"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Richard

Ratcheting up the hyperbolic rhetoric as has been happening for the past year is an election year staple for politicians, their affiliations, the pundits, the media, and the blogosphere. It isn't an answer for 'everything' being said or done out there, but certainly applies to a discussion of the context of a politically delivered, election-oriented speech such as this one.

Labeling everyone a communist or a dumbshit with whom you disagree is one way to answer everything that's being said or done, however, I'm pretty much in agreement with Sigaba's opinion that such mislabeling does more harm than good, reflects poorly on those doing such mislabeling, and distorts and deadens any message(s) being attempted...even among those who may agree that someone like BHO is deceptive, inept, disunifying, and one of the least effective Presidential leaders we've elected within the recent past.

But as I said previously, I'm tired of the pallaverin' and am ready to vote now. However, because that won't happen for three-and-a-half more months, I'm predicting the election-related rhetoric from all corners will only become even more picayune and strident as Election Day nears.

Richard

I'd agree in large part......the notable exception would be the labeling. In some instances is considered positive i.e. I am an American.....in some other countries it would be something you might want to hide. The same can be said Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist.

Regardless of the hyperbolic rhetoric, we do have a POTUS who we don't know much about, other than he has and does dance with a cast of characters that are nothing short of Radicals, Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist, and many of his themes, ideas and policies lean in that direction.

Sigaba is saying quit the name calling. He is saying you cannot have a reasonable conversation or debate when you throw out labels such as Fascist, Communist, Socialist and Marxist.

But Abiding by that idea puts those labels into the same PC category as the Nazi label. So no matter what the fact is or isn't, but you cannot use the label.......you have to dance around the issue to address the issue if you want to be taken seriously.

You can think it, you can know it but you can't say it.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by WCH

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

Obama spoke at one protest rally, but largely preferred to stay behind the scenes and lead by example, recalls one of the protest leaders, Keith Boykin ‘92. Obama opted against taking sides in the ideological disputes that often divided the politically polarized Law Review staff, casting himself instead as a mediator and conciliator. That approach earned the enduring respect of Law Review members including those not necessarily inclined to agree with his political views today.

"He tended not to enter these debates and disputes but rather bring people together and forge compromises,” says Bradford Berenson ’91, who was among the relatively small number of conservatives on the Law Review staff.

It would appear something got left in the halls of academia when he departed. Or perhaps this talent as mediator has been tempered by encountering others who hold views on which they will not compromise and on whom his charm has no effect.

His academic time is one thing. The list of what he said he'd do & what he stood for, versus what he's actually done counter to that, is of more import in my view. Many who did not look at the substance of his "watch the kind of people I surround myself with" remark are, admitted or not, suffering some buyer's remorse.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Paslode

I'd agree in large part......the notable exception would be the labeling.

I disagree.

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.

Call him inept...and then explain why.

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.

Call him an ineffectie leader...and then explain why.

But calling him a communist, a fascist, a racist, a Marxist, a radical, etc, only fuels the political rhetorical piss pot, distorts and obfuscates the issues, and turns people away.

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

Richard

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by WCH

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

Harvard is a spawning ground for communists, so that story dovetails nicely.

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Paslode

I'd agree in large part......the notable exception would be the labeling. In some instances is considered positive i.e. I am an American.....in some other countries it would be something you might want to hide. The same can be said Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist.

Regardless of the hyperbolic rhetoric, we do have a POTUS who we don't know much about, other than he has and does dance with a cast of characters that are nothing short of Radicals, Racists, Fascist, Communists, Socialist and Marxist, and many of his themes, ideas and policies lean in that direction.

Sigaba is saying quit the name calling. He is saying you cannot have a reasonable conversation or debate when you throw out labels such as Fascist, Communist, Socialist and Marxist.

But Abiding by that idea puts those labels into the same PC category as the Nazi label. So no matter what the fact is or isn't, but you cannot use the label.......you have to dance around the issue to address the issue if you want to be taken seriously.

You can think it, you can know it but you can't say it.

And, at the end of the day, one can be a Marxist or Socialist and if they are, there is nothing wrong with referring to them as such. If it looks like a duck.....

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

I disagree.

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.

Call him inept...and then explain why.

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.

Call him an ineffectie leader...and then explain why.

But calling him a communist, a fascist, a racist, a Marxist, a radical, etc, only fuels the political rhetorical piss pot, distorts and obfuscates the issues, and turns people away.

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

Richard

If you need explanation as to Obama's deceptive, inept and disunifying performance which has rendered his leadership ineffecti(v)e, you're either an Obama-worshiper yourself or you've been asleep or drunk for 4 years.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

If you need explanation as to Obama's deceptive, inept and disunifying performance which has rendered his leadership ineffecti(v)e, you're either an Obama-worshiper yourself or you've been asleep or drunk for 4 years.

Isn't the purpose to sway the BHO supporters to vote contrary to their 2008 impulses?

If that's the mission, I don't think 'nanny nanny noo noo' name calling will do that, but offering simple, factual counters to any of his or his supporters' claims will.

Richard

[PedOncoDoc]

Originally Posted by Richard

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

How long until they elect President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho?

[Stargazer]

Although I agree in principle with what Richard and Sigaba are stating, I don't believe it is an effective or realistic approach within today's society. Most people don't utilize deliberate, conscious and analytical reasoning -- too much work. Most do respond based on emotion and unconscious judgments that includes labeling. Marketing campaigns bank on it... so do politicians.

IMO President Obama understands this behavior very well, especially within certain social groups. He is a master at pushing buttons. He is so confident in this approach, that he doesn't even concern himself with contradicting previous statements. Because he knows, the majority of people are lazy thinkers and all he has to do is make a personal connection.

That is where Romney will fail. He has too much integrity and wants to have rational and honest dialogue. He is thought of as boring or doesn't connect with those who are listening because he doesn't talk about little Tommy that he met in the street, who if he had a son would look like him.

I hope POTUS has hung himself out to dry with his recent statements in regard to small businesses. I work for a small business and know many small business owners. S Corporations, LLC, partnerships... they are targets for the $250K. And the people I know are NOT hiring based on the uncertainty within our country as it is NOT conducive to risk taking. Sure, they are certain sectors that are growing.... but for the most part service the public/government sector.

In closing, with respect to the following statement:

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

That strikes me in the same manner as the person who praises you then follows with "but"............ it's comes across as disingenuine and lost among the offensive statements that surround it........

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Richard

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.
Well documented "gun-control under the radar" efforts comment during the campaign coupled with, over time, sufficient nexus to events that give credence to his Administration's intent to do that. Sworn testimony & files provided to Congress show an, at best, disingenuous Administration. He promised the most transparent administration in history and promptly, and continually, signs bills (or Executive Orders when legislation doesn't work) without the promised 5 working days for public review & comment, his so-called "Sunshine to Signing" promise, which surprisingly didn't apply to the first crippling stimulus bill he signed inside 3 hours of its passage.

Call him inept...and then explain why.
The "beer summit" in the Rose Garden over his Cambridge professor incident was just the first hint. It was necessitated because of his inept (not included above) conduct in weighing into a simple law-enforcement matter clueless as to the import that remarks from a sitting POTUS carry. Similarly, the much discussed "apology tour" early on in his term - chummy times with Hugo Chavez aren't very "Presidential" and he does not seem to understand the concept of being "Presidential." (Exception: When he's doing that preening 'Duce' thing Pete talked about.)

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.
His continuing use of rhetoric that fosters class warfare, pitting the haves vs. the have-nots - and the almost Holy Grail-like benchmark of $250,000 per year family income equated with the evil "haves." The very people he's pandering to need to understand that, under his rule, they can only succeed just so far, "because at some point I think you've made enough money." They need to understand that he has no interest in their actual success other than to confiscate & make more loyalists. His complete misunderstanding of the word "fair" in any sense that reflects American ideals, traditions, and laws borders on conceptual illiteracy. He continues to support an Attorney General who has gone on record as saying that, basically, there can't be a white victim to a hate-crime.

Call him an ineffective leader...and then explain why.
He had the world, or at least the Congress, by the ass during the first half of his Administration and STILL couldn't get key initiatives passed. By any objective standard this is a leadership failure of the first order. (Stimulus-I wasn't a key initiative, it was a worse-than-FDR shotgun blast to appease the appearance of doing something. (I may refile this under 'Inept' later.) His apology tour mentioned above ended up with several important heads of state basically telling him to pound sand after the POTUS returned to CONUS. I guess Putin wasn't impressed by all the bowing.

Just a start. Then again, some can just wait for his next book to get the truth. Slice & dice, have at it. Pullin' pitch...
C'mon November.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Isn't the purpose to sway the BHO supporters to vote contrary to their 2008 impulses?

If that's the mission, I don't think 'nanny nanny noo noo' name calling will do that, but offering simple, factual counters to any of his or his supporters' claims will.

Richard

Simple, factual counters to any of his or his supporters' claims are found in virtually EVERY news source, Richard-with the exception of the AP, UPI, Reuters, NYT, WaPo and NPR. That's because these are liberal, communist-leaning outlets. How can you possibly not realize that, and be an educator?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by WCH

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

Now if he would only release his school records. But we all know that will never happen.

And before you go saying that he doesn't have to, think about this. I am only speking on behalf of the Air Force, because I don't know if the rest of the services use the same information.

Since I have been in the Air Force, my school records have been used to determine if I am competent to either get selected to attend graduate school, and/or if I am competent to be selected for promotion. Yes our Graduate School grades are included in our promotion records. All grades from under grad and grad are used to determine if we meet the criteria to attend in residence PME.

So if I have to show God and Country my school records, why shouldn't the POTUS?

[Stargazer]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz20rIiarHb

David Chavern, chief operating officer of the Chamber of Commerce, accused Obama of slighting the remarkable achievements of extraordinary individuals.

"We should applaud the risk-takers and the dreamers who are willing to stand out from the crowd," Chavern said in a Chamber blog. "Rather than denigrate what these people have done, we need to encourage more people to be like them."

The National Federation of Independent Business said the president's "unfortunate remarks over the weekend show an utter lack of understanding and appreciation for the people who take a huge personal risk and work endless hours to start a business and create jobs."

"I'm sure every small-business owner who took a second mortgage on their home, maxed out their credit cards or borrowed money from their own retirement savings to start their business disagrees strongly with President Obama's claim. They know that hard work does matter," the group also said.

Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told FoxNews.com on Monday that the remarks "reflect just how unqualified he is to lead us to a real economic recovery."

"They are also insulting to the hardworking entrepreneurs, small-business owners, and job creators who are the backbone of our economy," she said in an e-mail.

The Obama campaign, though, accused the Romney campaign of launching a "false attack" to distract from questions over outsourcing tied to his former company Bain Capital. Campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt defended the premise of Obama's comment.

"As President Obama said, those who start businesses succeed because of their individual initiative -- their drive, hard work, and creativity," LaBolt said in a statement. "But there are critical actions we must take to support businesses and encourage new ones -- that means we need the best infrastructure, a good education system, and affordable, domestic sources of clean energy. Those are investments we make not as individuals, but as Americans, and our nation as a whole benefits from them."

[Richard]

Originally Posted by afchic

So if I have to show God and Country my school records, why shouldn't the POTUS?

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?

Richard

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Richard

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?

Richard

It just seems like it requires an amendment to the Constitution - to get the truth out of this president..