No, but then I don’t think I claimed they thought he was the Messiah. Only that he was uniquely special.
and I do not recall Democrats reacting that way to any candidate in my lifetime. Democrats are normally realistic about their candidate.
[QUOTE=adaher]
That’s the problem, Obama has not moved right. He hasn’t changed course at all.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree, if you change ‘moved right’ to shifted towards the center. Like all successful presidents (and whether you like the guy or not, he has been fairly successful as a president, from a political perspective…which is why he’s leading the polls for re-election), once he secured election he moved to a more centrist position, having placated his base during the run up to election and getting them on board for the general.
I agree with this part, mainly, but a lot of democrats don’t see it that way. They see a shift towards the center as selling out the left (in similar ways that republicans see shifting the the center on their pet issues in the same light). Also, the dems, rightly or wrongly, think that they are the ones doing all the compromise lately, and that the pubs are willing to let the country go off a cliff rather than compromise in return. I have to admit that while I think the dems aren’t 100% correct on this, that the pubs don’t seem to be willing to do much compromise and DO seem to be willing to allow things to crash and burn rather than come to a compromise position. The trouble with both sides in this (from my non-dem/non-pub position) is that our system only work IF both sides compromise and can come to agreements, even if neither side is really happy. Currently, due to the vicious partisan-ism going on today, we have a completely dysfunctional system IMHO.
I don’t see how. What proposals has he offered that are different than what he was offering before the 2010 elections? He’s still pushing stimulus(JOBS act), he’s still pushing for the Bush tax cuts for high earners to be repealed, and it’s especially hard to judge his overall fiscal plan when he hasn’t produced a serious budget since the 2010 elections. Clinton countered the GOP’s seven year balanced budget plan with a ten-year balanced budget plan of his own. Obama counted the GOP’s $5 trillion deficit reduction plan with, “We don’t have a plan, we just don’t like yours.” That’s a pretty distinct drop in leadership capability from one Democratic administration to another.
A written down budget plan, tax reform, or regulatory reform would be worthy things to push that the Republicans would be receptive to. But he’s done nothing but mention them in passing.
If what was said or not? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you confusing me with someone else? Please say yes. For your sake.
Yet, you’re trying to discuss a post that spoke to generalities…those of politicians. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Did you miss the few times I stated that Obama wasn’t necessarily lying? And did you then miss where I already told you that? You’re frothing and babbling for no reason.
Houston, I REPEAT, we have a COLOSSAL fucking problem.
Yeah, it’s not like he was the first black candidate in history to win the Democratic nomination. Nothing special.
That was special, but I don’t think Democrats would have reacted the same had Carol Mosely Braun won the nomination in 2004, or Jesse Jackson in 1988. Obama isn’t any more special than they are other than that his political skills are better.
Rich or not, though, it’s not a sentiment created from whole cloth.
There are plenty of other examples.
[QUOTE=magellan]
But, as Obama the great Constitutional scholar told us, it’s definitely NOT a tax. Except when they have to defend it in court, then magically it turns into a tax, a tax that really isn’t a tax.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magellan]
After swearing up and down and assuring the people that the mandate was NOT a tax, he then had his administration argue its constitutionality on those very grounds.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=magellan]
But after assuring everyone in God knows how many interviews and speeches that the mandate was not a tax, he seeks to have it pass constitutionality on that basis.
[/QUOTE]
Nope, you.
I simply want you to show me where Obama said, or his administration argued in court, that it was indeed a tax.
He may have done so. I just want you to prove that.
No I’m not. I’m discussing your specific claim.
Don’t play your game with me please. Just answer the question, or say you can’t.
I think they would have reacted pretty similarly to that. Absolutely they would have! Jesse Jackson? Any black woman? Jesse Jackson? *Jess Jackson?
*
As noted, you’re trying to get into the heads of people on a different political wave than you. Not a good place to be.
What makes you an expert in what Democrats would do given a set of imaginary circumstances that you dreamt up?
One of the most irritating debate tactics I see is to tell your opponent what they would think or do under a scenario that you yourself invent. How can one defend themselves against what someone else claims they would do given a set of make-believe circumstances. Its taking the conversation into a “nuh uh, no you are!” sort of direction IMO.
NY Times says:
WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”
Fine. In any case, Obama was portrayed, by his supporters and by his own campaign, as unique, and not because of his skin color.
By that standard, I might as well hail Mitt Romney as a new kind of politician who will unite the country, since he’s a Mormon and we’ve never had a Mormon President.
Thank you. That was easy.
My recollection was that it was more than that - that in court, they argued all the possibilities, with “tax” as a backup. They said “it’s not a tax, but if you think it is, it’s constitutional.” Which is what the decision tracked. But I could be wrong in my recollection.
It’s how lawyers argue - addressing all the possibilities so they don’t give any ground, even when their arguments are internally inconsistent. And that’s okay. I don’t know if it’s not fair to call that a “lie.” Look at the decision - it simply considered the possibilities as matters of opinion. The court’s job was to consider whether to uphold the law or not, not decide that someone lied.
Funny thing is, every previous court rejected the tax argument precisely because the administration said in public it wasn’t a tax.
I’ve laid off the President on that issue, just so long as he doesn’t continue to call it a penalty. A constitutional scholar shouldn’t be mangling the law that way. Roberts ruled it’s a tax, which means that it cannot be a penalty. A penalty is unconstitutional.
I think skin color was part of the psychology though.
Go ahead. We’re not here to tell you how to feel about your guy. And you should probably not tell others how they should feel about their guy either.
Chimera,
Here’s where we left off. You know, talking about that question that you were oh-so-curious to see an answer to and nobody could seem to answer:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
I think you must have missed Post 78. Imagine that. But so you don’t have to scroll back, here it is:
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Let’s try this. You ask a very direct question and I will answer it. I thought I did this, but just to be sure, let’s try again.
You’re question is : _______________________________________?
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
If you’d rather not ask this important question again, perhaps you could comment on my response. You know, like people do in a debate. (look up to the furor title you’re in.)
Again you’re using the word “today”, why do you do that? The point of this specific string of debate, I thought, was to see whether or not the government deserves significant credit for inventing the internet, not making what it is today, or tomorrow, or what have you. Because the larger purpose of this entire topic is whether government can do things well compared to private enterprise, is simply and easily answered by whether or not government was significantly responsible for the creation of the internet. It is. The internet could not possibly have been done by private enterprise due to the factors that have already been discussed, thus the question of how it is now is irrelevant.
Also, that’s an unfair comparison and here’s why. Cars and the lightbulbs have had at least 50 more years to innovate and diversify than the internet, which wasn’t really a “thing” until less than 25 years ago. The longer we wait to ask about who was responsible for this or the creator of that, the more people can claim to have innovated, changed, and contributed to that specific product or industry and credit is shared. At some point, someone had to invent the bow and arrow, but right now thousands of years later nobody knows who that was or when it happened.
Stick to the creation of the internet please. Who or what is most responsible (not solely responsible) for its existence? Its the government.
The basic network, yes. The world wide web as we know it today, no. Again, it’s like the guy who lays down the first brick with the whole building.
If not for the government, you wouldn’t have the foundation of the internet. if not for the private sector, you wouldn’t have the building.
[QUOTE=YogSosoth]
Again you’re using the word “today”, why do you do that? The point of this specific string of debate, I thought, was to see whether or not the government deserves significant credit for inventing the internet, not making what it is today, or tomorrow, or what have you.
[/QUOTE]
Not as far as I could tell. My read of the somewhat sparse discussion on this initially was that ALL of the credit was attempted to be placed with the (US) government. When I pointed out that this was in error, you wandered in with a cite to something I hadn’t said, and then just claimed I was wrong. Which has sparked this ridiculous tangent that really has nothing to do with the overall discussion.
Here, let me help you out…I was not and am not claiming that private industry single-handedly built the internet. I’m well aware of the governments role, since I was there through it all, and being a network engineer was directly involved in a lot of the early stuff. So, your article that proved I was ‘wrong’ was a strawman, since I never stated nor believed much of what it was addressing wrt taking credit from the government for their role.
I thought the larger purpose of this thread was to explore whether the government could force people to purchase a product from a single specific vendor as a way of discussing the SCOTUS ruling about healthcare.
While it’s true that the internet wouldn’t have been possible without the US governments early investment, the same is true wrt private industry…without their investment and energy, at most what you’d have today is some universities and research centers interconnected and using common network protocols so they could access each others info. It was a fusion of efforts that took both to accomplish. Attempting to claim that the internet, as it stands today was built by the (US) government, however, is ridiculous.
Actually, I wasn’t talking about lightbulbs…I was talking about our electrical grid. But it’s NOT an ‘unfair comparison’. Edison in particular laid down the foundation for what we have today. However, giving him the credit for building our national electrical grid would be as ridiculous as attempting to give the US government the credit for building the internet. Same with Ford and his auto-manufacturing assembly lines…yeah, he was an early innovator, and yeah, the foundations of today’s industry owes a lot to him. But he and the company he founded aren’t directly responsible for today’s care manufacturing industry, and they didn’t build it.
I’d say that both the US government AND private industry were instrumental in building the internet as it exists today. Both were sort of co-dependent…and on the government side it was doubly so, since it was contractors and research institutes that did the heavy lifting even early one, with the government footing the bill (in the form of taxes from the public…so, in that sense, WE built the internet as much as ‘the government’ did :p). Who is ‘most responsible’? I’d have to say that the internet as it stands today, private industry is most responsible for the build out and expansion, with the government being the most responsible for the early development and early funding. YMMV, and it all depends on what you are looking at and where you are parsing what is ‘the government’ and what isn’t, but that’s how I see it.
At any rate, I’m done on this tangent, as I think it’s a huge hijack of the thread and really isn’t all that interesting in any event.
Well, Newsweek did run a November 22, 2010 cover with an image of Obama and the headline “God of All Things”. The image was a stylized Lord Shiva with multiple arms.
And not that the World News Daily is a particularly reliable source, but here they link to a YouTube video of Louis Farrakhan and quote from the video:
I cannot get the video to play (firewall issues) but others might can verify if it is an accurate quote.
So if Obama is not the Messiah, does being called the “herald of the Messiah” count for anything?
And Chris Matthews, asks “will it be the Messiah again..?” when referring to Obama. Of course Matthews’ position as the most conservative voice on MSNBC shouldn’t overshadow the fact that he was a speechwriter in the Carter administration.