Obama '08?

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

No, I just believe that words mean things.
So when you say that no President has ever faced those same problems all at once, I have to challenge you on it because you know you are wrong.

and you are changing c.i.'s words.

He clearly said contemporary president. You tried to lure him into an argument about FDR which would have been a lovely red herring if he'd let you get away with it.

So - no - you don't "just believe that words mean things". You're as guilty of playing games with words as everyone else. Trying to play all "white as the driven snow" innocent doesn't look good on you.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I said the FDR is a contemporary President, you said that he isnt...

Quote:

That's correct. FDR wasn't a U.S. president in contemporary times except for a very few of our older posters.

FDR most certainly wasn't contemporary to you.
Quote:
1: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of timeM-W

from the synonyms' segment at M-W Quote:
coincident mean existing or occurring at the same time. contemporary is likely to apply to people and what relates to them <Abraham Lincoln was contemporary with Charles Darwin>.

Now, even you admit that FDR is contemporary to some of the people that post on here, so how am I wrong about what I said?

Or, are you suggesting that if someone isnt contemporary to me they dont count?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

Myopia.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

I'm saying, among other things, that your red herrings are just that.

I am not playing this game of words you enjoy so much.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I'm not playing any word games.

You and CI maintain that FDR is not a contemporary President, I maintain he is.
You claim that to be contemporary, he has to have been alive at the same time as I was.
I maintain that he is contemporary because there are posters on here that were alive while FDR was President.

You said the same thing.
Therefore, that makes FDR contemporary.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I'm not playing any word games.

You and CI maintain that FDR is not a contemporary President, I maintain he is.
You claim that to be contemporary, he has to have been alive at the same time as I was.
I maintain that he is contemporary because there are posters on here that were alive while FDR was President.

You said the same thing.
Therefore, that makes FDR contemporary.

Well, c'mon. I don't think most people think someone who served over 60 years ago is a 'contemporary president.'

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I thought you were an evolutionist Cyclo. 60 years is the last tick to midnight while the finger is still moving.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

I thought you were an evolutionist Cyclo. 60 years is the last tick to midnight while the finger is still moving.

I am an evolutionist. Fortunately for me, we aren't talking about evolution at all. Go back to yer grog, matey, and leave the political discussion for the sober folks...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Sorry. It's St Patrick's day and our landlord is of Irish extraction if you don't mind me using such a crude term. Which means Guinness with no charges.

I thought you were discussing what "contemporary" meant.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The Obama team seems to have lost their sense of what is important to revive our economy.

They never had any sense to lose. Call it a snide comment, I don't care, I think its an honest assessment. I do not believe Obama has ever understood free market economics, nor has he believed in it, he instead had his intellectual ideas developed over time about what he thought would work, which is some kind of a "third way," something of a hybrid of free market economics and socialism / Marxism. Thats what all the of the "change' mantra was about, long on slogans but short on details, and now we are beginning to see a few details. So upon inheriting the slowing economy, he seized the opportunity to talk the economy down and convince everyone it was one of the direst of circumstances in history, so that he could pass some of his social programs masquerading as a stimulus bill. After all, "never waste a crisis to get things done."

I don't think any of us really knows what President Obama (or anyone else for that matter) knows, understands or believes in. All we really know is what one does. He's an intelligent man and I believe it very unlikely that he doesn't understand free market economics. What we don't yet know is how much relative importance he attaches to the often competing factors that affect public policy. Moreover, we are only slowly discovering the pattern of his choices in dealing with both these considerations and the complexities of getting things done in government, with all its side issues and the egos & self-interest of other figures of both parties - a process we go through with every president. Perhaps more importantly, events don't unfold - for any president - the way they were planned or expected. Presidents, to some extent, become captives to events that unfold often in very unexpected ways, as recent history so amply illustrates.

I am surprised that President Obama has not acted more decisively to tame the excesses of some of the special interests of segments of his party and the Congress, particularly given his popularity - a commodity that will inexorably diminish with time as hopes and expectations become replaced with reality and compromise. He is wasting public money and political capital on relatively unimportant matters and adding political & economic obstacles to the enactment of some of the central issues in his campaign - health care and energy independence prominently among them. Finally it remains to be seen whether his wisdom, leadership ability and political sagacity are equal to the promises of his soaring rhetoric. Too early now to either praise or condemn: we shall see.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

If he goes ahead and abrogates NAFTA, even if just to the extent of allowing no further Mexican trucks to move about within the U.S., I'll have a pretty good idea of how much he understands free market economics. Then he can develope a better understanding of retaliation from what I believe is our third largest trading partner.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Thank you, georgeob, for that very balanced comment on Obama and our personal observations on what we think about the over-extension of special interest policies. I agree with your opinion, but none of us really know what the final impact will be. Nobody was ever challenged with this kind of problem, and what Obama is doing is the result of his advisers and congress. okie seems oblivious of political history, and he seems to think he has all the answers for what ails our economy and politics. We still have not heard how okie would address the current crisis.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I don't think any of us really knows what President Obama (or anyone else for that matter) knows, understands or believes in. All we really know is what one does. He's an intelligent man and I believe it very unlikely that he doesn't understand free market economics.

I agree that we don't know what Obama knows, understands, or believes in, but George, I find it amazing you say that but then go on to say that about everyone else. I respectfully and completely disagree, and I find it pathetic that we do not understand exactly where all of our presidents stand on issues, what they know, understand, and believe in. I certainly felt I knew where Reagan stood, where the Bush's stood, just a few examples. I did not always agree, but at least they were open and honest personalities, not hidden, veiled, or cloaked and repackaged to enhance the product.

You are an intelligent man, George, and I find it a really startling and revealing admission of yours to say what you did. But there is no way that an honest president could not be understood for exactly who he is and what he wants to do.

Final comment, many intelligent people do not believe in logical concepts. Many examples could be cited. A couple of examples, Hugo Chavez is probably an intelligent man, so was Castro, and many other people. Heck, there are many intelligent people in prison for that matter. Intelligence does not always tell us a whole lot, unless we see which direction the intelligence is directed. Beyond making that observation, there actually have been some people now questioning Obama's intelligence, so that is not exactly sealed in stone either.

But bottom line, a president owes it to the people to be open and honest about what he believes and wants to do. I agree with you, I do not think we have anything close to that in Obama. That is one of the biggest reasons I opposed him so vigorously, and I still oppose almost everything he is doing, based upon the merits of his actions, and based upon the fact that I do not trust him at all.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Quote:

"You are an intelligent man, George,..."

Hey, georgeob, are you an intelligent man? ROFL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
Quote:
"You are an intelligent man, George,..."

Hey, georgeob, are you an intelligent man? ROFL

Whats funny about that, ci? When George posts, I pay attention. He is one of the most informed and intelligent posters here, in my opinion, even though I don't always agree. He presents cogent and reasoned arguments, with backup information.

1 Reply

@okie,

Sure, but maybe he would sound brighter if he spent less time composing and more time on personal insults.

1 Reply

@roger,

Who, George? Or are you talking about ci?

0 Replies

@roger,

roger wrote:

If he goes ahead and abrogates NAFTA, even if just to the extent of allowing no further Mexican trucks to move about within the U.S., I'll have a pretty good idea of how much he understands free market economics. Then he can develope a better understanding of retaliation from what I believe is our third largest trading partner.

If he does continue the restrictions on Mexican truckers - which are in direct conflict with provisions of NAFTA - it may have nothing at all to do with his understanding of free market economics, but much more to do with the self-interests of some powerful Democrat constituents and sources of funds - Organized labor in particular. Whether, in view of all the conflicting interests that bear on this issue, free market economics being only one, his actions are wise and effective, remains to be seen.

I believe allowing this essentially silly and unrelated provision to become part of the "stimulus " package is an excellent example of the strange lack of foresight and willingness to tame his party's excesses to which I referred above. I suspect it will do him no good, either politically or in terms of policy.

0 Replies

@okie,

One other comment about Obama and his intelligence. As a side issue, some people are beginning to notice Obama's penchant for throwing lots of lavish parties, and some are also beginning to wonder about his work ethic. With parties being planned regularly, and he is chronically late to appointments, considering the supposed crisis he has described, and all the work that needs to be done and problems solved, why isn't he applying himself to a more serious work schedule? Just a question and a concern, wondering if everyone there are asleep at the switch? Are there any adults there that know what to do in case something serious happens, a national security event, etc.??? And where is Joe Biden, is he alive and well?

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, I see you have never had to concentrate on real problems at work. Your ignorance is legend, but you continue to prove it over and over.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know