
I don't fear Obama so much as fear for my country while he is in office. Happily he increasingly appears to be self limiting and destined for defeat in November. Far rom being powerful and logical, his arguments are generally vague and abstract, increasingly vapid and laden with familiar cliches instread of concrete specifics. Moreover he is becoming repetitious and a bit shopworn. The part time university instructor (I mean Professor of Constitutional Law) looks increasingly one dimensional and in over his head.


We shall see, here in a few months. Let me submit that I would be far more worried, were there a more competent opponent placed against him. For all I see attacks against Obama from people on this board, I rarely see supportive statements in favor of Romney. Why is that, if the man is a figure destined for victory? In fact, I rather rarely see anything posted about Romney at all, from those who should be his biggest supporters here. No mention of him, just continual criticism of Obama.

I get the sense that A2K's republicans simply have no desire to discuss the man.

Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 11:44 am
Re: stupid stunts on the GOP side,

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2012/06/coal-activist-kiddie-porn

Don't like the opposition testifying at your hearings on coal? Smear them as child pornographers!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 01:18 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

We shall see, here in a few months. Let me submit that I would be far more worried, were there a more competent opponent placed against him. For all I see attacks against Obama from people on this board, I rarely see supportive statements in favor of Romney. Why is that, if the man is a figure destined for victory? In fact, I rather rarely see anything posted about Romney at all, from those who should be his biggest supporters here. No mention of him, just continual criticism of Obama.

I get the sense that A2K's republicans simply have no desire to discuss the man.

Cycloptichorn

In the first place, until very recently the Republican Nominating process was stull in serious dispute - an extended period during which Obama was without challenger as the Democrat candidate. and sitting President Secondly your observations may have as much to do with the peculiar, largely Democrat, obsession with their sainted leader - itself an unusual phenomenon, given his noteworthy lack of prior achievement or success in office. We don't elect kings or saviors in this country: we elect Presidents and their terms are limited.

Happily, to borrow Hans Chrisian Anderson's metphor, it is becoming increasingly evident that the Emperor Obama has no clothes. The sycophancy of his adoring liberal claques is starting to look foolish - a phnemonon that can lead to a fairly sudden collapse of support.

However, as you wrote, we will both know the result in a few months.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 01:38 pm
@georgeob1,
You've been prophesying that 'collapse of support' and talking about 'increasing resistance' to Obama, etc., for two years straight now. And yet; his poll numbers have not collapsed and he still enjoys a handsome lead in projections of state voting in the upcoming election. And, as I pointed out in the post you responded to, his polling numbers are actually higher than they were last year. How does this jibe with what you are saying?

This is akin to your and others never-ending prophesies of Inflationary Doom - it's always just right around the corner. At what point does the lack of arrival begin to signal an incorrect projection on the part of chicken little? Ever? Is there ever a point at which one says 'the collapse of Obama's support that I've been long predicting has not yet occurred?' Or perhaps, 'the projections of high inflation that I've long been predicting have not occurred, and are no more likely to next year than they were for the last several years I predicted them?'

I would suggest avoid using the words 'increasingly' or 'starting to,' unless you have some evidence that these things are actually happening.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 01:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I put less relaince on poll data than you, and note that the observed trends often have as much to do with the biases of the poll taker as the thing being measured. Moreover the phrase "his polls" is too vague. Even poll results concerning general impressions of Obama and agreement with his policies show considerable variance, with consistently more support for Obama as a person than the political choices, initiatives, and polices he has advanced. In close political contests one can always find polls that "support" your favored outcome.

How do you account for the very large gap between the exit poll data reported in the early stages of the Walker recall election in Wisconsin and the actual vote that resulted? Poll results are generally not precise indicators of the actual behavior of voters in secret ballots.

I suspect the Greeks were much suprised by the sudden collapse of the grossly overleveraged financial position of their government. However, in retrospect, their path to the cliff they fell off was all-too-evident. Same goes with the overcapitalized mortgage bubble in this country. The ongoing financial crisis and sclerotic lack of economic growth in Europe is something that I have been suggesting would occur since I joined ths forum, now eight years ago.

The fact is that we have indeed created the conditions for high inflation, and now ,with a seriously overleveraged governmet, quite unable to financially survive the high interest rates required to limit or contain inflation, potentially helpless to do anything about it when it occurs. This has happened before. History shows that the causes of it are clear enough, but that it is rarely seen or expected by those who fall victim to it. You have provided us all with an excellent example of the mindset required for that kind of folly.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 02:25 pm
@georgeob1,
I guess the answer to my question is: no, there's never a point at which those who prophesy doom will admit that, maybe, their prophesies were just a little off. All evidence to the contrary of their predictions is imperfect and cast aside without reflection. Think on that next time you accuse ME of being an ideologue Laughing

While we may have created the conditions for high inflation, it's important to note that what we actually HAVE is the lowest inflation in, oh, 30 years. One is forced to wonder if inflation really would be so bad compared to the other ills we are facing. Now, I know that's anathema to the squirrels who treasure their pile of nuts... but we have come through periods in which the inflation rate was literally 6 times what it currently is, and I sure didn't see the republic collapsing.

There are not a few economist who believe a higher rate of inflation than what we currently are experiencing would in fact be a very healthy thing for the US in many ways.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 02:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
There are very few precedents for governments this addicted to deficit spending and with our current levels of public debt, not eventually defaulting on the debt either through inflation or direct default.

Many point to the post WWII USA as a counter example. However we then had the only surviving industrial plant and intact economy in the world, and ample natural resources, then including oil, minerals and food production capacity. With the pent-up demand for goods of all kinds, both domestically and world-wide, we could quickly sell anything and everything we could produce with virtually no competition. Those conditions don't exist today.

We do have relatively low inflation now, in part because with our current debt level our government desperately needs it and can't service its debt with high interest rates. The Fed has enabled the process by buyiing government bonds and, in effect, printing new money, each time adding to the risk of eventual high inflation. Uncertainty fostered by the world-wide financial crisis (itself a consequence of excessive public & private debt) and the heavy (and unpredictable) hand of government regulation have left huge stores of cash in the hands of corporations and increasingly individuals as private debt falls. When this enormous accumulation of cash hits the economy we will likely see extended periods of high (say 10%) inflation and a government that lacks the financial ability to containd it - a dangerous combination.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 03:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Uncertainty fostered by the world-wide financial crisis (itself a consequence of excessive public & private debt)


On the contrary. What the Europe in particular is currently experiencing is a currency crisis, not a debt crisis. And the financial crisis in America has nothing - nothing - to do with excessive public debt. It has to do with unregulated financial markets and a failure to realize the damage that can be done by them.

I would suggest you read the following piece by Frum, on exactly this topic -

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/07/rip-van-winkle-economics.html

Quote:
Rip Van Winkle Economics
by David Frum Jun 7, 2012 10:25 AM EDT

There's an ancient corny joke: How do you get down off an elephant? Answer, you don't get down off an elephant, you get down off a duck.

A lot of our economic debate takes the form of getting down off a duck, such as, for example, today's oped in the Wall Street Journal by Phil Gramm and Glenn Hubbard.

Here are two of the smartest men on the economic right, one a former chairman of the Senate banking committee, the other a former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Yet they insist on treating today's economic crisis as a repeat of 1979-81—and Europe's agony as a debt crisis (which it isn't), not a currency crisis (which it is).

Why? Well you will consider only one policy solution—cut taxes and regulations—then you must insist that there can be only one policy problem.

Yet in almost every way, today's economic problems are exactly the opposite of those of 30 years ago. Then we had inflation, today we are struggling against deflation. Then we had weak corporate profits, today corporations are more profitable than ever. Then we had slow productivity growth, today it is high. Then the to-individual income-tax rate was 70%. Today it is 36%. Then energy regulations produced energy shortages. Today the removal of banking regulations has produced an abundance of debt.

Europe's problems are especially difficult to address on the Wall Street Journal, because they are caused by exactly following that paper's editorial advice. That paper fiercely advocated the Euro currency, without which today's European sovereign-debt problems would be manageable in every economy except Greece's.

One of the saddest ill effects of age is that the brain freezes in patterns set long ago. The mind finds it difficult to acknowledge new realities, much less devise or even accept new solutions. And as our societies age, such brain freezes becoming an ever more endemic challenge to the making of sound public policy.

As Macchiavelli wrote 500 years ago: "For this is the tragedy of man: circumstances change and he does not."


Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 04:12 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
I put less relaince on poll data than you, and note that the observed trends often have as much to do with the biases of the poll taker as the thing being measured.

So, you are arguing that the bias of the poll taker is changing?

If the bias is constant, then all polling would be off by a similar amount but trends would still be evident.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 04:17 pm
@parados,
I'm not arguing that at all. Polling involves many variables, ranging from the obvious ones about sample sixe and stratification, to the shbtle variations that can be introduced by the questions themselves and the possibilities offered for responses. The idea that bias, whether constant or variable, is somehow a simple thing, common to all polls is obviously inadequate to the complexity of the problem.

Can you explain the very different results obtained in the exit polling in Wisconsin and the votes actually recorded?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 04:26 pm
@georgeob1,
Sure. Exit polls have problems because you can't select a true random sample. Because they are such a short time period, it's hard to make adjustments to account for an overweighted sample.

In the case of the polls in Wisconsin, it appears they were leaked before the polls were closed. The final exit polls were actually pretty close at 52 to 48 to the actual vote count.
But even the 50/50 polling earlier was within the statistical margin of error. Now what exactly are you saying was the problem with the exit polling?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 04:59 pm
@Sturgis,
Quote:
in 2000 and in 2004 I voted for George W. Bush.


Is there something about idiots who turn in war criminals/terrorist/felons that turns your crank, Sturgis?
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 05:27 pm
Where aside from politics can one act completely indignant by the opposition's dickheadedness, while at the same time act like an utter dickhead toward that same opposition - and get away with it?




Oh wait. I know. ... religion


Circular logic FTW!!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jun, 2012 11:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are not a few economist who believe a higher rate of inflation than what we currently are experiencing would in fact be a very healthy thing for the US in many ways.

Cycloptichorn


Believe me: its coming.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 12:10 am
@djjd62,
Do I speak, indirectly, ill of you dj?

Unbecoming.

Actually I would find someone spaming the site as "Frank Jones" a hell of a lot funnier than the sophomoric Dick Hertz and a million variations of Boner. It would reveal a far more subtle sense of humor.

But then some people love Benny Hill and Howard Stern.
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jun, 2012 07:12 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Do I speak, indirectly, ill of you dj?


possibly, i've never much cared what is said about me as long as it's untrue

no real disrespect was meant, you were unfortunately the first conservative to come to mind

i wish ican was still around, i'd have used him, he seemed supremely humourless
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Oddities and Humor - Discussion by edgarblythe
Let's play "Caption the Photo" II - Discussion by gustavratzenhofer
JIM NABORS WAS GOY? - Question by farmerman
Funny Pictures ***Slow Loading*** - Discussion by JerryR
Caption The Cartoon - Discussion by panzade
Geek and Nerd Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Caption The Cartoon Part Deux - Discussion by panzade
IS IT OK FOR ME TO CHEAT? - Question by Setanta
2008 Election: Political Humor - Discussion by Robert Gentel
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 03:59:12