• 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 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

timetokill

Banned
Saw FOX News going in HARD on Obama all day today, saying how delusional he is and that "he'll be remembered as one of this country's most incompetent presidents" and so on

Clearly smelling red meat here, wonder if they think it'll hold until the election
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
I was out all evening, so sorry for dragging this back up a page late. You've said nothing I didn't address in the thread I linked to earlier, so I'll refer you to that.

I'll add that you're trying too hard to draw a distinction that simply doesn't exist. Fox is criticizing Obama's use of "setback" and the dismissive tone implied by it, just as others criticized Bush's use of "stuff" and the dismissive tone implied by it. But Obama didn't mean to minimize the "terrible and sickening" "act of terrorism" by calling it a "setback" any more than Bush meant to minimize the "crisis"--the "senseless tragedy"--by calling it "stuff." The only difference here is that you like Obama and dislike Bush.

That said, I'll agree that if we ignore what Bush said ("omitting the actual words used"), then you're totally right.
Click to expand...

The Bush outrage was about more than the words, that's the difference. You're hung up on that aspect. It's a bad parallel and you are reaching in trying to make an equivalence.
There's a policy position behind Bush's words that's being criticized. There's no policy being criticized in the Fox piece, just a word choice.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Ignatz Mouse said:
The Bush outrage was about more than the words, that's the difference. You're hung up on that aspect. It's a bad parallel and you are reaching in trying to make an equivalence.
There's a policy position behind Bush's words that's being criticized. There's no policy being criticized in the Fox piece, just a word choice.
Click to expand...

No, Fox is definitely criticizing Obama's policy position in its graphic. In fact, it's the exact same sort of criticism that was leveled at Bush--he misjudges the significance of the event in question and isn't doing enough to solve the problems associated with it.

Again, the only difference here is which team you identify with.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Well, the difference is more a "should we limit toy ownership to reduce civilian deaths?" vs. "Should we stop refugees from coming here and start a war that is impossible to win in Syria to try to reduce terror attacks?"
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Jeb's comments did have a larger context in that those comments were around the shooting where it honestly looked like the GOP stopped even pretending to care about gun violence. Most of them made up imaginary things about the college being a gun-free zone and didn't even bother to respond to fact-checks telling them they were full of shit. Trump barely cared and others didn't think it was a big deal (ignoring Carson's bizarre mumbling about rushing shooters or sending them to target other civilians). So Jeb's, "stuff happens" was basically the purest possible form of the idea that the GOP honestly doesn't care about gun violence. I don't think there's any similar context for the Paris attacks.
 
G

Gotchaye

Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
The Bush outrage was about more than the words, that's the difference. You're hung up on that aspect. It's a bad parallel and you are reaching in trying to make an equivalence.
There's a policy position behind Bush's words that's being criticized. There's no policy being criticized in the Fox piece, just a word choice.
Click to expand...

I feel like there was a weird focus on "stuff happens" and talking like Bush was dismissing people getting shot as not worth worrying too much about. I think there was some projection there. The argument Bush was making was that certain rights, including the right to bear arms, are super-important, and we shouldn't give up our liberty for security etc., etc. The general idea here is pretty uncontroversial - that's basically why we don't go full police state to fight terrorism, say. But I think a lot of liberals look at Bush saying that protecting gun rights is more important than preventing however many deaths gun control can prevent (also worth noting that he'd likely argue that this number is lower than most liberals think it is) and take him as saying that those deaths are less significant than they think gun rights are. By all means criticize the position that protecting gun rights is important and highlight the perceived absurdity of placing them above people dying every day, but, yeah, I think it was kind of silly, if perhaps politically useful, to make a big deal out of "stuff happens". If you were discussing gun control with someone who disagreed with you and the other person said what Bush said, you'd be being an uncharitable asshole if you made a big deal out of them using "stuff happens" the way Bush did.

Also, Ted Cruz would happily tell you that the outrage directed at Obama is also about more than the words. The objection is that Obama doesn't take ISIS seriously enough, in basically the way that the objection to Bush was that he didn't take people getting killed by guns seriously enough. Obama's not willing to do what's necessary and turn the Middle East into a parking lot, or invade a bunch of countries, or whatever, and his lack of respect for the seriousness of the threat is betrayed by his refusal to even call it what it is, etc.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
timetokill said:
Saw FOX News going in HARD on Obama all day today, saying how delusional he is and that "he'll be remembered as one of this country's most incompetent presidents" and so on

Clearly smelling red meat here, wonder if they think it'll hold until the election
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're expecting? It should concern you when the so-called "nonpartisan" news does it.

Are you surprised by what conservative radio says too? Makes no sense.
 
B

Bam Bam Baklava

Member
benjipwns said:
Other media will start talking about "critics" and stuff, let FOX do the dirty work they can play off of:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydg1eAOPYRo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S6v-rI55R4
Click to expand...

Don't see how that's different than every other issue that's ever come up. Ebola, healthcare, economy, boston bombers, the list goes on.

There were times when it was a daily story of what new way Obama got repudiated today on every news outlet. 5 years ago that Kentucky election would have been 2 weeks of coverage material. This all seems absolutely tame in comparison.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
oh god
chip_bok_chip_bok_for_11122015_5_.jpg
 
M

Makai

Member
"What I'd like is build a safe zone, it's here, build a big beautiful safe zone and you have whatever it is so people can live, and they'll be happier."
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
benjipwns said:
For regulatory/administrative law/process I think we decided this was an effective replacement for the absurdly priced and detailed Breyer and Stewart work:
414amGx721L._SX345_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Elizabeth Warren wrote one of the chapters IIRC. You can also get it for like $15-20 if you look on Google for search around for a minute or two, not the $40+ Amazon wants.
Click to expand...

Fwiw, books on administrative law are some of the most potent sleeping aids known to man. Legit "fall asleep while reading book directly above your head in bed" strong.
 
M

Mrs. Manky

Banned
thepotatoman said:
What is it with conservatives trying to attach the terror attack to what's happening at Mizzou? Ann Coulter and Judith Miller had similar statements as Huckabee's.

After all that talk about not politicizing tragedies, they're politicizing a tragedy in order to attack a completely unrelated issue.
Click to expand...

They want the negroes to shut up, because grown white people are talking.
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
http://www.aol.com/article/2015/11/11/blue-collar-comedian-ron-white-running-for-president/21263485/
The 2016 presidential race has already seen the rise of a number of "outsider" candidates with no political experience, but the biggest outsider of them all may have just joined Wednesday as Grammy-nominated stand-up comedian Ron White took to the AOL BUILD stage to announce that he is running for president of the United States as an independent.

The 58-year-old Scotch-drinking, cigar-smoking comic is best known for his "Blue Collar Comedy Tour" -- but he's looking to change that with a brisk move into politics.

Many people have asked White if his plan to run is another one of his jokes, but the comedian filed paperwork to run, which he provided to AOL, and insists he is entirely serious about his intentions.

He told AOL.com that he was inspired to run watching the latest Republican debate.

"I was just sitting at home, watching [the debate] ... asking myself, 'Is this it?'" White said. "'Are the best and the brightest running for president? I have to choose from these people?'"

...

"My hope is something better comes along. But if it doesn't, and the American people decide they want me to [be president], I will. I will surround myself with the smartest people in the world, and I'll go to Washington."

Though White told AOL.com he's "not tied to a doctrine," he does take a clear stance on two issues that are important to him: Fighting the methamphetamine crisis in America and taking better care of U.S. soldiers.

To address the meth problem, White said he would start his own "war" on drugs.

"You think, 'that's been done, right?' No, it hasn't," he said" "It absolutely has not been done. What I'm talking about is the complete legalization of marijuana nationwide. We take that money that we make from the taxation of that, and we build a big gun and we point it straight at meth.

"Meth is the thing that's destroying this country. Meth is a bigger threat to this country than ISIS will ever be ... I want to offer $20,000 bounty on meth labs. If you show me where a meth lab is, I'll give you $20,000," White said.

In addition to offering a bounty, White said he would employ Navy SEALs to track down and kill those involved in the operations of meth labs.

White also takes the care of veteran soldiers very seriously.

"I think we take s*** care of our wounded soldiers," he said. "They are coming back with PTSD so bad they [have] an overwhelming desire to blow their f***ing brains out. ...We know for a fact that PTSD can be treated, but it has to be treated."


Compared to the other presidential candidates, White is confident that he'd make a better president than Donald Trump.

"Trump tops himself almost every week," White said. "You can't be the president and say the stupidest things said that week, every week ... It would be a complete and total embarrassment."

"Donald Trump wants to build a wall between here and Mexico. [That] makes about as much sense as building a net between here and Canada to keep the geese out."
Click to expand...
 
benjipwns

benjipwns

Banned
And before you start up the outrage culture machine, I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation for why she posted this picture:
20150829-Tila-Tequila-hitler.jpg


"They" just don't want you to hear about it.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
No, Fox is definitely criticizing Obama's policy position in its graphic. In fact, it's the exact same sort of criticism that was leveled at Bush--he misjudges the significance of the event in question and isn't doing enough to solve the problems associated with it.

Again, the only difference here is which team you identify with.
Click to expand...

I disagree, and not for reasons of taking sides.

What's the policy position and what's the criticism of it? That's clear in the Bush critique.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Ignatz Mouse said:
I disagree, and not for reasons of taking sides.

What's the policy position and what's the criticism of it? That's clear in the Bush critique.
Click to expand...

Gotchaye already covered this:

Gotchaye said:
Also, Ted Cruz would happily tell you that the outrage directed at Obama is also about more than the words. The objection is that Obama doesn't take ISIS seriously enough, in basically the way that the objection to Bush was that he didn't take people getting killed by guns seriously enough. Obama's not willing to do what's necessary and turn the Middle East into a parking lot, or invade a bunch of countries, or whatever, and his lack of respect for the seriousness of the threat is betrayed by his refusal to even call it what it is, etc.
Click to expand...

You don't have to agree with the criticism Gotchaye attributes to Ted Cruz to recognize that it's the same sort of criticism that was directed at Bush for his "stuff happens" answer.
 
R

RDreamer

Member
God the GOP governors trying to stop the refugees and the absolutely fucking shameful people I know supporting it has had me just livid all day yesterday and now this morning. Especially angry at people posting how Obama has messed up priorities when we still have homeless veterans despite the fact that under his administration we've cut that by a third and he's made it a significant investment to get rid of veteran homelessness altogether.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Gotchaye said:
I feel like there was a weird focus on "stuff happens" and talking like Bush was dismissing people getting shot as not worth worrying too much about. I think there was some projection there. The argument Bush was making was that certain rights, including the right to bear arms, are super-important, and we shouldn't give up our liberty for security etc., etc. The general idea here is pretty uncontroversial - that's basically why we don't go full police state to fight terrorism, say. But I think a lot of liberals look at Bush saying that protecting gun rights is more important than preventing however many deaths gun control can prevent (also worth noting that he'd likely argue that this number is lower than most liberals think it is) and take him as saying that those deaths are less significant than they think gun rights are. By all means criticize the position that protecting gun rights is important and highlight the perceived absurdity of placing them above people dying every day, but, yeah, I think it was kind of silly, if perhaps politically useful, to make a big deal out of "stuff happens". If you were discussing gun control with someone who disagreed with you and the other person said what Bush said, you'd be being an uncharitable asshole if you made a big deal out of them using "stuff happens" the way Bush did.

Also, Ted Cruz would happily tell you that the outrage directed at Obama is also about more than the words. The objection is that Obama doesn't take ISIS seriously enough, in basically the way that the objection to Bush was that he didn't take people getting killed by guns seriously enough. Obama's not willing to do what's necessary and turn the Middle East into a parking lot, or invade a bunch of countries, or whatever, and his lack of respect for the seriousness of the threat is betrayed by his refusal to even call it what it is, etc.
Click to expand...

Let me just say that this is specifically about Meta's assertion that the Fox headline was more defensible than the Bush headlines. I'm not saying that jumping on somebody's language is called for, or good arguing. All I am saying is that the Fox article is mere tone policing, while those Bush headlines *specifically led to the critique of his position*. If Obama had said "setback" and then asserted that there would be no examination of follow-up changes in strategy, that it was not relevant to and policy change, I'd be all in on the comparison. But he didn't. And, in fact, the GOP candidate field seems to be all in on "bomb ISIS" as a response, which Obama is already doing.

Both sets of attacks on wording are dumb, but to say that the Fox one is "better" is completely ignoring the context of both. And that's Meta "picking a side" as he's accusing me of doing. I'm on record here multiple times in the past defending the other "side" from spurious leaps on somebody's particular way of putting something, or them being taken out of context.

Ignoring context in favor of nitpicking and semantics is kinda his thing, though.

Anyway, I've said my piece. It's a silly argument anyway, I should have ignored the comment.
 
S

Sianos

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Looking through a glass onion.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's from an inability to parallel process ideas and connect together related schema from different contexts, but moments like these are a beautiful reflection of just how strongly the human mind can avoid coming to a conclusion it doesn't want to, even as at the same time the implications are burning.

Hmmmm, he thinks that easy access to guns [for refugees] is a problem, but easy access to guns is apparently not a problem at the same time - if only there was some way to collapse the superpositional state into either recognizing that if it's too easy for refugees to get guns without proper background checking and psychological evaluation it's also too easy for everyone else to get guns without proper background checking and psychological evaluation, or openly admitting that the reason for the discrepancy in responses is the color and creed of the people acquiring the guns.

And welcome home, Meta! The dark age of people making stupid arguments not even "by definition", but "by my personal connotation of the word" without rebuke is over. Never leave us again.
 
D

Diablos

Member
Ecotic said:
Just watched Obama's press conference in Turkey today. He had a real off day, the tone and arguments just weren't working.
Click to expand...
Didn't hear it yet, but I'm not surprised. He's likely very turned off by recent events including Syrian refugees turning into a hot political topic literally overnight, with half the country's Governors refusing to accept them. Like it or not this is now a red vs. blue issue all the way down to your state's Governor and their party. Having to deal with this, keeping the country safe, defending your legacy and trying to ensure a Democrat succeeds you in your final months is going to be hard.
 
Metaphoreus

Metaphoreus

This is semantics, and nothing more
Ignatz Mouse said:
If Obama had said "setback" and then asserted that there would be no examination of follow-up changes in strategy, that it was not relevant to and policy change, I'd be all in on the comparison. But he didn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did:

At a press conference at the conclusion of the G-20 summit of world leaders, Mr. Obama said that the U.S. would amplify but not change its course on ISIS.

"There will be an intensification of the strategy that we've put forward but the strategy that we are putting forward is the strategy that ultimately is going to work," the president said at the G-20 summit in Antalya, Turkey. "It's going to take time."
Click to expand...

"We're just going to keep doing the same thing we've been doing, but more of it!" Note that Bush, too, suggested some potential solutions to the problem he was discussing. You may not think those solutions will work, but that's precisely the conservative critique of Obama's more-of-the-same.

Finally, to be accused of "taking sides" when I've said that both Bush and Obama made a poor choice of words, and that the criticisms leveled at both Bush and Obama were "spin," is just silly.
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
This debate seemed more like an old Jerry Springer episode than a political debate. It was raucous, the audience was LOUD at some points, and I half-expected to hear, "David Vitter, you are the father!" at some point.

Jabs about prostitution scandal, Obama, Jindal make for boisterous governor's debate
http://theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/14005080-123/john-bel-edwards-david-vitter

My favorite moment:
Vitter hammered Edwards for having an event last week at a "very adult New Orleans night club" and hiring a purple party bus to ferry voters to the polls for early voting. Edwards said he was there with his wife. "Not as interesting as your date night, Senator," he added.
Click to expand...

The Cook Report has moved this race to "Lean Democrat," but I see some talk online of a shy Tory polling effect for this cycle, since folks who are voting for Vitter might conceivably be less likely to admit that they're voting for him. I don't see that sort of effect overcoming a >10% difference, but don't doubt that it's closer than the polls indicate.

If forced to predict: 53-47, Edwards.

If this race were another week or two away, I'd be much more worried about terror/refugees eroding into Edwards' margin, but time isn't on Vitter's side.

(And if we do chat, I'm game!)
 
R

RDreamer

Member
I love that in talking about the refugees these republicans are now suddenly saying "let's take care of our own first!"

Uh huh. I'd really love it if Republicans stuck to that philosophy.
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Metaphoreus said:
Yes, he did:



"We're just going to keep doing the same thing we've been doing, but more of it!" Note that Bush, too, suggested some potential solutions to the problem he was discussing. You may not think those solutions will work, but that's precisely the conservative critique of Obama's more-of-the-same.

Finally, to be accused of "taking sides" when I've said that both Bush and Obama made a poor choice of words, and that the criticisms leveled at both Bush and Obama were "spin," is just silly.
Click to expand...

Obama: intensify activity
Bush: resist the urge for more government

Taking sides: dredging up the Bush story to defend Fox.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
There's definitely reason to be optimistic about Louisiana, but I'll be crossing my fingers up to the last vote that's counted. Early vote looks good, but you can never tell whether those are the voters who would have stayed home or voted anyway.

I am glad Vitter's scandal is only being made an issue now. If it had been brought up in 2010 he would have won anyway and it'd be old news now. That's keeping your powder dry (the diapers might be another story).

Yougov GOP national primary poll has Jeb in eighth place lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
GAF Museum - The Greatest OTs of All Time (or at least, some of the great ones)
|OT|
4
2K
Komatsu replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Top Bottom