Actually, it’s a way of saying, “I’m pretty sure you’re making shit up, but I’ll grant you the benefit of the doubt and ask you for evidence of your claims.”
And when someone says, “I don’t have to cite my claims!” it generally means, “Yeah, you’re right, I was totally pulling that out of my ass.”
Why is it that some people insist on painting Obama voters as having some sort of insanely single-minded purpose and/or hero-worship? No one said he saved the world, they said he made the right decision at the time. I don’t personally know anyone, including and maybe particularly my husband’s family from Michigan, who think Obama Saved The World As We Know It wrt the auto industry. For the most part they think his actions were More or Less a Good Idea, Probably.
I know it’s confusing but some people can think that Obama was the right choice in 2008, without ever thinking he was going to end world hunger, bring Mr. Fusion to market, and/or get the chickweed out of my lawn. So, I know this will blow your mind, but here goes:
Obama is an ok president. I agree with some of his policies, but all of them.
No–thus rendering them not “backed up.” This doesn’t mean they’re false–a logical fallacy that many of the less insightful posters here seem to be susceptible to.
It actually means, “I don’t want to go to the trouble of “citing” since you, being an internet kiddie, would just shift focus and attack the citation, since the point of your demand was not that you actually wanted a citation but that you disagreed with the poster and wanted to annoy him.”
And by the way, several of the responses here have proved just what a weak tool a “citation” really is in making or disproving a point. Information can be selectively gathered and presented. I’m amazed no one here understands that–or maybe they do, since I’m fairly sure the bleating for citations is, as I’ve explained above, merely pro forma.
Notice that he specifically did NOT say “rendering your premise false.”
Perhaps you haven’t noticed but the world economy continues to teeter! Disaster, so far, averted. But anyone can see we’re not out of the woods yet.
As a result economic recovery has been slow, as predicted. But slow and steady. It feels like things are coming back. The auto industry was saved, and is rebounding, thousands of jobs were saved. Bin Laden was caught. Wars are winding down. Healthcare, while still imperfect is coming.
I think everyone would be much happier if he could do more and do it faster, but I also think most of them are savy enough to understand this crap takes time, for one, and this man got all this done with a completely ‘no compromise’ atmosphere, for two.
Yeah, he talked about a lot of things that have yet to see fruitition, but isn’t that true of every single politician in every single political race? I think most people feel he’s genuinely trying his hardest to fulfill his promises.
Note to greenslime1951: This
is what is known as a “fact”.
I think, as I’ve said before, that he’s not a bad president. My objection was to his taking credit for what works and blaming what doesn’t on the policies of his predecessor and/or the eeeeevil Republicans, or on situations beyond his control.
And I don’t know where you live but in my neck of the woods, Obama in 2008 was hailed as Our Savior from all The Evil Policies of The Great Destroyer of America, George W. Bush. Significantly, nobody asked, “So who the f*** are YOU that you think you can solve all our problems?” The support for him was rockstar/evangelical rather than based on any kind of vetting of him as a potential leader. He gave great speeches. That seemed to be enough.
That said, I would have voted for him had I been forced to choose between him and McCain/Moose Shooter Lady.
There is no doubt that one tactic Obama will use will be to remind people of Bush and that Romney’s election would mean a return to those policies. But that hardly amounts to blaming everything on Bush. Frankly, the OP is a worthless overgeneralization that obscures what might be an interesting topic in the election forums: How much should the Obama campaign emphasize the problems inherited from the Bush administration? Does it only play well with the already converted, or will it be effective at gaining the support of the critical undecideds (or at least enough of them to matter).
Instead, the OP has invited a well deserved attack on the shallowness of his thesis. I blame it on Bush.
No, but what he said implied an equivalency: unproven=useless. That was extremely obtuse. The whole point of these boards, as well as much of human discourse, is to test premises.
Also note, O Fact Worshipper, that I did not say that he had said that. He also did not say, “Fleeble fleeble thirty-seven pink elephants,” but saying to me, "Note that he specifically did NOT say “Fleeble fleeble thirty-seven pink elephants,” would not have contributed much to the discussion, even though you would incontrovertibly have been stating a TRUE FACT.
Where the hell is your neck of the woods, because I don’t recall seeing that attitude anywhere. This claim has been made multiple times on this board, but no one can seem to back it up.
Unless you establish and state your premise with some degree of rigor, testing it is a waste of time. It’s like telling someone to make cheese without giving them any rennet or other coagulant. All you’re doing is paddling warm milk.
You mean unlike the Moose Shooter Lady? Right?
Things are improving, albeit slowly. I think he’s trying. I think he’s sincere. I just loathe his tendency to flip from “these things take time” to “Hooray me!” depending on whether something has worked or it hasn’t.
I also resent the manipulation of reported data, like the crowing about all the jobs that had been created because of…the 2010 census.
There’s a euphemism I haven’t seen in a looong time.
No, I mean exactly like the Moose Shooter Lady.
Don’t be one of those who equate criticism of Obama with support for the political right. I will almost certainly vote for Obama in November, but that doesn’t mean I like everything he does.
The right spent MONTHS in 2008 (and has continued to since) picking over Obama’s birth certificate, childhood, college years, career, his association with Ayers and Wright, his Senate career, his family life, and all what else. To claim there was “no vetting” is either willlfully ignorant or a knowing falsehood.
Ever been to Oregon?
Hardly unheard of. Gore didn’t want Clinton on the campaign trail with him.
I guess it was actually a metaphor, implying that these boards are like cheese. Blessed are the cheesemakers.