• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
Wow so Hayes is out? I never really watched his nightly show since I don't have cable but I'd often watch Up when I went to my parents place for the weekend and he is fantastic. Sad that Al Sharpton stays while Chris Hayes gets the boot.
 

benjipwns

Banned

There is a personality type common among the Left’s partisans, and it has a name: Holden Caulfield.
I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the Catcher in the Rye should legal to own/sell/etc., the piece of garbage.

His is the sort of personality inclined to believe in his heart the declaration that “behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” (He also believes that this is a quotation from Honoré de Balzac, whose works he has not read, when it fact it comes from Richard O’Connor’s The Oil Barons: Men of Greed and Grandeur.)
Obama annihilated, Congress needs to take up hearings on Balzacgate.

Give Holden Caulfield a television show and you’ve got Chris Hayes.

Barack Obama has a great, big, heaping dose of Holden Caulfield in him.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Thinking more about Jeb's "shock and awe" fundraising plans..

So Jeb's going to raise all the money in the world over the next year. His fundraising prowess would scare me, but this gives us two very probable outcomes.

We could see Jeb emerge as the nominee with huge portions of the base resenting him, thinking he's too moderate, too Clinton-cozy, etc. We could also see a non-Jeb nominee who has had hundreds of millions of Jeb's ad dollars blanketing the airwaves, demonizing him for various reasons in front of voters in various key states.

This'll be exciting to watch.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Some speculation that MSNBC lineup shakeups are just starting:
Chris Hayes could be out, Maddow moving up to 8pm, Sharpton to weekends, MSNBC to begin moving away from "progressive programming"

The real question though is...what'll happen to Lockup?!?

The MSNBC source said, “Going left was a brilliant strategy while it lasted and made hundreds of millions of dollars for Comcast, but now it doesn’t work anymore...The goal is to move away from left-wing TV.”

Man, by 2016 the only left wing political show left on TV might be John Oliver.

Wonder if Comcast is pissed about Obama pushing net neutrality.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Debbie for Senate?? yuck

idk but unlike tim kaine, she is so off putting. She reeks partisanship. That Dylan Raitgan moment back in 2009 is haunting. She needs to go post 2016.

Pat Murphy or bust whether Rubio is in or out.

Our boy Feingold running? Now that is one guy I cant wait to see clobber johnson to a curve. He is the only one I have no problem running again aside from Sestak.

Strickland...why is he running? let the young guy have a turn.
 

bonercop

Member
little disturbing to me how progressives are treating biden's weird sexual harassment as a joke, tbh. dude needs to keep his hands to himself.
 
little disturbing to me how progressives are treating biden's weird sexual harassment as a joke, tbh. dude needs to keep his hands to himself.

There's a difference between sexual harassment and inappropriate touching. Theirs an intent with harassment to bother the person or for sexual pleasure.

It doesn't seem that the VP is doing anything wrong besides committing social faux pas. Its not much different than a European kissing you on the cheek from what I can see, he should obviously be better queued into body language and the fact most people don't like that but I don't see anything that makes him a horrible person or anything

When ever conservatives attack people and bemoan a double standard one thing is almost always ignored in their critiques. Intent.
 

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
No, as I've said before, I could stomach the idea of being force to follow the law as poorly written. However, this would only work if that particular line you're talking about, the one that this entire case hinges on, was the only line that had anything to say about the exchanges. But it doesn't. If you read the law in its entirety, there are dozens of instances where the role of the federal government in the exchanges is clearly laid out. And when read in totality, with context, it's unquestionable what the actual legislative intent is supposed to be.

I don't think there are all that many different sections where the role of the federal government in FFEs is laid out. In fact, I'm pretty sure it's just 1321. There's a lot riding on the "such Exchange" language, and most of it can easily be read into that phrase. The identity of who established "such Exchange," however, cannot be.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-big-obamacare-case-20150217-column.html#page=1

That pretty much says it all. Lawsuits based on sound arguments where a favorable ruling results in positive outcomes for ........ anyone, are not going to run into the sort of problems King has. As a judge who ruled in the government's favor said to the plaintiff's lawyers "No one wants what you're selling.".

That's just not true. Standing issues come up in all sorts of cases. It has literally nothing to do with the merits of a case.

Good stuff here, I think this my favorite brief on King, and speaks to what I was saying yesterday. Their entire case hinges on a conclusion reached by reading 7 words in isolation, and then reverse engineering the rest of the title (as well as inventing a fictitious legislative history) to fit that conclusion. No accepted form of statutory construction works like that.

http://premiumtaxcredits.wikispaces.com/file/view/SC%20amicus%20Eskridge%2014-114%20bsac%20William%20Eskridge.pdf/538890688/SC%20amicus%20Eskridge%2014-114%20bsac%20William%20Eskridge.pdf

This isn't the government or any special interest group, this a brief filed by some of the most highly cited legal minds in the country (including Reagan's solicitor general), who are just as offended as I am by this case.

I have a few thoughts on the Eskridge brief. First, I'm surprised you like it so much. After all, the brief includes a strong endorsement of textualism as the proper way to interpret statutes. If you agree with that, then you agree with me on much more than most others in this thread do.

In any event, Eskridge et al. write:

Eskrdige Brief said:
But when this Court said that statutory interpretation is a “holistic endeavor,” United Savings Ass’n of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 371 (1988), it did not mean that judges should interpret words of a statute in isolation, and only then, after arriving at an interpretation, ask whether that interpretation would render other provisions absurd. Rather, the directive that the “words of a statute must be read in their context,” Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 133, means just that: A provision must be read, in the first instance, in light of its statutory context.

Professor David Ziff of the University of Washington School of Law offers this analogy:

David Ziff said:
Forced analogy alert: To the isolationist, statutory interpretation is like a bad action movie, with the isolated “plain text” reading cast as the movie’s hero. After we meet our hero, other statutory provisions play the part of hapless henchmen. Sure, they might outnumber the hero 10-to-1, but they choose to attack him one at a time. And when they do, they are feeble and easily dispatched. They shoot at the hero over and over again, somehow always missing. But unbelievably, our hero has perfect aim whenever he lines up one of the henchmen.

Statutory interpretation is not a bad action movie! Done properly, it’s more like an ensemble hero movie: The Avengers. (Stay with me here.) Why does the isolationist cast fellow statutory provisions as enemies to be defeated? A true textualist does not view seemingly conflicting statutory provisions as enemies; they are allies. And they need to work together to figure out what the statute means and/or to save the world from Loki.

Note that the dispute here is not really about whether a provision should be read in isolation or in context, but about when context should be consulted. I think it's inappropriate to label the challengers' approach as "isolationist," since it's clearly not the sort of reading that courts decry as such. But that's merely a complaint about the label. I think Eskridge's point about when context should be considered is an interesting one, but I don't agree with him that it changes the outcome of this case (and I'm not sure it would ever change the outcome of a case).

Consider the case cited by Eskridge to demonstrate the proper time for considering context, Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.. There, the Court was called upon to determine whether the term "employees" used in section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act included former employees. That section make it illegal, the Court explained, "'for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment' who have either availed themselves of Title VII's protections or assisted others in so doing." The Court admitted that "[a]t first blush, the term 'employees' in § 704(a) would seem to refer to those having an existing employment relationship with the employer in question," as distinct from those who had, but no longer have such a relationship. Nevertheless, after noting the lack of a temporal qualifier in both 704(a) and the statutory definition of "employee," the Court surveyed several other sections of Title VII. Because the term "employees" sometimes clearly included former employees (as in sections authorizing "reinstatement . . . of employees" as a remedy), and sometimes clearly excluded them (such as a section permitting different standards of compensation for "employees who work in different locations"), the Court held that the term, standing alone, was ambiguous. (The Court then resolved that ambiguity with reference to the sorts of claims an "employee" might be able to bring, and with respect to which he or she would be protected against retaliation.)

It's important to note the differences between the issues in Robinson and those in King. That a former employee was an employee is indisputable, so it is possible to refer to a former employee with the atemporal term, "employee." But it is equally indisputable that HHS is not one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia (the ACA's definition of "State"). So, while the term in Robinson appeared to leave open the "former employees" interpretation, the term in King appears to foreclose the "HHS" interpretation. At the outset, this seems like a good reason to approach the analysis of other sections of an act differently in the two cases. Still, I'm not convinced that which approach is chosen would make a difference.

Consider Robinson. Imagine if the Court had said, "At first blush, it looks like 'employees' means 'current employees.' But we have to consider whether that interpretation would make another provision of the statute absurd." Eventually, the Court gets to the section talking about "reinstatement" as a remedy for a violation of Title VII. That section can't make sense if "employees" only means "current employees." So now the Court has to reconsider it's initial conclusion.

Now consider King, using the Robinson approach. In Robinson, the Court noted three aspects of the statute that made them question restricting "employees" to mean "current employees only": first, there was no temporal qualifier in 704(a); second, there was no temporal qualifier in the statutory definition of "employee;" third, other sections used "employees" to mean something more or different than "current employees." In King, the term "State," standing alone (and without yet referring to the statutory definition), apparently refers to a state, as opposed to HHS. (After all, earlier in 36B, reference is made to health insurance policies offered on the individual market within a State, which clearly cannot refer to HHS.) Second, the statutory definition of "State" clearly does not cover HHS, since it means one of the fifty states or the District of Columbia. But, do other provisions of the statute require that "State" include HHS to make sense?

No. It's at this point that the Eskridge brief goes to shit, doing little beyond parroting the government's arguments. Because most of these have been ably addressed by the Halbig decision of the DC Circuit panel--see also my posts here and here--I won't further lengthen this post by addressing them again. If you feel like there's an argument that hasn't been adequately addressed, feel free to point it out to me and I'll respond to it.

EDIT:

little disturbing to me how progressives are treating biden's weird sexual harassment as a joke, tbh. dude needs to keep his hands to himself.

What a fitting pseudonym.

2d EDIT:

There's a difference between sexual harassment and inappropriate touching.

=|

3d EDIT:

We're almost on page 100 of this thread. When do we start a 2015 thread?
 

bonercop

Member
There's a difference between sexual harassment and inappropriate touching. Theirs an intent with harassment to bother the person or for sexual pleasure.

sexual harassment has nothing to do with intent of the abuser. creepy old guys have a long, proud history of slapping women on their butts and defending it as "endearment" or just a joke.

again, i find it disturbing how you're trying to diminish it as "inappropriate touching" when we all know if this was about a republican, progressives would(rightfully) be losing their minds about it and naming it as an example of the "war on women".

It doesn't seem that the VP is doing anything wrong besides committing social faux pas. Its not much different than a European kissing you on the cheek from what I can see, he should obviously be better queued into body language and the fact most people don't like that but I don't see anything that makes him a horrible person or anything

as an immigrant with roots in a culture where kissing people on the cheek is the most normal thing in the world, if i tried doing it to someone and they backed away and i then insisted on doing it anyway -- i'd be a creep. full-stop.

it's a social faux pas until the girls make it clear he should stop and he completely disregards that. ignorance is not an excuse.


What a fitting pseudonym.

i aim to please.
 
sexual harassment has nothing to do with intent of the abuser. creepy old guys have a long, proud history of slapping women on their butts and defending it as "endearment" or just a joke.

again, i find it disturbing how you're trying to diminish it as "inappropriate touching" when we all know if this was about a republican, progressives would(rightfully) be losing their minds about it and naming it as an example of the "war on women".
.
Yes sexual harrisment depends on the intent as your example below of cultural differences exemplifies.

I shouldn't have used 'inappropriate touching' to describe bidens actions because that kinda of means you've crossed a line. Its a behavior many don't find comfortable. It was a poor choice of words to describe something that isn't actually "inappropriate touching"
He's not feeling their boobs or grabbing butts. He's a touchy feely person but from what I can see and in very edited clips from right wing outlets it seems very familial even if it its not something I would like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzMjFDfobiQ


The san diago mayor and a D representative from Oregon was rightly chased out of office for sexual harassment so we can stop the "he's protected because he's a D".

as an immigrant with roots in a culture where kissing people on the cheek is the most normal thing in the world, if i tried doing it to someone and they backed away and i then insisted on doing it anyway -- i'd be a creep. full-stop.

it's a social faux pas until the girls make it clear he should stop and he completely disregards that. ignorance is not an excuse.

.
If they ask him to stop and he keeps doing it there is a problem. Is there any evidence he's intentionally doing it to bother them or for sexual gratification?

Biden can be a creep but there is a difference between a creep and an harrasser
 

KingK

Member
That will suck if Chris Hayes gets the boot. He's the only one on that network (or any cable news) i really like.

I also remember him being like the only person on television to give Palestinians decent air time and question Israel at all during the last Gaza war for a while.
 

Crisco

Banned
That's just not true. Standing issues come up in all sorts of cases. It has literally nothing to do with the merits of a case.

Really? They come up in public interest litigation, against the federal government, where the alleged "victims" number in the millions? Zero legitimate plaintiffs here, zero. Yeah, one or two might be granted "standing", but anyone who thinks these people were "injured" in any way by the IRS rule is being disingenuous.

I have a few thoughts on the Eskridge brief. First, I'm surprised you like it so much. After all, the brief includes a strong endorsement of textualism as the proper way to interpret statutes. If you agree with that, then you agree with me on much more than most others in this thread do.

Yeah, it also includes examples of how the IRS rule abides by practically every accepted canon of statutory construction, which the plaintiff's violates. I like it because it exposes this lawsuit for what it is: ideologically driven grammar trolling.

If you feel like there's an argument that hasn't been adequately addressed, feel free to point it out to me and I'll respond to it.
But, do other provisions of the statute require that "State" include HHS to make sense? No..

That one, which happens to be the entire premise of your argument. Address that one without referring to anything outside of the text as the Eskridge brief defended the opposing conclusion.
 
Many prominent Republicans, including senior members of the Bush admin, accuse Obama of pulling out of Iraq. However, wasn't the decision - and timeline - decided during the Bush administration after the Iraqi's requested it?

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

So what is the basis of the GOP argument then? What did Obama do wrong?
 

Tamanon

Banned
Many prominent Republicans, including senior members of the Bush admin, accuse Obama of pulling out of Iraq. However, wasn't the decision - and timeline - decided during the Bush administration after the Iraqi's requested it?

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

So what is the basis of the GOP argument then? What did Obama do wrong?

I believe the general idea is that President Obama should've been dictating terms. Also, the people they want to hear their complaints don't care about the facts of the situation.

Hell, they don't actually care about Iraq either.
 
Many prominent Republicans, including senior members of the Bush admin, accuse Obama of pulling out of Iraq. However, wasn't the decision - and timeline - decided during the Bush administration after the Iraqi's requested it?

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

So what is the basis of the GOP argument then? What did Obama do wrong?

Yes, but the idea was if the US didn't decide to leave the Iraqis would have been forced to sign another SoFA because they weren't going to start really prosecuting American soliders or pushing them out.

Legally we had to be out but their problem is Obama wasn't a bully, forcing our way.
 

benjipwns

Banned
I think it's supposed to be "head" not "hand" and this is a rehash of the old conservative argument that "liberals" feel ashamed of America doing good in the world and fighting evil and see it as a evil imperialist that needs to be brought down as Marx demanded. And Rudy is saying that he didn't get the feeling that Bush or Clinton or even Carter felt that way, that they knew and believed in America's god-given mission. While Obama hates it and wants to punish it for its non-existent crimes.

Not necessarily because he's black but because he's been steeped in the Marxism of academia and Europe that constantly indoctrinates people to believe America is an evil empire. Probably by Bill Ayers.
You're nuts! What kind of gibberish are you...
Rudy Giuliani doubled down on his claims that President Obama doesn’t “love America” in an interview with The Post Friday — claiming the commander-in-chief has been influenced by communists since his youth.

“From the time he was 9 years old, he was influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist,” Giuliani said. The ex-mayor added that Obama’s grandfather introduced him to Davis, a writer and labor activist.

Giuliani also said another bad influence on Obama was Saul Alinsky, a community organizer whom the ex-mayor called a “socialist.”

...

Giuliani said Obama doesn’t measure up to past presidents.

“He doesn’t talk about America the way John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan did, about America’s greatness and exceptionalism,” said Giuliani.

“He was educated by people who were critics of the US. And he has not been able to overcome those influences.”

Giuliani also implied he was the only one with the chutzpah to call out Obama, saying: “Somebody has to raise these issues with the president. Somebody has to have the courage to stand up.”

Giuliani also bashed Obama for seeming to focus more attention on the police shooting in Missouri, which, he said, “turned out to be justified,” than the killings by Islamic fanatics. “How could you hold a press conference about Ferguson and not hold a press conference when Christians and Jews were slaughtered?” he asked.
Knew I should have gone with Saul Alinsky!
 

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...thinks-will-help-democrats-win-more-elections
Four months after losing the 2012 presidential election, the GOP released a 100-page ‘autopsy’ report, an analysis of what went wrong and how to fix it. Among other things, the autopsy said that the Republican Party was having difficulty convincing voters outside the party that it cared about them. Two years later, in its own self-examination, the Democratic National Committee says that Democrats themselves have a messaging problem: no one knows what the Democratic Party stands for.

“It is strongly believed that the Democratic Party is loosely understood as a long list of policy statements and not as people with a common set of core goals,” reads the party’s 2014 preliminary autopsy, released Saturday at the DNC’s Winter Meeting in Washington, D.C.

The DNC’s report, nine pages including a front and back cover, lays out several party goals. They include: launching a “National Narrative Project” to create a “values-based” message to appeal to voters; strengthening relations with state parties, winning state legislatures ahead of the 2020 redistricting; and finding more candidates at the state, local, and federal level.
A narrative! Finding candidates! That's what's missing!

lol politics
 
You're nuts! What kind of gibberish are you...

Knew I should have gone with Saul Alinsky!

Giuliani also bashed Obama for seeming to focus more attention on the police shooting in Missouri, which, he said, “turned out to be justified,” than the killings by Islamic fanatics. “How could you hold a press conference about Ferguson and not hold a press conference when Christians and Jews were slaughtered?” he asked.

He's in pure distilled troll mode now
 
You're nuts! What kind of gibberish are you...

Knew I should have gone with Saul Alinsky!

Saying that Republicans will claim that the black guy is a traitor don't quite make you Nostradamus, mate.

Yes, but the idea was if the US didn't decide to leave the Iraqis would have been forced to sign another SoFA because they weren't going to start really prosecuting American soliders or pushing them out.

Legally we had to be out but their problem is Obama wasn't a bully, forcing our way.

And Mercs. The thing prevented the Iraqis from prosecuting mercs too. Which always creeped the fuck outta me.
 
I just want everybody to remember that at every step when we made these policies, when we made this progress, we told by our good friends the Republicans that our actions would crush jobs, explode deficits, and destroy the country. I mean, I want everybody to do a fact check, and go back 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. Just go back and look at the statements that were made each year by these folks about all of these policies.

Apparently, they don’t remember.

But the facts are before us. The economy kept growing. The stock market has more than doubled. Restoring the 401(k)s of millions of people. Our deficits are down by two-thirds.

I always find it curious that when a Democrat’s president deficits go down. When a Republican’s president, deficits are go up.

Our auto industry is firing on all cylinders. None of this is an accident.

Now that their grand predictions of doom and gloom and death panels and Armageddon hasn’t come true. The sky hasn’t fallen. Chicken Little is quiet. The new plan apparently of congressional Republicans and this is progress, the new plan is to rebrand themselves as the party of the middle-class.

I’m not making this up.

Our Republican leader in the Senate as he was coming in after trying to block every single thing that we have done to strengthen the economy starts looking at the job numbers and says, “You know, it’s getting better because we just got elected. People are feeling more optimistic.”

Which, ok? I didn’t know that’s how the economy worked, but maybe? We’ll call some economists.

Holy fuck.

Bams gives NO fucks.
 

Ecotic

Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/21/scott-walker-obama-christ_n_6728186.html

Not only does Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) not know whether President Barack Obama loves America, he also appears to be unaware that the president is a Christian.

“I don’t know,” the potential 2016 candidate told The Washington Post at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association in Washington, D.C.

“I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said of Obama's faith. “I’ve never asked him that. You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”

...

Jocelyn Webster, a spokeswoman for the governor, followed up with the Post after the interview to clarify Walker's remarks.

“Of course the governor thinks the president is a Christian,” she said.

WTH is Walker doing? This obviously isn't some strategy if his spokeswoman is clarifying within half an hour, unless he's just hoping the party base doesn't notice the clarification. It's been amateur hour the whole week for the GOP field.
 

benjipwns

Banned
You predicted what kinda bullshit he'd try to spin. Bravo?

If it aint that, do explain to me like i'm five, cuz the point is clearly going over my head.
I was trying to help out East Lake who was slightly confused about an earlier and unclear Rudy statement by explaining what I thought he meant by it:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=152716331&postcount=9684

Now Rudy has expanded on his prior statements and I was using my post where I speculated as to his meaning as jokingly prophetic to connect it.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Typical lieberal hypocrisy exposed:
In 2008 then Senator Obama called President Bush “unpatriotic” for adding trillions to the national debt. Bush added about four trillion to the debt in eight years after the 9-11 attacks and mortgage crisis. Barack Obama then added the same amount of debt in less than three years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyLmru6no4U
You certainly didn’t hear any reporters lecturing Obama for his uncivil rhetoric after that outrageous attack.

This week former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani accused President Obama of not loving America. He promptly received death threats. The Obama White House said Giuliani’s comments were “horrible.”
http://floppingaces.net/2015/02/21/flashback-remember-when-obama-called-bush-unpatriotic/
And what “adverse consequences” did he face?

He got elected President.

Why?

Why did he get a pass? Following Giuliani’s remarks the accusations of racism flew. Giuliani is no racist, but let’s reframe the question.

Did Obama get a pass on calling the President unpatriotic because he is black?

Those of you who find Giuliani’s words deplorable but voted for Obama?

F*ck yourselves.
 

Ecotic

Member

While that was indeed a misstep by Obama, it's clear he's referring to the act of adding debt itself, not saying Bush is unpatriotic. Obama says "It's unpatriotic", not "he's unpatriotic". It also seems to be an unprepared, improvised remark, as opposed to Giuliani stepping to the microphone with prepared remarks with the clear intent of generating headlines.

There's also a world of difference between inheriting surpluses and then leaving with record deficits and an economic crisis, compared to walking in with those inherited deficits and crises and then reducing them over time.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Isn't the difference that Obama was saying enacting certain policies that lead to bad things (i.e. increased debt) is unpatriotic, as opposed to what Giuliani and most of the conservative movement say about Obama, which is that he harbors some natural, internal, hatred of the U.S. and wants to intentionally harm it?
 

benjipwns

Banned
I can never tell whether benji is being serious or not. Is this normal?
It's the final acceptance ritual of PoliGAF to achieve enlightenment enough to tell.

EDIT: Some tips.

All facetious posts have a "tell" embedded.

All history/political analysis posts are generally serious enough. Same with philosophy or ideology or theory. Or general critiques.

Since most of the regulars have already been through it there's a detente on debating the illegitimacy of the state with all sides accepting that I'm right and they're wrong.

However, sometimes facetious posts or sarcasm are used to illustrate something in an argument. (Or are merely joking addendum to amusing links/stories.)

In otherwords, no. It's impossible. Just guess. I can't even keep track.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...thinks-will-help-democrats-win-more-elections

A narrative! Finding candidates! That's what's missing!

lol politics

I'd at least agree with their assessment of how to do better messaging.

The core of the problem for both sides is the demographics, but I'd imagine it's an easier messaging job to figure out how to get people who agree with you to vote in midterms, than it is to get people that disagree with you to change their minds in presidential elections.
 
I don't understand the need to have an autopsy after every election loss. Sometimes you just have a bad election.

That's a waste of an opportunity to learn from mistakes.

In the case of the last election, there were a fuckton of mistakes, and it is important that they should be corrected by the next midterm elections. (spoilers: they most likely won't.)

While in an individual basis, sure, sometimes there was nothing you could do, when the scope and results are as catastrophic as the last one was, the party as a whole must devise a new strategy.
 

benjipwns

Banned
It says "it wasn't entirely our fault, it was x, y, z and we're going to fix this please continue sending us money" more or less. And justifies having people on the payroll to produce the things.
 

Zimmy64

Member
That's a waste of an opportunity to learn from mistakes.

In the case of the last election, there were a fuckton of mistakes, and it is important that they should be corrected by the next midterm elections. (spoilers: they most likely won't.)

While in an individual basis, sure, sometimes there was nothing you could do, when the scope and results are as catastrophic as the last one was, the party as a whole must devise a new strategy.

That makes sense. They seem like a relatively recent thing. I don't remember them in 2004 or 2008.
 

benjipwns

Banned
That makes sense. They seem like a relatively recent thing. I don't remember them in 2004 or 2008.
I think the GOP did one after 2006.

The Democrats may not have done one but I know "Democratic leaning" think tanks were doing them after 2004 and it's proof of the Permanent Republican Majority.
 
The Democrats may not have done one but I know "Democratic leaning" think tanks were doing them after 2004 and it's proof of the Permanent Republican Majority.

Pretty sure that seeing Kerry managing to extract a defeat from the jaws of victory like that somewhat impacted Bam's campaign.


But yeah, reports, post-mortems and analysis probably always happened. What's new-ish is compiling the reports like that and making them public.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Pretty sure that seeing Kerry managing to extract a defeat from the jaws of victory like that somewhat impacted Bam's campaign.


But yeah, reports, post-mortems and analysis probably always happened. What's new-ish is compiling the reports like that and making them public.

Well, gotta find a way to legally keep your Super-PACs on the same page somehow.
 

Teggy

Member
Isn't Giuliani just regurgitating a summary of D'souza's Obama movie/book from 2012? I know my parents saw it and I recall them saying this is basically what it was about.
 
Isn't Giuliani just regurgitating a summary of D'souza's Obama movie/book from 2012? I know my parents saw it and I recall them saying this is basically what it was about.

Wouldn't be the first time he regurgitated something that was years old for attention, though to his credit this is the first one that doesn't have 0.8181... in it
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
From the amazing world of "oh god, can't bams just commit a proper gaffe already?", comes this bit:

Our society is suffering from a tyranny of informality. It is rude. It is false intimacy. It is a product of the utopian, egalitarian fiction that society is one big happy village. A friendship circle, where we’re all holding hands. Station and hierarchy should be leveled because they are so nineteenth-century. In the modern world, we are all equal — so we are all pals.

And, of course, in the deepest sense we are all equal: equal before God, equal in moral worth. C. S. Lewis, the Christian apologist, wrote that “you have never talked to a mere mortal.” And you haven’t. All people, as Lewis put it, are “immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”

But equality in the deepest sense does not mean equality in all things, especially on this side of eternity. Equality in all things is, indeed, frightening. (Do you remember how Robespierre’s égalité worked out?) And not only frightening, but boring, as well. Our differences make us interesting.

So respect titles, mates, or heads will roll.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom