Wow. People just cannot let go of Obama. It's pathetic that people STILL are willing to forgive him, thinking he'll somehow change, that he's somehow better and will rise above this endlessly expanding government of ours and take a stand with reform. Let the fuck go of it.
And sharing memes on Facebook? What the fuck is that going to do?
Do you not see the extremely lofty wishlist that has no chance of being fulfilled at all? Maybe halfway on one or two of them, but that's it. When are people going to realize this president is more of the same? This is going to be a damage control press conference filled to the brim with buzzwords and weasel phrases.
You want real actual measurable change? Get your fucking congressman out of office.
It's a system of checks and balances. It is getting weighted towards the Executive branch and Federal government, but that started in the early 1900's and hasn't stopped.
I suspect that's the point. When the reforms score somewhere in the 0-2 range, as you know they will, it's another factor to use in the campaign against illegal spying.
It seems the point of the wishlist is explicitly to demonstrate how far short the actual announcement will fall. The reason it's so "lofty" is to set Obama up to fail - even if he announces some real reforms, it's completely unrealistic to demand all this at once.
So, another words, you have no realistically achievable plan either, but you're angrier and more pessimistic. How about this: if you want measurable change, start with a goal that has somewhere greater than a 0 percent chance of succeeding.
It also might help if you could point to why some particular congressperson was objectionable, like if you actually had metrics for what you were trying to achieve so we would all vote in bunch of people that were worse that the status quo. Like a scorecard.
So you're saying we should grade him on a curve? I think an objective list of necessities, leaving our experience with Obama (or any previous presidents) out of it, is the only way to look at this reasonably without getting all political about it.
Let's just see how it turns out by the end of all of this. Remember, people said the same thing with DADT: "why not just end this? why not issue an executive order?" Because he was playing the long game and ended up getting a permanent repeal.
he wasn't playing the long game, he is playing the same game now as then, politics. All his actions are weighed against the affect on the next election. There is no other concern with him or the others in power.
Promises made before elections are just phrases used to put the other side off balance or force the other side to react. They are never really meant to be acted upon if there is any political cost.
Playing the long game, nah just waiting out inevitability, as in it wasn't going to stand anyway and he had that luxury to rely on
I think your analysis is a bit too simple, it depends on where you are in the political spectrum. He routinely demonizes roughly half the nation (that's my half, which is why I so acutely notice that), and plenty of those goals are anything but "optimistic" for subsets of that half.
That's one reason he's such a polarizing figure. Yeah, he promised to bring us together, but to bring up one particularly relevant to Hacker News example, look at his "you didn't build that" speech. Coming from an entrepreneurial family and having working in a number of startups, I couldn't take that as anything but an attack on me and mine.
Well, yeah to both points. I'm just disagreeing with your claim that in general his stated goals are "optimistic" for roughly half the nation, and that's just perception....
Why would you take an out-of-context quote as an attack on you and yours?
The actual text:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me –
because they want to give something back. They know they didn't –
look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.
You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who
think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot
of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than
everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch
of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.
There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to
create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed
you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've
got a business – you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created
the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our
individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are
some things, just like fighting fires, we don't do on our own. I mean,
imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way
to organize fighting fires.
The 'You Didn't Build That' was just an awkward change of thoughts from the 'roads and bridges' in the previous sentence.
Were you equally insulted when Romney said:
You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power.
For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your
hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize
competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted
them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents,
coaches, and communities. All right!
Both were a nod to the social contract which hasn't been terribly controversial since sometime in the 1600's.
Because I actually listened to him say it, with the verbal tones that made what he meant clear, and took it as such, especially since this interpretation is entirely consistent with how he's governed.
Look, it doesn't matter a wit how you interpret his words and actions, what matters is how hostile around half the nation finds them. Nothing in my politically aware lifetime, which starts with Nixon's first term (1969-1972), comes even close. I've read that FDR was this bad, don't really know enough about the ones in-between.
I mean, he said just before the 2008 election "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." You don't think that included the social contract???
Comments
Wow. People just cannot let go of Obama. It's pathetic that people STILL are willing to forgive him, thinking he'll somehow change, that he's somehow better and will rise above this endlessly expanding government of ours and take a stand with reform. Let the fuck go of it.
And sharing memes on Facebook? What the fuck is that going to do?
I don't understand your frustration here, as I don't see any Obama sympathy in this posting. Was the title different previously?
Do you not see the extremely lofty wishlist that has no chance of being fulfilled at all? Maybe halfway on one or two of them, but that's it. When are people going to realize this president is more of the same? This is going to be a damage control press conference filled to the brim with buzzwords and weasel phrases.
You want real actual measurable change? Get your fucking congressman out of office.
My congressman is voting the exact way I like, its the rest of your congresspeople that are screwing it up.
// truth and the actual situation for many in one statement
The system works?
It's a system of checks and balances. It is getting weighted towards the Executive branch and Federal government, but that started in the early 1900's and hasn't stopped.
I suspect that's the point. When the reforms score somewhere in the 0-2 range, as you know they will, it's another factor to use in the campaign against illegal spying.
It seems the point of the wishlist is explicitly to demonstrate how far short the actual announcement will fall. The reason it's so "lofty" is to set Obama up to fail - even if he announces some real reforms, it's completely unrealistic to demand all this at once.
So, another words, you have no realistically achievable plan either, but you're angrier and more pessimistic. How about this: if you want measurable change, start with a goal that has somewhere greater than a 0 percent chance of succeeding.
It also might help if you could point to why some particular congressperson was objectionable, like if you actually had metrics for what you were trying to achieve so we would all vote in bunch of people that were worse that the status quo. Like a scorecard.
So you're saying we should grade him on a curve? I think an objective list of necessities, leaving our experience with Obama (or any previous presidents) out of it, is the only way to look at this reasonably without getting all political about it.
Let's just see how it turns out by the end of all of this. Remember, people said the same thing with DADT: "why not just end this? why not issue an executive order?" Because he was playing the long game and ended up getting a permanent repeal.
he wasn't playing the long game, he is playing the same game now as then, politics. All his actions are weighed against the affect on the next election. There is no other concern with him or the others in power.
Promises made before elections are just phrases used to put the other side off balance or force the other side to react. They are never really meant to be acted upon if there is any political cost.
Playing the long game, nah just waiting out inevitability, as in it wasn't going to stand anyway and he had that luxury to rely on
That sounds a bit like an apologist. I'm keeping my hopes very low - after so many, many disappointments I believe his brand is damaged.
It's simple: Obama's publicly-stated goals are much more optimistic than other politicians'. People identify with the optimism and the goals.
I think your analysis is a bit too simple, it depends on where you are in the political spectrum. He routinely demonizes roughly half the nation (that's my half, which is why I so acutely notice that), and plenty of those goals are anything but "optimistic" for subsets of that half.
That's one reason he's such a polarizing figure. Yeah, he promised to bring us together, but to bring up one particularly relevant to Hacker News example, look at his "you didn't build that" speech. Coming from an entrepreneurial family and having working in a number of startups, I couldn't take that as anything but an attack on me and mine.
Oh there are lots of reasons to dislike Obama. Dirlewanger asked why anyone kept thinking that he's actually different from the rest of government.
Well, yeah to both points. I'm just disagreeing with your claim that in general his stated goals are "optimistic" for roughly half the nation, and that's just perception....
Why would you take an out-of-context quote as an attack on you and yours?
The actual text:
The 'You Didn't Build That' was just an awkward change of thoughts from the 'roads and bridges' in the previous sentence.Were you equally insulted when Romney said:
Both were a nod to the social contract which hasn't been terribly controversial since sometime in the 1600's.Because I actually listened to him say it, with the verbal tones that made what he meant clear, and took it as such, especially since this interpretation is entirely consistent with how he's governed.
Look, it doesn't matter a wit how you interpret his words and actions, what matters is how hostile around half the nation finds them. Nothing in my politically aware lifetime, which starts with Nixon's first term (1969-1972), comes even close. I've read that FDR was this bad, don't really know enough about the ones in-between.
I mean, he said just before the 2008 election "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." You don't think that included the social contract???
This is a list of demands, not a list of expectations.