...because it's tough to stick to the issues...

[heliochrome85]

yeah, Megan Fox: TOE THUMBS UP!

[IBCoupe]

I feel out of the loop.

[audtatious]

yeah, Megan Fox: TOE THUMBS UP!

That and the Brian by the bush....

[AZhitman]

Not hot. At all.

In other news, I'm actually kinda hoping the right DOESN'T pull a lot of legislative seats. Then, in two years, when nothing's gotten accomplished (and by "nothing", I mean "nothing that the majority really wanted"), they can't say, "But the GOP blocked everything we tried to do in the second half of the BO presidency!"

BTW, his interview on Stewart was more of the same.... "Blah blah [insert resume] blah blah [insert vague lefty talking point] blah blah [insert nebulous, nonspecific assertion that's TECHNICALLY true but conveys no substance] blah blah blah."

[audtatious]

You are wrong. She's that trashy/dirty/hot waitress-type chic at the bar you always want to hook up with but are afraid to bring something home to the GF.



Anyway, put this thread back on-topic. I broke in for some relief as things have been seeming tense in the politics forum.

[heliochrome85]

Two things:
Most importantly, while i think she is hot, id never really consider someone like her, regardless of situation because she is so airheaded as to make diamond jim seem educated in comparison.

give me Tina Fey anyday.


On a side note have you guys seen the cover of her new book "Bossypants"
[link wasn't working - edited]


also, she is coming out with a calendar for 2011. I WANT ONE.
http://tv.gawker.com/5670752/tina-fey-p ... h-calendar


Secondly, I think i have to agree with Greg on the Obama/Stewart thing. I watched it and didnt walk away with any awe inspiring revelations. The guy is a terribly smart man, and a true intellectual. he respects the process, and constitutional authority of congress to legislate, while the executive governs. That being said, intellectuals are on the outs in these difficult times. We as a country want soemone with Reagans ability to come down to the level of the populace. Issue there is that those might not be able to handle the complexity of the situation we now face.

Dont get me wrong, I like Obama, but im not in love. Im just willing to cut him slack that few are willing to do because of the circumstances udnerwhich he assumed the presidency. Whether you agree with me or not is fairly irrelevant, but ultimately, I suspect unless the GOP (and i dont mean tea party) get their act together for 2012, Obama is a two term president. You heard it here first.

[AppleBonker]

BTW, his interview on Stewart was more of the same.... "Blah blah [insert resume] blah blah [insert vague lefty talking point] blah blah [insert nebulous, nonspecific assertion that's TECHNICALLY true but conveys no substance] blah blah blah."

Actually, I just watched my recording of this last night. I found it intriguing. That's not to say I was intrigued by the information, but more like you said that it seemed pretty lacking. Then again, I wonder if that has something to do with catering to the intellectual needs of the greatest number of viewers (voters). As harsh as it sounds, I think this country is filled with complete idiots. So how many people would be able to understand anything more in depth? I don't know. While the few of you here who provide intelligent debate about the issues may not have gained anything, my guess is that you're in the minority.

And in case it sounded like it, I in no way, shape or form believe I am the most intelligent person out there. Especially not when it comes to politics/history.

[heliochrome85]

BTW, his interview on Stewart was more of the same.... "Blah blah [insert resume] blah blah [insert vague lefty talking point] blah blah [insert nebulous, nonspecific assertion that's TECHNICALLY true but conveys no substance] blah blah blah."

Actually, I just watched my recording of this last night. I found it intriguing. That's not to say I was intrigued by the information, but more like you said that it seemed pretty lacking. Then again, I wonder if that has something to do with catering to the intellectual needs of the greatest number of viewers (voters). As harsh as it sounds, I think this country is filled with complete idiots. So how many people would be able to understand anything more in depth? I don't know. While the few of you here who provide intelligent debate about the issues may not have gained anything, my guess is that you're in the minority.

And in case it sounded like it, I in no way, shape or form believe I am the most intelligent person out there. Especially not when it comes to politics/history.

you may honestly be right. Greg, and the rest of us generally are plugged into whats going on in the world and tend to understand more complex issues, than the average american. It wouldnt surprise me if a normal person (since we are genuinely outside of the norm) would see this as enlightening.

[AZhitman]

Good God. In that case, that just magnifies his arrogance.

No, I do NOT want a politician to "dumb it down". That tells me that he perceives us as less intelligent than he, and that's insulting.

We've had Presidents who spoke to us on a higher level. People will rise to the level of the speaker, if you give them a chance, and challenge their intellectual capacity. Keep up or GTFO.

Here: I don't CARE about the "lowest common denominator". I want a POTUS that will lead me and the top 10% of the population (you know, those of us who contribute and participate)... not one who panders to Billy Bob and Mamaw in the trailer park just to buy a cheap vote over a promise of continued welfare benefits or free health care. That's insulting to good people of BOTH parties.

Now, what you say may well be the case. But I'm unwilling to make that assumption. Until he SHOWS me otherwise, it's all double-speak and empty, nebulous bull**** coming out of his mouth, and I have to assume that's all he's got.

[AppleBonker]

No, I do NOT want a politician to "dumb it down". That tells me that he perceives us as less intelligent than he, and that's insulting.

Personal opinion:
Even if I put you in the top 10% of knowledgeable citizens when it comes to political issues from the past two years, there still has to be plenty that you missed. After all, you do actually have a life outside of politics whereas the politicians involved rarely do. If Obama were to have tried to explain everything in detail, there's no way anything would've been covered in that 30 minute show.

Also, can you really fault the guy for trying to get votes out of the largest category of citizens (if we are defining categories based solely on intelligence or knowledge of political proceedings)? The guy wants to get reelected, and he certainly wants other dems to get elected around him. It's honestly a fine line he has to walk (as all presidents do). You want him to speak at a higher level, because this dumbing down makes him look arrogant. Others would argue that if he spoke at too high a level he would come off as an arrogant know-it-all there too. Unfortunately for you, you are on the minority side of those two options...

[AZhitman]

I know - and you're right.

What it ultimately comes down to is that I'm a critic, and realistically, I might never be happy with how he says what he says because I don't like what's behind what he says, no matter how he says it.

How's that?

[AppleBonker]

How's that?

Completely understood. And no argument here.

[heliochrome85]

I know - and you're right.

What it ultimately comes down to is that I'm a critic, and realistically, I might never be happy with how he says what he says because I don't like what's behind what he says, no matter how he says it.

How's that?

MARK IT: OCTOBER 29TH IN THE 2010TH YEAR OF OUR LORD.

GREG SEES THE LIGHT!!!
HALLELUJAH

[AZhitman]

I know - and you're right.

What it ultimately comes down to is that I'm a critic, and realistically, I might never be happy with how he says what he says because I don't like what's behind what he says, no matter how he says it.

How's that?

MARK IT: OCTOBER 29TH IN THE 2010TH YEAR OF "those people's" LORD.

FTFY.

Your guy couldn't even get on the calendar... that whole "B.C. / A.D." thing, y'know? Bummer.

[heliochrome85]

i thought you converted me?

[AZhitman]

Not to teh Jeebus. Whaddaya think I am, Pat Robertson?

All I did was bring out your inner conservative capitalist.

[heliochrome85]

isnt that basically the same thing?

[audtatious]

I think there would be less of a visible "dissidence" so quick had Obama run on something other than "Hope and Change". He and the other Dems mistakenly took the election as a sign that they had full control to do what they wanted. Now, that's not saying that they have not been able to fulfill some of their campaign promises, in some form of another, the path they took and lack of promised visibility has given a bad taste in a lot of voters mouths.

Next week will result in a large swap of Dems. The question I have is how will both sides handle the change. Maybe Obama can salvage something from his "first" term as President by actually following through with his promises of transparency and reaching across the isle. Both sides have to be able to work together in order to solve the serious problems we are in as a nation.

[IBCoupe]

Here: I don't CARE about the "lowest common denominator". I want a POTUS that will lead me and the top 10% of the population (you know, those of us who contribute and participate)... not one who panders to Billy Bob and Mamaw in the trailer park just to buy a cheap vote over a promise of continued welfare benefits or free health care. That's insulting to good people of BOTH parties.

I love you so much right now.

I think there would be less of a visible "dissidence" so quick had Obama run on something other than "Hope and Change".

Honestly, I think he did run on something other than "Hope and Change." I just think that's the only thing that got play on cable television. I preferred him over McCain on side issues. Consider this:

A 38,000-member coalition of scientists, engineers and concerned citizens, ScienceDebate2008 pushed presidential candidates to attend to science -- an area that is vital to America's economy and touches on nearly every important political issue, but is generally neglected during elections.

Though unable to convince Obama and John McCain to engage in a full-blown science debate, ScienceDebate2008 winnowed 3,400 member-submitted questions down to 14 key challenges facing candidates and the country. Some, such as clean energy and stem cell research, are familiar from past elections. Others, such as water security and the systematic politicization of science, are new.

Obama's answers were released on Saturday and balance lofty rhetoric with policy-wonk detail -- not only on energy issues, which are a central part of his platform, but relatively esoteric issues as science education, bioterror and genetic privacy.

"I thought they were very substantive for this point in the campaign, and surprisingly detailed," said Otto.

Obama also appears to appreciate the process of science: He promises across-the-board doublings of basic research budgets, and pledges to reverse the ideologically motivated science-skewing that has thrived under the Bush administration.

Even Jon Stewart got on him for being hope-and-changey. While it was certainly a rallying cry, it's often argued that "Hope and Change" was the full extent of then-candidate Obama's platform, rather than simply the opening line. Further, I think that perception, promoted by the news networks, led to a skewed perception of Obama's actual policy standpoints - he was portrayed to be far more radical than an examination of his policy positions made him out to be. I remember arguing with coworkers that he wasn't the lefty (and still isn't) that he's often portrayed to be. He's a pretty centrist moderate.

And I don't know if there's anything President Obama can do to make the electorate happy. There are people still arguing both that he's done nothing, and that he's destroying the country. Until the economy greatly improves (and all accounts have this as remaining a very slow recovery), I don't think there's anything any President can do to make the electorate happy.

[audtatious]

"even Jon Stewart"? That's like me saying "even Rush Limbaugh"....

As for the questions....you have to trust the person making the statements which some of us didn't based upon his associations and record. From the article you linked do you feel he has followed through with his directional claims? I personally feel:

1, 2. The US HAS taken the greatest strides of any country to lower GHG and pollution already. You can't mandate technological advances in energy use/consumption. As with Bush, propping up Ethanol is the wrong direction. Wind and Solar have their own issues. Punishing gas/coal as a means to lower their use in today's economy and environment is retarded. If it needs to be subsidized then it's not cheaper or better.

3. Increase National defense research? right....like anyone believed he would double defense research. Hell, he's not pushing to enforce the laws on the books today and attacking states who feel they need to do something themselves.

4. Embryonic stem cell research. That's good and all yet using embryonic stem cells has done nothing at this point. The latest news shows the first human was injected this month for a spinal cord issue as a clinical trial. Did Obama's direction and policy allow this to happen? Nope. Did the Bush policy stop this from happening until the Obama policy change? Nope. It's all privately funded and Bush only stopped Gov funding of new strains but not the strains that were already in use.

Note: I'm not against the use of embryonic stem cells. I am against the generic hand outs the Gov does on research that the private sector would do themselves (without the money) as a means to make money.

5. I don't disagree but it all depends on the actions imposed. Current legislation he put through sux thus he was FOS

6. Transparency not found and he's done none of it.

[IBCoupe]

You missed the point entirely.

[audtatious]

You missed the point entirely.

Wouldn't be the first time.

[audtatious]

To that I say:

Before or after he blew up the levies?

[AZhitman]

I love you so much right now.

It happens.

I remember arguing with coworkers that he wasn't the lefty (and still isn't) that he's often portrayed to be. He's a pretty centrist moderate.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/01/o ... ena_1.html

Your coworkers suck at arguing.

Besides, even if he's NOT, he's surrounded himself with radically-liberal and progressive nutcases, thereby pushing away people who might otherwise be supportive of him (such as me).

[IBCoupe]

But the liberal ranking also comes after a prominent British magazine labeled Obama the ideal "conservative" candidate for America, and after several prominent conservative pundits have tossed bouquets his way.

[audtatious]

Yes, because the British are the "end all"....???

[IBCoupe]

Never claimed they were. I'm simply providing conflicting data. Terms like "The most liberal" and "The most conservative" doesn't necessarily have a lot of meaning unless you know what calculations went into making that determination.

[audtatious]

Yet there are really no methods to determine that in the least so it's moot.

[IBCoupe]

Exactly. On the other hand, if you can point to a particular methodology of the President in his approach to policy and the way he verbalizes his understanding of issues, you can get a better sense of where he is, ideologically-speaking, than if you simply, for example, tally up his binary votes. Though it takes a lot more effort than simply looking at "Yes" or "No" votes, you're more likely to get a real estimation of the person's feelings on a matter.

So, while Greg and my coworkers all liked to point at vote counts, I liked to point at his words, and at the way he approached even Healthcare - knowing that Republicans had no intention of cooperating at all, he started from the middle in the hopes of getting some Republicans on board, and that pissed off his base to no end. That right there speaks louder to me than his Senate record.

[audtatious]

Yes and no. He said a lot of things and didn't stick with them. Remember:

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process," Obama said at a debate in Los Angeles on Jan. 31, 2008.

Instead, everything was behind closed doors and usually only Democrats allowed. Then you have the Pelosi "gotta pass it to see what's in it" statement. Surely, the environment the Dems "hosted" while the super majority was not one which could be confused as being kind to the Republicans. There was no start "in the middle" in the least.