So, are you all looking forward to tomorrow's coronation? Excuse me, I mean inauguration, of course.
I'm trying to remember the last time there was this kind of media orgy. I mean, Lincoln and Kennedy weren't deified until after they died. Obama has a huge head start over them.
Have any of you ever read Interface? When I first read it, it was by Stephen Bury, but that was a pen name for Neal Stephenson and his father-in-law J. Frederick George. It's about this amazing presidential candidate from Illinois. The perfect populist.
I'm not suggesting that the President-elect has electrodes in his brain. That isn't really necessary. But His Slickness has been making me think of that book for a couple of years now.
And now Representative Jose Serrano has introduced H.J. 5, a proposed amendment repealing the two-term limit for presidents.
Remember four years ago, when people were bashing Bush for spending so much on an inauguration? Obama is spending four times that. One hundred and sixty million dollars ($160,000,000) for a party. But then, coronations aren't the same thing as simple inaugurations.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Is it a bad thing for people to be enthusiastic about a political candidate for once?
It's a very good thing for America to have this sort of excitement, assuming Obama isn't going to turn out to be a crazy guy - and so far, there hasn't really been any sign of that. And there's no sign that America would keep loving him if he did start acting like a deity.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
The only thing that really has me concerned is how much money is spent on this junk :/
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Is it a bad thing for people to be enthusiastic about a political candidate for once?
Well, the way I've heard some people talking about him, it's almost like they see him as the Messiah.
I have no doubt he'll do great in the office, but some are expecting almost instant change as soon as he walks in the door of the Oval Office.
quote:The only thing that really has me concerned is how much money is spent on this junk :/
The government spending exorbitant money on junk?!? Say it isn't so!!! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There were lots of people who were devoted to GWB in a similar way as "God's candidate".
The big difference, it seems to me, is that with GWB, the media rolled their eyes with scorn at that sort of attitude.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Arguably, this is no new thing. Americans have long imbued their Presidents with "deification" of a sort few other nations do, currently anyways. Just look at monuments, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Mount Rushmore, and so forth. A visit to the history museum at the National Mall was pretty amusing.
And its a good point that at one time, even GWB had approval ratings on par with Obama now, while Canadians were quite puzzled.
A big difference for me personally is that this time there is less of a disjoint between Canadian and American perceptions of Obama as compared to Bush. (i.e. while we thought you guys were nuts for electing Bush ... which turned out to be right, we're at least optimistic about Obama, a judgement which only history can prove right or wrong) Whether this is because Obama is truly promising or only because practically anyone would look amazing after Bush is debatable.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Reagan and GWB inspired similar levels of adulation and mindless support during their presidencies (and in the former case, long afterward). You just didn't notice, because it was your side doing it.
Really, the only recent Presidents *not* to be "deified," as you put it, by their supporters, were George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.
It should also be pointed out that, if anything, it's liberal Democrats that have been most strongly criticizing Obama in the past few months. He's made a number of moves towards the center that have made him more a little unpopular with the left wing.
As far as the money being spent - yeah, it's a lot. But it always is. Maybe it'd help to think of it as Stimulus Package: the Prequel. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The government spending exorbitant money on junk?!? Say it isn't so!
The inauguration parties, parades, fireworks and so forth are paid for by private donations and not the government.
What exactly do you find objectionable about private individuals spending money to celebrate Obama's inauguration? Funny that people who have so frequently defended peoples right to spend their money as they see fit, would get all bent out of shape when people freely choose to spend their money celebrating an historic event.
MPH, I think the big difference is that some people who supported GWB actually used the phrase "God's candidate". I haven't heard any on who is devoted to Obama use the words "Messiah" or any of its synonyms.
"Deification" is nothing more than a slur Obama haters are using to demean Obama supporters. You may think that slur is justified, but certainly you must recognize the differences between rolling your eyes in scorn at a claim GWB supporters actually made and rolling your eyes in scorn at a claim Obama opponents think Obama supporters think but have never said.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So, are you all looking forward to tomorrow's coronation? Excuse me, I mean inauguration, of course.
When I saw the thread, I thought "the president's defecation? WHAAAA?"
Now I see that it's yours. Well excuse me, but can I bring you some french cries to go with those Waaaamburgers?
By the way, as we ALL are aware, tenuous similarities between fictional novels and actual events is the basis of a really solid argument. Not *about* anything, but still firmly unshakable.
quote: And now Representative Jose Serrano has introduced H.J. 5, a proposed amendment repealing the two-term limit for presidents.
Uhuh. And that goes so well with Obama's track record as a constitutional scholar.
Oh and Arny will be President. Because everything you dislike happens Lisa... one way or the other.
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
Why is it when a Republican is a great public speaker like Regan he is "The great communicator". When a Democrat is good at it he is "slick"?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The big difference, it seems to me, is that with GWB, the media rolled their eyes with scorn at that sort of attitude.
Possibly because GWB was the one actually helping to reinforce that belief? I'm not saying you weren't making that connection, but I see a difference between GWB claiming to be commanded by God, and whatever* is going on here.
*I think it's at least difficult to disentangle the anti-Obama "deification" sentiment from the pro-Obama sentiment that is being portrayed as, at least by many, as worship. I think, but am not absolutely sure, that generally religiously involved sentiments are more strongly felt in either situation by Republicans, or at least made more public by them.
So, essentially, I'm saying that the idea that either GWB or Obama are involved with or representative of religious symbols seems to come most strongly from the right. The same people who *would* entangle a political leader with religious beliefs would also probably be willing to entangle ideas of false idol-worship with another leader, because they don't like him, or don't find him representative of their beliefs. Tell me if you don't agree with my general premise.
quote: I have no doubt he'll do great in the office, but some are expecting almost instant change as soon as he walks in the door of the Oval Office.
And of course not all personal devotion to symbols is religious in nature- I think religious people don't appreciate that about the non-religious- we are as sentimental, just in different ways.
David Weber had an interesting philosophy in one of his books series (he's an epic sci-fi writer for those not aware of him). In the Empire of Man series (Prince Roger Series), there is a prominent church of Satanism. The followers are essentially indistinguishable from liberal modern Christians, except that they believe that Satan has defeated God, and now must act exactly as God would act, in all things- it's an interesting aspect of the books. Although I wouldn't call them really "literary," they can be fascinating.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
160 *million* dollars? Man. If it's private money, I guess I don't care (that much private money can get spent to make a pretty crummy movie in Hollywood). If that's campaign contributions "left over" I'd have a problem...
The thing is though... Obama isn't going make everything magically better. I mean, he ran on "Change" and now Clinton is going to be SoS? How is that change? Seems like business as usual to me.
He's a politician. He's not Bush. That doesn't make him wonderful. He'll still lie, he'll still take your money to spend it on stuff you'd rather not, do you really think he'll give back the power Bush took for the Presidency? Man I hope I'm wrong about all this... but he's a politician. I mean, a politician. Politicians are a group where 99.99999% of them give the other 0.00001% (that'd be Ron Paul) a bad name.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Ron Paul does just fine giving himself a bad name, he doesn't need anyone's help.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I mean, he ran on "Change" and now Clinton is going to be SoS? How is that change?
This is what I'm waiting to see. I've refrained from commenting on this because I think the person at the top can make a lot of difference, even if he doesn't change many of the people in the middle; the president can set the tone of the organization quite effectively. But I will be very, very disappointed if it's business as usual, and I'm afraid it will be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ... So, essentially, I'm saying that the idea that either GWB or Obama are involved with or representative of religious symbols seems to come most strongly from the right. The same people who *would* entangle a political leader with religious beliefs would also probably be willing to entangle ideas of false idol-worship with another leader, because they don't like him, or don't find him representative of their beliefs. Tell me if you don't agree with my general premise.
Echoes an older post that I made:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As a side note, I find it curious how many things that OSC disagrees with that he has compared to religion.
Doing a quick Google search confined to Orney, I've got slams against the religion of "money spent on science", the religion of "political correctness", the religion of "global warming", the religion that "Bush's presidency has been a disaster", the religion of the "extreme left establishment" (i.e. academia and the liberal tendencies), the religion that the US is losing the Iraq war (the religion of "smart people"), and a whole lot of slams including this one on the religion of "environmentalism." ...
It is not just opposing political leaders, its a whole wide range of things, which is odd since these people from the right (and OSC in particular) are much more likely to think of religion as a good thing in the first place.
In other words, why call something a religion or religious-related if you yourself in fact think of religion as a positive thing? *shrug*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
No matter where you stand politically*, it shouldn't be hard to recognize the enormous historical significance of Obama's election, particularly for those people of African decent who for generations were denied the most basic of human rights solely because of the color of their skin.
Legally enforced racial discrimination isn't ancient history in this country. It is something in living human memory, Obama's memory, my memory. Even if you don't care for Obama's politics, I hope you can recognize the significance of the moment. I hope you can put aside the issues for one day to recognize how much progress we as a society have made and respect the people who want to celebrate this moment, even if you disagree with their politics.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
*After saying "no matter where you stand politically", I realized that I was totally discounting the possibility that anyone here was a white supremacist or gave political support for racial discrimination. If I'm mistaken, please don't point it out. I'm content to remain blissfully ignorant of anyone here who actually thinks racial discrimination is a good thing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The $160 million cost is apparently made up. I've read other places that the amount of private money raised is slightly less more than Bush raised for his record-setting 2004 inaugural, which makes sense as each one tends to be a little more than the last, and that the government is paying somewhat more than last time, as well, due to increased security concerns. (As I understand it, the givernment pays for the security and administrative costs and the donations pay for the "party" aspects.)
Anyway, I wouldn't believe that it's really costing $160 million without a reliable source, which also breaks down the donations and the government contribution. It's been widely reported that Bush raised $42 million in private donations for 2004, but not as widely reported what the government contribution was. I saw one report that it was $115 million, but I am not linking it as I do not consider it a reliable source. If it's true, though, that would make the total. . . $157 million. Gee.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I read a source that claimed that claimed congress had allocated only $1 million for security for Bush's 2005 inauguration. I tend to doubt the reliability of that particular source but thought I'd post an unreliable contrasting to ElJay's unreliable source.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I heard one news commentator refer to the Inauguration bash as "Obamastock"--reference to Woodstock, for the young whipper-snappers among you.
You could bail out a major corporation with 160 million dollars.
President Obama may have a lot of trouble with Nancy Pelosi, who seems to think SHE is the leader of the Democratic Party, and that Obama better not get too "uppity."
I admit, I have to crack up at the idea of an Obama bobble-head doll being put on sale. The ears!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You could bail out a major corporation with 160 million dollars.
No you couldn't. Not even close.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Putting uppity in quotes, Ron, makes it look like you're saying Pelosi actually used the word in reference to Obama. I would lay money that she didn't, so I would question both why you chose that particular work, which is racially loaded, and why you felt the need to put it in quotes. Perhaps so you didn't have to take responsibility for it yourself?
----
And look at the $160 million this way, if it is, in fact, the right number. Instead of bailing out a major corporation, the money is going to support many smaller ones, which do more to create jobs and business in the US than the large ones anyway. Just consider it an early part of the stimulas package, if it makes you feel better. Funded by private donations, even, instead of our tax dollars. How many people do you think would voluntarily and individually donate extra money above and beyond their taxes for a corporate bailout? I'm guessing that number would be zero. So it's money being spent that would not otherwise flow into the economy.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I mean, he ran on "Change" and now Clinton is going to be SoS? How is that change?
This is what I'm waiting to see. I've refrained from commenting on this because I think the person at the top can make a lot of difference, even if he doesn't change many of the people in the middle; the president can set the tone of the organization quite effectively. But I will be very, very disappointed if it's business as usual, and I'm afraid it will be.
Right, because Obama clearly ran on a platform of "change from anything that has happened before, ever," not "change from the failed policies of the Bush Administration."
In any case, it's a little myopic to focus on Clinton alone, even within the Cabinet. Steven Chu is inarguably change from the status quo. Tim Geithner is change from the status quo. Eric Shinseki was forced into retirement by the status quo. Tom Daschle is change from the status quo.
Robert Gates isn't change from the staus quo, but is considered one of the few competent, non-political appointees the Bush administration made. I would argue that his selection is an attempt to move away from the hyper-partisanship of the past decade - a major change from the status quo.
I'm not happy with all of the choices Obama has made as president-elect. Clinton herself wasn't anywhere near my personal favorite for SecState. But the evidence just doesn't support the idea that Obama has abandoned his promises of change. He's just doing it in a way that his liberal base didn't quite expect - promoting competence over ideology, unity and bipartisanship over ramming an agenda through Congress.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by aeolusdallas: Why is it when a Republican is a great public speaker like Regan he is "The great communicator". When a Democrat is good at it he is "slick"?
Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Tim Geithner is change from the status quo.
True. I don't think we've ever had a known tax evader up for Secretary of the Treasury before.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
Maybe because Obama hasn't been implicated in selling arms to Iran yet.
Honestly, the amount of spite shot at someone who hasn't even become president yet from some corners... Tiny, seething corners ... Is kind of ridiculous.
He's charming and well spoken. After the last eight years, whatever else he may bring to the table, the United States desperately needs that. We have some significant fences to mend.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
See, that's just scary. Because the charming and well-spoken is really the extent of his qualifications for the presidency.
I know adolescents go through a phase where being liked is so much more important than doing the right thing. It's a shame to see the USA acting like an adolescent.
And btw, when I mentioned Geithner, I didn't mean to be snarky (much). It's refreshing. I mean, hearing excuses like, "Anyone could forget to pay taxes several years running" demonstrates the kind of creative ingenuity that made this country what it is today.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oh and Arny will be President.
God forbid!!! Don't even SAY that!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Lisa: Look I understand you don't like Obama, and the fact he has such a strongly positive image in the news these days does nothing to make you feel better about him. I get it, lots of terrible people are constantly lauded in the press and amidst the noise you can miss what is really going on.
Maybe your worries are justified, and in a few months God forbid we will all be admitting that you were right and we were wrong. But maybe, just maybe Obama really is intent on being a good president, and maybe even more astonishingly he will actually prove able to lead. Maybe he really will use the citizens briefing book, maybe he really will set the right people in the right place to get us out of this economic recession, maybe he really will offer college tuition for all in exchange for an equal amount of service in the community.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm willing to believe in my president, I'm going to let him prove me wrong before I withdraw that endorsement. So far in light of his mistakes and triumphs I highly approve of Mr. Obama. You disagree, that's fine, but believe me, once he is in office, there will be plenty ready to open the mouth and criticize. He will suffer from the exact phenomenon that Bush suffers from. While you are in office everything you do makes somebody mad, and after making decisions for four to eight years, you've made everybody mad at least once.
Why shouldn't we give president elect Obama all the encouragement we can muster as he steps into the office? He has a huge load of work ahead of him. We have plenty of time to point out his mistakes, giving him a day to celebrate the incredible achievement of being elected after a very long struggle seems to be a very American thing to do.
quote:And now Representative Jose Serrano has introduced H.J. 5, a proposed amendment repealing the two-term limit for presidents.
There are plenty of reasons to be against two terms or even term limits without being an Obama fanatic. Perhaps Serrano thinks Obama is charismatic enough that enough people would be willing to pass such a measure. It's pretty obvious that if Bush were seeking a third term nobody* would support such a bill.
*I didn't mean literally nobody, but it those in favor of Bush third term would be very much in the minority, I do not think even George himself would endorse it.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Oh and Arny will be President.
God forbid!!! Don't even SAY that!
What would we call him then? The "Presinator"?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Remember four years ago, when people were bashing Bush for spending so much on an inauguration?
Uh, no.
I do remember the Ricky Martin dance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The inauguration parties, parades, fireworks and so forth are paid for by private donations and not the government.
Yep.
However, on Thursday last (I think), Bush declared a state of emergency in the District in order to help fund the police, fire, rescue, etc efforts.
So it's not like the public won't be paying for the inauguration. It's just that we'll be paying for Joe Fireman's salary, rather than a party for Swanky Lefties. I'm fine with that.
quote:"Deification" is nothing more than a slur Obama haters are using to demean Obama supporters.
Well, I don't disagree that there seems to be a level of disdain in the tone of the original post. That said, I'm still a little dismayed at the amount of devotion that seems to be pouring into Obama's election.
This thread keeps asking for a "defecation" dobie. Let's hope we can all continue to control ourselves.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Has anyone ever tried labeling a rope with "don't pull this rope" and observed the results?
Nighthawk: The Decidinator.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Even better: "don't push this rope".
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
Don't forget being smart.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
Don't forget being smart.
I don't think he's gotten away with that. We're on to him.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote:Why is it that when Reagan gets away with stuff, he's The Teflon President, and when Obama gets away with stuff, it's because he was unjustly criticized?
What, exactly, has he gotten away with?
Being charismatic. Winning an election. Raising money. Getting people to like him. All kinds of hideous stuff like that.
Don't forget being smart.
The whole 'obama's only qualification is charisma' line has gotten pretty old, seeing as it is pretty easy to counter. At this point, it's a canard.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: *After saying "no matter where you stand politically", I realized that I was totally discounting the possibility that anyone here was a white supremacist or gave political support for racial discrimination. If I'm mistaken, please don't point it out. I'm content to remain blissfully ignorant of anyone here who actually thinks racial discrimination is a good thing.
:trying to think of a joke:
:FAILING... :
:recovering...:
Rabbit, why do you always have to pick on the little guy?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I mean, a politician. Politicians are a group where 99.99999% of them give the other 0.00001% (that'd be Ron Paul) a bad name.
I feel obliged to point out that according to your figures, there would have to be about 1 billion politicians for Ron Paul to be the oppressed 0.00001%.
unless I have my figures screwed up... I'm no statistician.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly I don't think Ron Paul is that unique.
I'd say he's a genuine, wants to help, and rarely speaks through much of a filter. But I also think that a lot of the time he's not a very good communicator (not always mind you), and judging from the campaign for president that he was a guest of, I don't want him running anything important.
But I think there are a lot of genuine politicians out there that really want to help.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
You're saying that libertarians... "deify" Ron Paul?
Hmmm. Delicious. :mustache twirl:
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If we can apply hyperbole to "Liberals <X> Obama" then we can apply even better, earth-exploding hyperbole to "Libertarians <Y> Ron Paul.
If X is 'deify' then Y is somewhere in the range of 'make blood sacrifice to'
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I mean, a politician. Politicians are a group where 99.99999% of them give the other 0.00001% (that'd be Ron Paul) a bad name.
I feel obliged to point out that according to your figures, there would have to be about 1 billion politicians for Ron Paul to be the oppressed 0.00001%.
unless I have my figures screwed up... I'm no statistician.
I think there going with the everyone is a politician, and there is roughly 7 people named Ron Paul, all of whom are being oppressed.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, that's just scary. Because the charming and well-spoken is really the extent of his qualifications for the presidency.
I know adolescents go through a phase where being liked is so much more important than doing the right thing. It's a shame to see the USA acting like an adolescent.
Oh, please.
Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school and teaching at Chicago Law School? Working as a community organizer? Winning his Senate seat by the widest electoral margin in Illinois history?
The only thing significantly missing from his resume is an extended period of executive government experience. But he also doesn't have an extended string of business failures, personal crises, scandals, and major errors in judgement, unlike certain others who have held or sought the presidential seat.
I'm sure he'll have his share of errors and questionable compromises in his time and his honeymoon period will come to an end. But he's perfectly qualified to hold the presidency if actually judged by the recent standard. And someone who isn't willing to give him the chance to succeed or fail, having fairly won, might want to consider that the problem isn't with the so-called "adolescents" who elected him but with their own narrow mindset.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
ElJay, you are trying to build a federal case based on your own ignorance of the various uses of quote marks. If I had left out the quote marks, I might have been implying I thought he was uppity. By putting it in quote marks I was saying that the word is not necessarily true, it just describes Pelosi's evident attitude.
Mr. Potato head, 160 million may not seem like much money to you. But it sure does to me.
I think most major corporations could be bailed out with 160 million dollars. Corporations that require billions of dollars are in the "super" category. There are not that many super corporations.
Of course, all that money is being paid to provide security, etc. But the money has to come from somewhere. Is the U.S. treasury printing still more treasury notes to cover it (that will be purchased by foreign investors, like China)?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school and teaching at Chicago Law School? Working as a community organizer? Winning his Senate seat by the widest electoral margin in Illinois history?
All of those are impressive except for maybe the very last one. Jack and Jeri Ryan's divorce documents becoming unsealed and the subsequent revelation of possible spousal abuse blew apart Ryan's chances for the senate seat. For goodness sakes Alan Keyes had to be fielded at the last minute just so the Republican party would have a candidate on the ballot.
You could substitute in "raising more money in his presidential campaign than any other in American history."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: This thread keeps asking for a "defecation" dobie. Let's hope we can all continue to control ourselves.
Could be difficult. This one's full to bursting.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: See, that's just scary. Because the charming and well-spoken is really the extent of his qualifications for the presidency.
I know adolescents go through a phase where being liked is so much more important than doing the right thing. It's a shame to see the USA acting like an adolescent.
Oh, please.
Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school and teaching at Chicago Law School?
Magma...hehehehe...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is the U.S. treasury printing still more treasury notes to cover it...
Bush's 2005 inauguration security (paid by feds): $115m Obama's 2009 inauguration security (paid by feds): $119m
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Magma...hehehehe...
Yes, yes. Magna.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
During President Bush's last couple of years shrill voices on the right claimed that the left were being un-American, to the point of being treasonous, because we wanted Iraq to be a death trap, Afghanistan to become another Iraq, and the economy to sour putting millions into financial ruin, just so they could have something tangible to blame on the President.
Now I wonder if those same voices are not hoping for disaster and death to rain down upon the country just so they can point at the new president and say "I told you so."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ElJay, you are trying to build a federal case based on your own ignorance of the various uses of quote marks. If I had left out the quote marks, I might have been implying I thought he was uppity. By putting it in quote marks I was saying that the word is not necessarily true, it just describes Pelosi's evident attitude.
No, your use of quote marks was quite unclear, and you're now using it as a justification for allowing yourself to make racially insensitive remarks, and assign them to OTHER PEOPLE no less, who haven't even said them. So I think you're quite mistaken here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school and teaching at Chicago Law School? Working as a community organizer? Winning his Senate seat by the widest electoral margin in Illinois history?
All of those are impressive except for maybe the very last one. Jack and Jeri Ryan's divorce documents becoming unsealed and the subsequent revelation of possible spousal abuse blew apart Ryan's chances for the senate seat. For goodness sakes Alan Keyes had to be fielded at the last minute just so the Republican party would have a candidate on the ballot.
You could substitute in "raising more money in his presidential campaign than any other in American history."
Whoa, so you're saying that Seven of Nine, and by extension Star Trek Voyager had a huge impact on Obama's rise to power?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: During President Bush's last couple of years shrill voices on the right claimed that the left were being un-American, to the point of being treasonous, because we wanted Iraq to be a death trap, Afghanistan to become another Iraq, and the economy to sour putting millions into financial ruin, just so they could have something tangible to blame on the President.
Now I wonder if those same voices are not hoping for disaster and death to rain down upon the country just so they can point at the new president and say "I told you so."
I think the accusation was wrong the first time, so I'd be slow to agree that it is right now.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school
Can you provide a link for this?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Is the U.S. treasury printing still more treasury notes to cover it...
Bush's 2005 inauguration security (paid by feds): $115m Obama's 2009 inauguration security (paid by feds): $119m
Thanks Tom.
If you adjust those numbers for inflation (I used the inflation rate calculator available here, you find that in 2005 dollars, Obama's inauguration would have cost $41.6 million for the parties and $108 million for security. The difference between that and the cost of Bush's second inauguration is in the noise.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Whoa, so you're saying that Seven of Nine, and by extension Star Trek Voyager had a huge impact on Obama's rise to power?
Wow, I remember when that whole scandal broke, but I never connected it with the actress.
I do agree with Blackblade that the margin of victory in his senate race really can't be credited to Obama. For all practical purposes, the Illinois Republican party simply didn't field a candidate. When they did come up with one, it was only after 7 weeks of uncertainty and was an unpopular out of state political commentator.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school
Can you provide a link for this?
quote:Obama entered Harvard Law School in 1988. In February 1990, he was elected the first African–American editor of the Harvard Law Review. Obama graduated magna cum laude in 1991.
quote:There are plenty of reasons to be against two terms or even term limits without being an Obama fanatic.
Yes, all sorts of morons and fascists oppose term limits, one doesn't need be an Obama fanatic. You can be a Russian or Venezuelan despot instead.
Look, I'm not an American -- but I recognize full well the term limit for the presidency is one of the best ideas that has ever come out of the United States. George Washington established it as one of the best political traditions, and when the tradition was eventually broken in mid-20th century, it was CORRECT and NECESSARY that you codified the term limit into an Amendment.
This particular stupid representative that dared suggest abolishing one of the best ideas ever, should never be elected into office again. Not all countries have term limits, but only countries that want to transform themselves into dictatorships abolish an existing one.
In the name of all the gods, don't abolish yours.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Uuuummmmm we don't have Term Limits in Canada, we beleive it is the best idea in our country as it allowed awesome Prime Minister like trudeau and Jean Cretien and serve the PEOPLE for as long as the PEOPLE want them.
Are you calling Canadians morons and facists?
And when was the tradition broken for you? Oh yes, when FDR was president a hugely popular president who was seen instrumental by the American people in the fight against Nazi Facsism.
Such bad things.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I don't support the abolition of presidential term limits, but I wouldn't be opposed to allowing three terms rather than two.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I have seen pictures of 2 term Presidents--before and after. I don't think 3 terms is very survivable.
While dealing with the deification of Obama, NPR had on one of the few Obama Protests--where they were yelling "Obama is the Anti-Christ."
Maybe everyone isn't about the deification after all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Keep in mind that in Canada we have non-confidence motions that can bring down the government if a majority in the Parliament wish it so (versus the rather higher barrier to impeachment in the US system) and the fact that we can also balance the power of a PM via a minority parliament.
In other words, while on paper the PM with no term limits seems more powerful, these other factors make it much easier to unseat a leader.
With the much lower efficiency of the campaigning/governing ratio in the American system (with the huge amounts of time devoted to campaigning, re-election, and lame duck periods), the non-confidence system would be particularly painful so the term limit seems like a decent patch for the problem.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I have seen pictures of 2 term Presidents--before and after. I don't think 3 terms is very survivable.
FDR managed three. That fourth one, though--ill advised.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Uuuummmmm we don't have Term Limits in Canada, we beleive it is the best idea in our country as it allowed awesome Prime Minister like trudeau and Jean Cretien and serve the PEOPLE for as long as the PEOPLE want them.
Are you calling Canadians morons and facists?
And when was the tradition broken for you? Oh yes, when FDR was president a hugely popular president who was seen instrumental by the American people in the fight against Nazi Facsism.
Such bad things.
I disagree with the idea that the will of the people is something that always should be followed. Popular opinion must be bound with checks and balances no less than government officials should.
I look at it like a pilot's checklist. Sure, most experienced pilots can probably fly perfectly fine without one, but even the best pilots are still capable of making mistakes, getting sloppy, or missing something that results in failure. Likewise, public opinion can suffer from failures in judgment stemming from all sorts of causes. Whether it is from spur of the moment passion, lack of information, or all sorts of other causes, people can come to a conclusion that is not in their best interest.
It is for this reason that the role of the government should always be firmly laid out in a strong constitution that acts as a guide and a check against the decisions of both popular opinion and the government. Of course, there must be some way to provide the people with ultimate control over the government, but changing these core rules should be sufficiently difficult that they always require extended thought, debate, and approval.
On the specific issue of term limits, I have to say that I am all for them. In fact, I am of the opinion that they ought to be extended to every elected position in the country. I believe that the orderly and regular transfer of power is essential to the health of a country. It helps to provide a constant inflow of new ideas and perspectives to the government, and works to prevent leaders from becoming too complacent in a position. It also provides a clear legitimate path to power for those who seek it, and gives the general public their greatest means to influence public policy.
The threat of a perpetual elected official is by no means an idle one. We have to look no further than the US congress (or certain major cities such as Chicago) to see examples of politicians who are voted in again and again, and again. Ultimately, people like whatever is familiar. So long as the incumbent hasn't screwed up too badly, people tend to turn to them since they represent a known. This tends to leave us with nothing more than base mediocrity, and as I've said before I think it leads to stagnation.
There are few people so great that we cannot afford to lose their service when their term is up, but there are many cases where the public would be served by a regular influx of new people. It's a difficult position for many to put into practice because of our fear of the unknown and willingness to stick with the familiar, but if term limits are enshrined by law or constitution then we can gain the benefits without requiring people to hold themselves to a difficult principle when it comes time to vote.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: I have seen pictures of 2 term Presidents--before and after. I don't think 3 terms is very survivable.
FDR managed three. That fourth one, though--ill advised.
Yeah, but you have to grant his presidency was relatively uneventful. Mostly a little dip in the economy and a tiny international tussle. Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
I'm not a Libertarian and I don't deify Ron Paul. It's just that, as another said, he seems genuine and doesn't speak through a filter of rhetoric, so even when I disagree with his policies, it still feels like a breath of fresh air. I suppose, since he *is* a politician, it could all be a ploy. But if so, not a successful one. People don't want candor.
I'd have liked Ron Paul to win if for no other reason than there's a chance he'd actually do something different than the same-old Coke/Pepsi/Kodos/Kang choices we've had for so long.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I recently watched I Claudius. In it Claudius argues that Caligula was chosen as Emperor, because he would make such a terrible emperor that the previous one would be considered brilliant.
I wonder how much of the Obama glorification is similar. Accomplishing nothing is such a step above the previous administration that by comparison he seems godly.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: I'm not a Libertarian and I don't deify Ron Paul. It's just that, as another said, he seems genuine and doesn't speak through a filter of rhetoric, so even when I disagree with his policies, it still feels like a breath of fresh air. I suppose, since he *is* a politician, it could all be a ploy. But if so, not a successful one. People don't want candor.
I'd have liked Ron Paul to win if for no other reason than there's a chance he'd actually do something different than the same-old Coke/Pepsi/Kodos/Kang choices we've had for so long.
If the only alternative to Coke/Pepsi/Kodos/Kang is Ron Paul, then I for one welcome our high fructose corn syrup-derived overlords.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Graduating magma cum laude from Harvard law school
Can you provide a link for this?
It appears on wikipedia, although I don't know the source, and I didn't say it any way, but that is my understanding.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Well, I searched volcanology sites in vain for any mention of magma cum laude. However, there are quite a few sources that say he graduated magna cum laude, including The Harvard newspaper and the Encyclopedia Britannica.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
... Is kind of ridiculous.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
: