he posts every news story and blog post he finds that he agrees with and expects others to read it and research it and pick it apart as if the argument was his own.
Holy shit, that's exactly what I would've been saying for the past year if I cared to get involved in these arguments.
Yes, the site and the image are offensive. That doesn't equal K being a Holocaust denier, or intending offense. It simply equals negligence in his posting of the image. So accuse him of negligence in that respect, and if the image is offensive you could ask him to take it down and/or apologize. Instead, there have been a bunch of silly accusations about the original source of the image reflecting his opinions on an issue that wasn't even being discussed.
I agree that his style of "argument," posting images and one-liners, is a bad one. I agree that the image was offensive. What I don't agree with is the productivity of the METHOD of objection. I could call Pete and bitch about K's stupid post (unlikely to change anything), or I could point out the offensiveness of the picture and ask K to re-evaluate his post in light of the offensiveness (more potential for change). Pointing it out directly and reasonably is the only one of those options that has even the potential to have an effect. If K THEN refuses to do something about the offensiveness, then it's fair to connect him with the offensive idea.
I see people reacting to things poorly every day, online and offline. Assess the situation, figure out what would be a productive and effective remedy, and do what you can to put that in motion. If something is mistakenly offensive, let the offender know you think so, and try to get them to do something about it. Anything else is really just going to serve to aggravate the situation instead of change it for the better.
I realize that people react to things emotionally. I have emotions too. However, I recognize that reacting emotionally without having a plan to change anything for the better rarely has a positive result.
Pointing it out directly and reasonably is the only one of those options that has even the potential to have an effect. If K THEN refuses to do something about the offensiveness, then it's fair to connect him with the offensive idea.
While that may not be exactly what happened, it's pretty close to what happened. No one actually called him an anti-semite. He was questioned, sure. Who wouldn't question an image like that? But, instead of saying , "I'm sorry. Mea culpa. I posted that before I really looked at it. I'll take it down. Please forgive me", he attacked the people who raised legitimate concerns and pretty much said that there was nothing wrong with the image. Then he had his little psychotic meltdown.
I feel like the posting of that image is a perfect model of how hastily he has dumped links and such into this thread to "prove" his point, only to have dismissed by others because he simply didn't take the time to delve deeply enough into them.
That was his problem with this landmine business. He obviously has Google Alerts set to alert him any time an article criticizing Obama is published anywhere in the world. He must have gotten an alert about that landmine article and, without really reading it beyond just confirming that it criticized Obama, breathlessly posted it. Then, when people pointed out that the articles themselves do not support his feigned outrage over the landmine issue, he just ignored them and immediately posted the next thing he could find without really looking at it.
Has this thread really gone this low? It's like a dent on the surface of the forum's integrity. What started as political discussion became a pointless and over-stretched chicken fight among two forum members, I think we're better than this.
Agree to disagree and leave it at that. K, stop spamming the thread with your ideals, expecting everyone to suddenly join your side. Joe, grow up, nitpicking on an honest mistake is only making you seem like a hypocrite.
Has this thread really gone this low? It's like a dent on the surface of the forum's integrity. What started as political discussion became a pointless and over-stretched chicken fight among two forum members, I think we're better than this. Agree to disagree and leave it at that. K, stop spamming the thread with your ideals, expecting everyone to suddenly join your side. Joe, grow up, nitpicking on an honest mistake is only making you seem like a hypocrite.
QFT,
As of this moment, all I know K for is mindlessly bitching about how bad Obama and how we all should hate him and HJ for being a nit picker. Almost everyone else does something cool and funny, take Sail, Sonic, Viga, Luke, Andrew, Gomidog, Rym, Yupa or anyone. This thread is so mired in bias and nitpicking, it is unpleasant to read and certainly not a fun or intelligent part of the Forum.
Let me just say that the photo in that article is terrific.
That said, it's good that he's making good on the various campaign promises, slowly but surely (for the most part). I, for one, eagerly await the realization of the promised government money for college students who do community service.
How long has he been in office? I'm glad he's closing it, but this delay was entirely avoidable.
I think that's a little unfair, for a number of reasons -
1)It's not like he's just been sitting around playing Xbox and making paper aeroplanes. He's had a lot of stuff going on, with running the country and all that jazz, and the dude has a family on top of that. Sure, he might have promised a bit too much, but that was before he was put into office and before he knew what was going on, or the challenges the plan would face, and much like the rest of us, he's not psychic and can't see into the future with any certainty.
2)Prisons don't grow on trees. The Government would either have to buy one, or build one. They build one, it costs a massive amount of money, and takes a long time - for a detention center of sufficient size and with the required level of security, even if it started the day he was put into office, wouldn't be done by 2010. As for buying a prison, again, they don't grow on trees. A suitable one has to be available - It's not like you can just search cragslist real estate for "Prisons" - and then it has to be re-furbished to an acceptable level of security, because you have varying levels of security in the gitmo facilities, ranging from minimum security to "we know the name of the place, and that it's really, really high security, but everything else is classified" which takes time.
3)To quote the article
In the Senate, a spokesman for Republican leader Mitch McConnell promised that the GOP would use delaying tactics to prevent funding the Illinois facility and added that he expected support from Democrats.
To repeat - the GOP are actively working against this. Maybe, had he no opposition, I could see the validity of the complaint, but you can't expect him to wave a magic wand and things happen - there has to be due process, and people working against it slows things down.
4)"So much for closing Guantanamo" is rather slippery wording. I wouldn't call it an lie, clearly it's not, but it's certainly a very poor way of putting it. It's been delayed. It's still happening. I've nothing against you criticizing Obama or his administration, but do so accurately and fairly, and not put your own spin on things, if you'd please. And no, I don't care what everyone else does, I'm politely asking you, because you're the one I've seen doing it at this juncture. If anyone else had done so, I'd have said the same to them.
Whether or not we agree, you are one of a couple people whose responses are most often well thought out. Others could learn from responses like the one above.
Whether or not we agree, you are one of a couple people whose responses are most often well thought out. Others could learn from responses like the one above.
Thank you - My knowledge on the machine of American politics is rather limited, but I do try to make up for it by being the outside view, with no real stake in most proceedings. I won't say other people's posts are less thought out or anything like that, because as I've said before, I'm not the smartest guy in the room, nor the most knowledgeable(I've a lot to learn from others, myself), but I do my best with what I know, and I appreciate the compliment.
In light of Churba's well thought out response could Obama's original promise of closing Gitmo in a year be considered naive?
I don't think so. Since at that point, a lot of the information he'd need was classified, and he didn't have any security clearance, Nor did he know that the republicans would attempt to fight this plan in the manner they have, he really didn't have any idea on the enormity of the job he was facing.
However, I would venture that it wasn't the smartest move he's ever made, making a promise like that when he didn't know all the details. So, not naive, but maybe not as well thought out as it could have been.
What has Obama - this Conan O'Brien of presidents - done wrong in order to produce this devastating outcome? The short answer is: Just about everything imaginable.
I agree with many of the points raised, I think President Obama clearly underestimated how obstructionist the republicans were going to be. We'll have to see what he does with the State of the Union address on Wednesday. Hopefully he'll use this time to lay out some sort of plan in the vein of a "New Deal" or "Great Society" level of change and will attempt to RAM that sucker through before the election. I really hope he and congress does something right or I'm going to be spending a lot of my days attempting to help keep my Rep and senator in office in PA.
My thoughts are that you should go post over in the stupid political emails thread. I think that Obama actually got a lot done this year. I can make a list. Part of the reason he has gotten not as much done as we had hoped are the Republicans are being obstructionist assholes, blocking anything the dems. want merely for the sake of being the opposite opinion. Sometimes I feel like if the dems said suddenly "Make the government smaller! Less social programs! More Christians! Less Gay!" the republicans would be like "No! We want the opposite!"
Honestly, it is the Democrats in Congress that I feel have failed to fall in line behind the leader of their party and put their backs into pushing through the legislation that is necessary to deliver the goods.
Honestly, it is the Democrats in Congress that I feel have failed to fall in line behind the leader of their party and put their backs into pushing through the legislation that is necessary to deliver the goods.
The fundamental problem is that we're a democracy, and meaningful health care reform is an unpopular idea with enough people to make it impossible to implement without either forcing it against their will or accepting ludicrous concessions.
It's only unpopular because people tell them not to want it. If the Republicans told them to want it, they would lap it up! That's what drives me crazy. Also, the most of the Democratic party has no balls. Obama at least has one, perhaps.
Honestly, it is the Democrats in Congress that I feel have failed to fall in line behind the leader of their party and put their backs into pushing through the legislation that is necessary to deliver the goods.
The fundamental problem is that we're a democracy, and meaningful health care reform is an unpopular idea with enough people to make it impossible to implement without either forcing it against their will or accepting ludicrous concessions.
Almost everything I want from the government is unpopular with a large portion of the population. My vote is meaningless: all that matters is my ability to convince other people to vote en masse, which is most effectively accomplished via money. My dollar is worth a hell of a lot more than my vote, and this may be the unavoidable endgame of a large democracy.
First of all, I suspect that most people have health care insurance that they like. In my state, the VAST majority of voters have health insurance. I haven't researched the matter, but I doubt my state is unusual. People who are usually most upset with the cost, and not the scope of coverage. The health care reform bill did little to address the majority's concern, while it may have helped (in one way or another) certain people that constitute a minority. In order to appeal to the majority, the Dems needed to address the majority's concern. They dropped the ball. When the CBO says that the government plan will be MORE expensive than a private plan, why would anyone who currently has coverage want to embrace this plan? Telling non-union members that the government will discriminate against them didn't help, either.
And back to my constant gripe... as long as for-profit corporations have more of a say than the people, costs will never be meaningfully contained.
Next, blaming the Republicans will only get you so far. Not far, at that. The Dems had the President, the House, and a super-majority in the Senate. If you've got problems, they should lie with Lieberman and the blue-dog Dems. Functionally, they've had MUCH more negative influence on Obama's plans that the Republicans. Polls have also shown that the public has lost appreciation for blaming the Republicans. May I present Scott Brown as an example?
The Dems have lost the populist message, and allowed some Republicans to steal it. Obama's trying to get that message back, which bodes well for his future.
Functionally, they've had MUCH more negative influence on Obama's plans that the Republicans.
Excuse me? We can place a ton of blame at the feet of Lieberman and the blue dogs (and we do), but the mere fact the Republicans act the way they do necessitates a super-majority. If the party wasn't unilaterally opposed to everything the Democrats have proposed, your argument would hold water.
The existence of a unified opposition party creates the situation that we have now, where we have to capitulate to unreasonable demands made by our own party because it's the only way to get anything done at all. If we didn't have unified opposition, we could at least try negotiating with someone else or taking the bill in a different direction.
EDIT: Of course, it would have helped if the majority leader would grow a pair and force Republicans to actually speak during a filibuster.
First of all, I suspect that most people have health care insurance that they like.
What are you basing this on? A more pertinent question would be how much do they value the guarantee of coverage for those without access to it, keeping in mind that there may come a point in their lives, their friends' lives, their family members' lives, etc. when they may not be able to afford any health care insurance, let alone a health insurance plan they like?
Comments
I agree that his style of "argument," posting images and one-liners, is a bad one. I agree that the image was offensive. What I don't agree with is the productivity of the METHOD of objection. I could call Pete and bitch about K's stupid post (unlikely to change anything), or I could point out the offensiveness of the picture and ask K to re-evaluate his post in light of the offensiveness (more potential for change). Pointing it out directly and reasonably is the only one of those options that has even the potential to have an effect. If K THEN refuses to do something about the offensiveness, then it's fair to connect him with the offensive idea.
I see people reacting to things poorly every day, online and offline. Assess the situation, figure out what would be a productive and effective remedy, and do what you can to put that in motion. If something is mistakenly offensive, let the offender know you think so, and try to get them to do something about it. Anything else is really just going to serve to aggravate the situation instead of change it for the better.
I realize that people react to things emotionally. I have emotions too. However, I recognize that reacting emotionally without having a plan to change anything for the better rarely has a positive result.
Agree to disagree and leave it at that. K, stop spamming the thread with your ideals, expecting everyone to suddenly join your side. Joe, grow up, nitpicking on an honest mistake is only making you seem like a hypocrite.
As of this moment, all I know K for is mindlessly bitching about how bad Obama and how we all should hate him and HJ for being a nit picker. Almost everyone else does something cool and funny, take Sail, Sonic, Viga, Luke, Andrew, Gomidog, Rym, Yupa or anyone. This thread is so mired in bias and nitpicking, it is unpleasant to read and certainly not a fun or intelligent part of the Forum.
I declare this thread CONDEMNED
That said, it's good that he's making good on the various campaign promises, slowly but surely (for the most part). I, for one, eagerly await the realization of the promised government money for college students who do community service.
EDIT:
Apparently, the bailout is going to make back a bunch of money, too.
1)It's not like he's just been sitting around playing Xbox and making paper aeroplanes. He's had a lot of stuff going on, with running the country and all that jazz, and the dude has a family on top of that. Sure, he might have promised a bit too much, but that was before he was put into office and before he knew what was going on, or the challenges the plan would face, and much like the rest of us, he's not psychic and can't see into the future with any certainty.
2)Prisons don't grow on trees. The Government would either have to buy one, or build one. They build one, it costs a massive amount of money, and takes a long time - for a detention center of sufficient size and with the required level of security, even if it started the day he was put into office, wouldn't be done by 2010. As for buying a prison, again, they don't grow on trees. A suitable one has to be available - It's not like you can just search cragslist real estate for "Prisons" - and then it has to be re-furbished to an acceptable level of security, because you have varying levels of security in the gitmo facilities, ranging from minimum security to "we know the name of the place, and that it's really, really high security, but everything else is classified" which takes time.
3)To quote the article To repeat - the GOP are actively working against this. Maybe, had he no opposition, I could see the validity of the complaint, but you can't expect him to wave a magic wand and things happen - there has to be due process, and people working against it slows things down.
4)"So much for closing Guantanamo" is rather slippery wording. I wouldn't call it an lie, clearly it's not, but it's certainly a very poor way of putting it. It's been delayed. It's still happening. I've nothing against you criticizing Obama or his administration, but do so accurately and fairly, and not put your own spin on things, if you'd please. And no, I don't care what everyone else does, I'm politely asking you, because you're the one I've seen doing it at this juncture. If anyone else had done so, I'd have said the same to them.
Whether or not we agree, you are one of a couple people whose responses are most often well thought out. Others could learn from responses like the one above.
However, I would venture that it wasn't the smartest move he's ever made, making a promise like that when he didn't know all the details. So, not naive, but maybe not as well thought out as it could have been.
And back to my constant gripe... as long as for-profit corporations have more of a say than the people, costs will never be meaningfully contained.
Next, blaming the Republicans will only get you so far. Not far, at that. The Dems had the President, the House, and a super-majority in the Senate. If you've got problems, they should lie with Lieberman and the blue-dog Dems. Functionally, they've had MUCH more negative influence on Obama's plans that the Republicans. Polls have also shown that the public has lost appreciation for blaming the Republicans. May I present Scott Brown as an example?
The Dems have lost the populist message, and allowed some Republicans to steal it. Obama's trying to get that message back, which bodes well for his future.
The existence of a unified opposition party creates the situation that we have now, where we have to capitulate to unreasonable demands made by our own party because it's the only way to get anything done at all. If we didn't have unified opposition, we could at least try negotiating with someone else or taking the bill in a different direction.
EDIT: Of course, it would have helped if the majority leader would grow a pair and force Republicans to actually speak during a filibuster.
A more pertinent question would be how much do they value the guarantee of coverage for those without access to it, keeping in mind that there may come a point in their lives, their friends' lives, their family members' lives, etc. when they may not be able to afford any health care insurance, let alone a health insurance plan they like?