Personal assaults on Obama

[elbe]

To credit intellect, what emerges has to make sense. When President Obama avoids "uh...uh...", I see a cadence that suggests thoughtful pauses but no subsequent return to the investment of time. He never rises above cliche.

He's also a politician. I wouldn't be too surprised if he'd been instructed to avoid long pauses (like deadtime on the radio). To many, though, "uh"s are a natural part of their public speaking and I can't really make a connection between that and intellect. You'd likely be better served, in your argument, if you stuck to content instead of delivery, but I imagine much of that would be subjective to whether or not the listener agrees with him (or his speechwriter).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Found any good Romney oratory yet?

I'm not looking. Should I? Unlike Barak Obama's partisans, Romney partisans don't give intellect as the reason to vote for him. I don't mean to suggest that he's not smart, just that that's not the pitch.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

He's also a politician. I wouldn't be too surprised if he'd been instructed to avoid long pauses (like deadtime on the radio). To many, though, "uh"s are a natural part of their public speaking and I can't really make a connection between that and intellect. You'd likely be better served, in your argument, if you stuck to content instead of delivery, but I imagine much of that would be subjective to whether or not the listener agrees with him (or his speechwriter).

True enough. Also, politicians have to talk in the equivalent of top 40 radio most of the time. "Leaders" can't get so far in front that they're out of sight. Pathfinders are all over the map. Trail blazers shuttle between the discovered paths and the main body. "Leaders" follow paths others find and blaze, one step ahead of the mass. That's their job. So they have to talk in cliches in most of their public appearances. Sell yourself as an intellectual and you have to do better at least some of the time.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Stop me if you've heard this one before. Dave Mustaine, Ted Nugent and Hank Williams Jr. walk into a bar.....




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...im-hate_n_1804184.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

So how lonely does it get?

 

[elbe]

True enough. Also, politicians have to talk in the equivalent of top 40 radio most of the time. "Leaders" can't get so far in front that they're out of sight. Pathfinders are all over the map. Trail blazers shuttle between the discovered paths and the main body. "Leaders" follow paths others find and blaze, one step ahead of the mass. That's their job. So they have to talk in cliches in most of their public appearances. Sell yourself as an intellectual and you have to do better at least some of the time.

I'm not sure you can even say intelligent people make good leaders. What makes a good leader? Do you have some quantifiable quality that can be used to measure people up? What do people look for in a leader? Some people seem to want platitudes, some people seem to want to be held by the hand, and some people seem to just want someone to point the way.

I'm inclined to describe the president (the position, not the person) as a leader in name only. Politicians are more likely to run for it for the prestige and power and not to "lead our nation forward", no matter what their billboards say. Some may be good leaders, some not. Does a bad leader make a bad president? I don't honestly know. I think it's still too abstract to make any definitive judgements about.

 

[BenBurch]

Ben demonstrates why the discussion of "differential impact" and "equality before the law" will have to wait.

As long as some animals are more equal than others, no discussion is possible.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...Social Justice often refers to social issues such as gay marriage and gender/racial equality....

Someone could initiate a worthwhile conversation around the tension between "differential impact" and "equality before the law". I hope to see it in this forum someday. Is it "equal" to feed all the animals in the zoo, from hummingbirds to leopards, the same diet?

I see. So you believe in a Master Race.

Ben demonstrates why the discussion of "differential impact" and "equality before the law" will have to wait.

As long as some animals are more equal than others, no discussion is possible.

Obviously, Ben doesn't believe his own words. Why is he participating in this discussion?
1. a) Hummingbirds will not thrive on a carnivore's diet. Yes or no?
b) Leopards will not thrive on a diet of nectar. Yes or no?
c) If "no" to parts a,b, above, which is the Master Species?
2. Stardardized tests of reading comprehension and math, as pre-employment screening, will have racially disparate impact. Yes or no?
3. a) Regional varieties of human differ systematically in measures of vital capacity (tidal lung volume/body mass or tidal lung volume/height). Yes or no?
b) Regional varieties of human differ systematically in response to some medicines. Yes or no?
c) Regional varieties of human differ systematically in the ability of adults to metabolize ethanol and lactose. Yes or no?
4. Government-operated schools have a systematic differentially disparate impact on ethnic groups. Yes or no?
5. Entitlement programs have a systematic differentially disparate impact on ethnic groups. Yes or no?

Whether one intends to help or harm, practical policy will consider disparate impact (the US did not drop one bomb on Hiroshima and one on Santa Fe, N.M. for example). If a policy (or treatment) has a disparate impact and the desired result is "equality" (in some sense) of outcome, treatment must vary systematically. Yes or no?

 

[BenBurch]

Yep, all you want is to established a privileged class you get to be in.

I understand you totally.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Yep, all you want is to established a privileged class you get to be in. I understand you totally.

Ben pretends to mindreading. I expected that he would ignore the factual questions in my last comment.
btw, didn't Ben just say "no discussion is possible"?
Take your own advice, until you have something sensible to contribute,

 

[Alt+F4]

Yep, all you want is to established a privileged class you get to be in.

I think you mean establish. Who the heck DOESN'T want to be in a privileged class? I sure do. Being poor, being under represented, being discriminated against SUCKS.

 

[Alt+F4]

I'm inclined to describe the president (the position, not the person) as a leader in name only. Politicians are more likely to run for it for the prestige and power and not to "lead our nation forward", no matter what their billboards say. Some may be good leaders, some not. Does a bad leader make a bad president? I don't honestly know. I think it's still too abstract to make any definitive judgements about.

Well while you bring up some interesting points, I think it's too soon to tell. The U.S. is just a baby nation-wise and only with 44 presidents I don't think there is enough evidence to decide either way. Those 43 men certainly don't define us.

 

[BenBurch]

I think you mean establish. Who the heck DOESN'T want to be in a privileged class? I sure do. Being poor, being under represented, being discriminated against SUCKS.

Yes, establish. Kindle fire completes words seemingly at random.

 

[elbe]

Well while you bring up some interesting points, I think it's too soon to tell. The U.S. is just a baby nation-wise and only with 44 presidents I don't think there is enough evidence to decide either way. Those 43 men certainly don't define us.

Even if you tried to find trends it's a small sample size over a good period of time. Specifically over a time period with significant changes to political and social attitudes. We're at a point where people are actually choosing not to run for president because of the sudden spotlight it shines on them, can you say that politicians in the 18th and 19th centuries had the same concerns?

 

[thaiboxerken]

Good leaders do.

The President is being criticized for being unable to resist trumpeting his involvement in the success of the mission at the moment the success of the mission was announced and prior to crediting the subordinates who did 99% of the work. That's all. The fact that you can't acknowledge that was done or try to rationalize it is revealing.

No, Obama is being criticized for not being a Republican and being successful. They're just upset that Obama got OBL, something that their leader couldn't.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

1. Obama's difficulties with English would not matter so much if his promoters hadn't sold him as an intellectual.

Difficulties with public speaking =/= Difficulties with English. Furthermore difficulties with public speaking =/= lack of intelligence.

Along with, uh, the repeated uh, "uh"s in his unscripted conversation

As someone who often has to pause to gather his thoughts in conversation I'm incredibly offended that you regard me as being unintelligent solely for this reason.

there's the frequent resort to "to be honest...". That's the long-winded version of "uh", with the disadvantage that it creates two classes of sentences: those prefaced with "to be honest..." and those that are not. You mean, you're lying the other times?

You're perfectly aware that "to be honest" is just a phrase commonly used to allow one a moment to gather his/her thoughts yet you continue with this ridiculous line of reasoning.

2. How is it "racist" to suggest that a black man might have benefitted from a policy that advocates sold as beneficial to blacks?

1: You assume the policy is created to lift unintelligent blacks to places of higher learning.

2: You assume individuals who benefit from it are less intelligent by default than those who do not.

3: You assume he benefited from it solely because he is black, you've never looked to see if he ever has you simply saw a black man and assumed it to be true. Stereotyping brought on by confirmation bias is a sure sign of a racist.

4: You assume the program is used for the benefit of blacks, stereotypically. You ignore that the largest beneficiary of affirmative action has been white women.

5: In addition to the above, your obvious condescension towards those who have benefited from such programs is telling.

All "racist" means anymore is "caucasian who disagrees with a socialist".

Whining about not being able to utilize his privileged status to talk down to those lacking said status is also a sign of a racist.

Someone could initiate a worthwhile conversation around the tension between "differential impact" and "equality before the law". I hope to see it in this forum someday. Is it "equal" to feed all the animals in the zoo, from hummingbirds to leopards, the same diet?

For someone being accused of using racist thinking it is certainly problematic that you characterize the discussion by referring to animals. Whether this was an unfortunate lack of thinking on your part or a Freudian slip remains to be seen, but I'm leaning towards the latter.

What I would find more telling is the fact that you refer to "equality before the law" and not "social equality" or "economic equality". This would lead some to conclude that you do not support equal rights for all and lend credence to benburch's accusation that you favor the creation of a privileged class that you are privy to.

Aside from that, it simply doesn't follow as no one is suggesting the answer to all the problems facing disparate minorities and issues of equality with the majority is the same answer. This is a complex issue requires a complex set of answers.

 

[Juniversal]

2. How is it "racist" to suggest that a black man might have benefitted from a policy that advocates sold as beneficial to blacks?

It's obvious but i'll bite. Affirmative action doesn't imbue someone with success but opportunities. Implying his success was a result of affirmative action and not hard work is not only wrong but is certainly an attempt to undermine his intelligence and hard work as a black man (this wouldn't be a discussion if it was a white woman but white woman benefit greatest from affirmative action).

You don't graduate from Columbia University, Harvard Law with magna cum laude honors, become a civil rights atorney, become a teacher at Chicago law AND the President of the United States without a fair degree of intellect and hard work.

All "racist" means anymore is "caucasian who disagrees with a socialist".

keynesian economics = socialism??

 

[Travis]

Fixing a small part of your comment.

If you are an idiot socialist then you stop when you run out of other peoples' money Then you look around, puzzled, and start bleating like a pig in the slaughterhouse.

When we start talking about "idiot socialists" we can come back to this line of thought you somehow thought was relevant to the discussion. Until then this discussion will be about Obama.

 

[Travis]

Obviously, Ben doesn't believe his own words. Why is he participating in this discussion?
1. a) Hummingbirds will not thrive on a carnivore's diet. Yes or no?
b) Leopards will not thrive on a diet of nectar. Yes or no?
c) If "no" to parts a,b, above, which is the Master Species?
2. Stardardized tests of reading comprehension and math, as pre-employment screening, will have racially disparate impact. Yes or no?
3. a) Regional varieties of human differ systematically in measures of vital capacity (tidal lung volume/body mass or tidal lung volume/height). Yes or no?
b) Regional varieties of human differ systematically in response to some medicines. Yes or no?
c) Regional varieties of human differ systematically in the ability of adults to metabolize ethanol and lactose. Yes or no?
4. Government-operated schools have a systematic differentially disparate impact on ethnic groups. Yes or no?
5. Entitlement programs have a systematic differentially disparate impact on ethnic groups. Yes or no?

Whether one intends to help or harm, practical policy will consider disparate impact (the US did not drop one bomb on Hiroshima and one on Santa Fe, N.M. for example). If a policy (or treatment) has a disparate impact and the desired result is "equality" (in some sense) of outcome, treatment must vary systematically. Yes or no?

Are you seriously advocating that education should be rationed to specific segments of the population? That's the only thing I can conclude from your nonsense about feeding hummingbirds a carnivore diet.

 

[Augustine]

No, Obama is being criticized for not being a Republican and being successful. They're just upset that Obama got OBL, something that their leader couldn't.

You may want to go back and read the criticism again. There was nothing in there about being successful or not being Republican. If you can't respond to the actual criticism, it might be because it's valid. Might want to think about that rather than hunkering down in the bunker.

 

[AlBell]

Why would I want to talk to old Russians about Obama's economic and political philosophy?

Because Stalin etal, Mao etal, pol pot, and N.Korea all used or are using similar economic and political philosophies.