Considering we're talking about an African-American president that has shown support for GLBT rights and attempted to improve relations with "the Muslim world", I'm curious as to which civil rights issues you're concerned about.
That's why this is so disappointing. Appointing a lot of "rich white guys" to these positions due to the size of their checkbook is inconsistent with his overall message.
I'm not saying that this is the biggest mistake he'll make, but it's disappointing. I was hoping for a change to the money = favors tradition.
Considering we're talking about an African-American president that has shown support for GLBT rights and attempted to improve relations with "the Muslim world", I'm curious as to which civil rights issues you're concerned about.
That's why this is so disappointing. Appointing a lot of "rich white guys" to these positions due to the size of their checkbook is inconsistent with his overall message.
Okay, so part of your concern is that this is potentially a racial issue as well as an economic one?
I wouldn't characterize it as a racial issue specifically. I will say, however, that economic and racial divides have historically gone hand in hand. I guess my point is that I don't necessarily think that one kind of discrimination is better than any other kind. It's all bad in my book. I'm not suggesting that all minority classes have had the same experience, but I also don't believe that any class should suffer based on their class alone. And, frankly, in this instance, that is an underlying issue - but it's the specific act of offering money for jobs fact that is the most troubling. I mentioned that this was de facto economic discrimination because people seemed to think that this was a case of "no harm, no foul." The context is extremely troubling to me.
But, fortunately, Joe has stopped trolling so this issue has been largely settled.
Most of the time, people who are trying to prove some type of discrimination find it necessary to prove that there was actually someone who was discriminated against. None of the many articles cited as proof of some sort of malfeasance made any allegation of anyone being turned down for one of these jobs for economic reasons, or indeed for any reason whatsoever.
So, whatever conclusion a person who doesn't know the difference between causation and correlation may reach from the cited articles, there is no evidence to be gleaned from the cited articles that there was illegal discrimination of any kind involved in whatever activity such a person may find objectionable.
Joe, please stop trolling. Until and unless you state your position on the underlying matter, I will cease further debate with you. Three days of trolling is enough.
The fact that Obama would not answer the simple question "What do you plan on taking home with you?" is a specific substantive fact, free from assumption. Time Magazine said: President Obama's trip to China yielded precious little Chinese cooperation on the Administration's key concerns, ranging from currency issues to Iran. USA Today was less than impressed.
But it's easier to shoot the messenger, rather than address the message itself, isn't it? Academically lazy, but easy.
I actually think that there were some bona fide accomplishments. There was nothing earth shattering, but it was not an entirely wasted trip. The real measure of the trip's success will come in the future.
There are a lot of assumptions of mood and colorful language without a lot of context, facts or substance in that article.
Also, they focus on two or three examples where Obama was portrayed as "weak", criticizing him for not being strong enough, then proceed to bash him for taking strong positions against Iran and North Korea.
Keep in mind, also, that this is a right-leaning and aggressive newspaper we're talking about here.
EDIT:
But it's easier to shoot the messenger, rather than address the message itself, isn't it? Academically lazy, but easy.
You give one fact and you're accusing her of academic laziness? Asshole move.
You giveonefact and you're accusing her of academic laziness? Asshole move.
You did not comprehend the context of my post. I did not attack the messenger. Such a tactic is a lazy, academically invalid tactic. This is what I was referring to. I'm surprised that you did not understand this. Forgive me if I was not clear. Your post had more substance than Kate Monster's knee-jerk, academically lazy post that was being referred to. And for that I say "thank you."
My apologies. That was unjustified, and I was being an asshole for the sake of it, and on top of that, it wasn't as funny as it seemed the first time I thought of it. I retract my statement, and extend my apologies.
You did not comprehend the context of my post. I did not attack the messenger. Such a tactic is a lazy, academically invalid tactic. This is what I was referring to. I'm surprised that you did not understand this. Forgive me if I was not clear. Your post had more substance than Kate Monster's knee-jerk, academically lazy post that was being referred to. And for that I say "thank you."
Good to know I've earned the esteemed approval of Kilarney, Master and Overlord of the Barack Obama Thread. But perhaps you do not comprehend the context of your own post. Kate says there's not many facts in the article, you respond by pointing out a single fact and proclaiming yourself the victor by means of her academic laziness, further insulting her for having the gall to post her reaction to an article you wanted people's opinions on.
Seriously, though, for every post attempting to legitimately discuss the topic at hand there are three (often double- or triple-posted) Kilarney victory-dance-assholery posts, slinging accusations of ad hominem attacks or proclaiming yourself victor due to minor flaws in arguments (coincidentally enough, itself a logical fallacy). You approach this as if going into battle, instead of the forum for discussion it actually is. Can we try to be civil for once, cut down on the assholery, and *gasp* talk about Obama on the Obama thread?
But it's easier to shoot the messenger, rather than address the message itself, isn't it? Academically lazy, but easy.
I read your first article and they filled in the blanks as to why he didn't answer. I am not saying Obama's trip was worthwhile, I am saying the article you first presented was incredibly poorly written and made massive assumptions. I was criticising the article, not you - the messenger. Stop looking for a personal fight.
EDIT: The chart you just posted shows the deficit as a percentage of the GDP. I wonder why the GPD is in such a shoddy shape and if that might be coloring the information.
I wonder why the GPD is in such a shoddy shape and if that might be coloring the information.
Here is a graph showing industrial production and the GDP. I don't think that the GDP is in "shoddy shape" from a historical perspective. I'll see if I can find a chart for the most recent months. However, even if the GDP has contracted, which is certainly possible in a recession, defecit spending must take this into account. In any event, the point was not that deficit spending is bad. There are many economists that argue that it is necessary in a recession. The point was that Obama has embraced deficit spending - whether it is good or bad.
There has been contraction of the GDP during the late Bush period and early Obama period. The latest quarter suggests a reversal. Sorry for the large image size. I don't have enough time to edit the image or find an alternative image.
The source for the information is the CBO and the White House Office of Management and Budget. That's a good source.
Per the other thread, I wish people here would not dismiss matters outright due to their publisher. Show me that the figures are incorrect. That makes for much more substantive discussion.
People here routinely criticize articles for making blanket conclusions devoid of underlying facts, only to make the same type of fact-devoid conclusions. Why do we here on the forum engage in the very behavior that we criticize?
If you don't agree with the graph, give some facts to show why it is wrong. That will really elevate the discussion here. Argument based solely on stereotype is best avoided.
After all, PBS is reporting similar numbers. The New York Times reports an estimate of over 5% for the next decade. This is still above average, and factors in an improvement in the economy later in the decade. The CBO itself has a very recent and comprehensive report with some grim statistics on the deficit over the next five or so years.
I can say that the Huffington Post is stupid. You can say that someone else is stupid. What's the point? It detracts from the quality of the forum.
Let's talk about facts and not stereotypes. This will increase the level of discussion. I think it's fine to be suspect of information from a group with a known bias, but a teacher should teach people to confirm or deny a suspicion - not to accept an unproven position blindly based on a stereotype.
In any event, the point was not that deficit spending is bad. There are many economists that argue that it is necessary in a recession. The point was that Obama has embraced deficit spending - whether it is good or bad.
I thought that the point was that that one chart wouldn't be popular among Democrats anymore.
Also, I have no idea what that large chart means. I mean, I get that the numbers on the bottom are years, but I have no idea what the numbers on the side are supposed to represent. Dollars by million? Percentage of change in dollar amount? Actually, the chart just before it has the same problems, especially if it's tracking GDP and amount of industrial production with the exact same numbers. I feel a few keys would be helpful here.
2.)
Any information from the heritage foundation will not be considered legitimate by me or anyone else with any sense of non-bias. Just be aware.
The source for the information is the CBO and the White House Office of Management and Budget. That's a good source.
I think he was more referring to the fact that the chart was made by heritage, even if the numbers initially came from the CBO.
Plus, I mean...if you can present the same information from sources more people accept as unbiased to support the information you initially provide from a source perceived as biased, why not just present that other information from the get-go and cut out the argument about bias altogether?
Additionally, Heritage has this little habit of saying they got information from a real source, and then the numbers turn out to be magically changed in their reports from the numbers given to them from whatever organization. This practice is also knows as willful deception or LYING OUT YOUR ASS.
Comments
I'm not saying that this is the biggest mistake he'll make, but it's disappointing. I was hoping for a change to the money = favors tradition.
But, fortunately, Joe has stopped trolling so this issue has been largely settled.
So, whatever conclusion a person who doesn't know the difference between causation and correlation may reach from the cited articles, there is no evidence to be gleaned from the cited articles that there was illegal discrimination of any kind involved in whatever activity such a person may find objectionable.
Time Magazine said:
President Obama's trip to China yielded precious little Chinese cooperation on the Administration's key concerns, ranging from currency issues to Iran.
USA Today was less than impressed.
But it's easier to shoot the messenger, rather than address the message itself, isn't it? Academically lazy, but easy.
I actually think that there were some bona fide accomplishments. There was nothing earth shattering, but it was not an entirely wasted trip. The real measure of the trip's success will come in the future.
Keep in mind, also, that this is a right-leaning and aggressive newspaper we're talking about here.
EDIT: You give one fact and you're accusing her of academic laziness? Asshole move.
Joe, are you listening?
Seriously, though, for every post attempting to legitimately discuss the topic at hand there are three (often double- or triple-posted) Kilarney victory-dance-assholery posts, slinging accusations of ad hominem attacks or proclaiming yourself victor due to minor flaws in arguments (coincidentally enough, itself a logical fallacy). You approach this as if going into battle, instead of the forum for discussion it actually is. Can we try to be civil for once, cut down on the assholery, and *gasp* talk about Obama on the Obama thread?
I'll start:
The Obama trip to Asia was a success or a disappointment? Why?
Looks like Obama will make such a graph less appealing for Democrats to use.
Here is a recent graph showing the average federal deficit as a percentage of GDP by administration:
Yet another example of how there are fewer differences between the two parties than people think.
I am not saying Obama's trip was worthwhile, I am saying the article you first presented was incredibly poorly written and made massive assumptions. I was criticising the article, not you - the messenger. Stop looking for a personal fight.
EDIT: The chart you just posted shows the deficit as a percentage of the GDP. I wonder why the GPD is in such a shoddy shape and if that might be coloring the information.
Please show a detailed graph of the GDP from the Clinton years through the present. I want to look for one, but can't at the present time.
1993 $8,523.4
1994 $8,870.7
1995 $9,093.7
1996 $9,433.9
1997 $9,854.3
1998 $10,283.5
1999 $10,779.8
2000 $11,226.0
2001 $11,347.2
2002 $11,553.0
2003 $11,840.7
2004 $12,263.8
2005 $12,638.4
2006 $12,976.2
2007 $13,254.1
2008 $13,312.2
Per the other thread, I wish people here would not dismiss matters outright due to their publisher. Show me that the figures are incorrect. That makes for much more substantive discussion.
People here routinely criticize articles for making blanket conclusions devoid of underlying facts, only to make the same type of fact-devoid conclusions. Why do we here on the forum engage in the very behavior that we criticize?
If you don't agree with the graph, give some facts to show why it is wrong. That will really elevate the discussion here. Argument based solely on stereotype is best avoided.
After all, PBS is reporting similar numbers. The New York Times reports an estimate of over 5% for the next decade. This is still above average, and factors in an improvement in the economy later in the decade.
The CBO itself has a very recent and comprehensive report with some grim statistics on the deficit over the next five or so years.
I can say that the Huffington Post is stupid. You can say that someone else is stupid. What's the point? It detracts from the quality of the forum.
It's also logically unsound.
Let's talk about facts and not stereotypes. This will increase the level of discussion. I think it's fine to be suspect of information from a group with a known bias, but a teacher should teach people to confirm or deny a suspicion - not to accept an unproven position blindly based on a stereotype.
Also, I have no idea what that large chart means. I mean, I get that the numbers on the bottom are years, but I have no idea what the numbers on the side are supposed to represent. Dollars by million? Percentage of change in dollar amount? Actually, the chart just before it has the same problems, especially if it's tracking GDP and amount of industrial production with the exact same numbers. I feel a few keys would be helpful here.
2.)I think he was more referring to the fact that the chart was made by heritage, even if the numbers initially came from the CBO.
Plus, I mean...if you can present the same information from sources more people accept as unbiased to support the information you initially provide from a source perceived as biased, why not just present that other information from the get-go and cut out the argument about bias altogether?