Obama might be the best President in 100 years.

[babe]

I also enjoy how you left off the latter half of the definition of a tautology

A lot of people play with words they don't understand. People who use the popular epithet definition of "tautology" just don't recognize the use of that word in a college-level class of logic. You disgrace yourself by pandering to the misconceptions of ignorant babblers.

I laugh at your failed insults.

Your use of the term implied a lack of meaning in my reasoning, a sort of implication that I'm playing with meritless ideas in a circular sort of logic that goes nowhere. I suppose mere mortals are prone to that, generally. Obama's rhetoric would fit that description fairly well most of the time, as he talks about "Hope" and "Change" and other fairly nonspecific ideals as related somehow to his particular ideals of what government can do.

In a course on logic, the statement that something is a tautology means that it is by definition true, that the logic requires it to be true. It might not describe a meaningful discussion of the real world or of important meanings in a discussion, but it is "truth".

I might not have made my point somehow in my happy little taunt, but you have not understood the most essential element of any discussion on the difference between a government actually being in the control of its citizens, and a government that is controlled by a few "important" persons. I'm sure it's not a simple diagram, or a picture cast in pure black and white.

 

[Deleted member 848]

A lot of people play with words they don't understand. People who use the popular epithet definition of "tautology" are just don't recognize the use of that word in a college-level class of logic. You disgrace yourself by pandering to the misconceptions of ignorant babblers.

I laugh at your failed insults.

Only person who has been throwing insults is you, señor. I laugh at your failed attempts to rattle me.

 

[Harambe]

I don't blame you for having a fascination for Karl Marx. The question is just why you pick him as worthy of your time instead of reading Mein Kamf. They're both big books, and both look equally impressive when you strut around campus, I suppose. Anyone who will spend a lifetime developing a systematic intellectual view of the world can be aped pretty neatly by an unthinking acolyte.

The last refuge of artificial intellect is the ad hominem attack that replaces meaningful discussion on the merits of reason.

Reading will get you, eventually, the same spot everyone else got. Maybe, after a lifetime of being there, you'll make a couple steps forward.

Applying logic to what you read, and even what you write, will get you leaps and bounds beyond.

Now, honestly, give me a specific marxist move or ideology that Obama has, or has done, that has been a bad move, and provide a solution that's not a marxist move any other president would have done.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Reading will get you, eventually, the same spot everyone else got. Maybe, after a lifetime of being there, you'll make a couple steps forward.

Applying logic to what you read, and even what you write, will get you leaps and bounds beyond.

Now, honestly, give me a specific marxist move or ideology that Obama has, or has done, that has been a bad move, and a solution that's not a marxist move any other president would have done.

Obama is a marxist!

..

Other presidents wouldn't have done the same because they're not marxists.
...

Obama is a marxist.


---

summary of babe's incoming post. If that isn't a tautology, i don't know what is.

 

[Harambe]

Obama is a marxist!

..

Other presidents wouldn't have done the same because they're not marxists.
...

Obama is a marxist.


---

summary of babe's incoming post. If that isn't a tautology, i don't know what is.

Thanks for the heads up... I'll start preparing arguments now.

 

[babe]

Godwin's law is truly a beautiful thing.

PS: It's spelled Mein Kampf **

noted, and corrected. I guess I'll have to look up Godwin's Law.

 

[babe]

Only person who has been throwing insults is you, señor. I laugh at your failed attempts to rattle me.

I grieve my failed attempts to instill a respect for human rights in you equal to your love of "divine" governance, though I'm sure you're not going to like that adjective selection. Little difference, practically speaking, between invoking "God" as authority, or invoking superior ideas for government. It's religion either way you cut it. It's someone's ideal of what should be imposed upon the people. The alternative is to devise a government that the people themselves can control, and which does not allow for oppressive ubermanagement by a few elites.

 

[babe]

noted, and corrected. I guess I'll have to look up Godwin's Law.

Ok, so I have heard of Godwin's Law.

I have not called anyone a Nazi, specifically. My reference to Mein Kampf and Das Kapital was intended to mark a distinction between unthinking erudition of textbook proportions and actual creative discussions and thinking. It seems that El Roacho picked up that idea pretty quick. Smart boy, El Roacho.

 

[Gameface]

I just wwant to jump in and clarify something about the OP. My point isn't that Obama is actually a great president, it's that we haven't had very many good presidents at all, especially over the last 100 years. Yet I hear reports from people who absolutely hate the guy and turns out it's not because they don't like taking orders from a black man, it's because he hasn't been a good president...

Right?

So who have the good presidents been?

Is the U.S. Presidency a list of the greatest Americans in our history? I'd say no.

Is Obama particularly bad compared to the rest? I'd say no.

Does Obama abuse the Constitution more than the rest? I'd say no.

So anyway, I'd like to know why Bush jr or Reagan or Nixon or Ford are better presidents than Obama. Or, if you're on the other side (then you probably don't think Obama is one of the 5 worst all time) Clinton, Carter, JFK, Truman.

What's particularly bad about Obama?

 

[Jamezz]

THE MAN

 

[Harambe]

I grieve my failed attempts to instill a respect for human rights in you equal to your love of "divine" governance, though I'm sure you're not going to like that adjective selection. Little difference, practically speaking, between invoking "God" as authority, or invoking superior ideas for government. It's religion either way you cut it. It's someone's ideal of what should be imposed upon the people. The alternative is to devise a government that the people themselves can control, and which does not allow for oppressive ubermanagement by a few elites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

 

[babe]

Obama is a marxist!

..

Other presidents wouldn't have done the same because they're not marxists.
...

Obama is a marxist.


---

summary of babe's incoming post. If that isn't a tautology, i don't know what is.

I think you should do better than this.

There are subtleties you're missing entirely.

My friend from years ago was a real Marxist, and he would have been willing to explain for hours why Obama is not a Marxist, but a State Capitalist. Obama evidently holds a notion that he is a Marxist, but his beliefs are not carefully aligned with the dialectics of class warfare. I suppose he might just be clever enough to "use" capitalists to their own destruction, but I observe that his programs run right along the interests of his fascist handlers.

What we are getting is still State Capitalism, a fascist governance by the elites, for the elites, and serving the elites far better than any poor folks. Blacks have taken the hardest blow from Obama's policies and are having a far worse life generally than they had under the preceding State Capitalists' Stooges, the Clintons and Bushes.

Anyone, of course, whose focus in life is on not rocking the boat we've been on for over a hundred years, will see some "benefits" to their hopes of hanging onto some niche in the system, and so a lot of us are pleased, at the moment, that our economy has not gone completely to Hell. But why would intelligent capitalists with multiple lines of control over the State let that happen. They will keep the little people supplied with means to buy their stuff as long as they can simply run up the national debt to do so. It's our debt, not theirs, in their minds.

The real gap in wealth between the uber-rich and the ordinary American has grown under Obama. Not exactly the hope or change the ordinary Americans thought Obama was talking about.

 

[Harambe]

I just wwant to jump in and clarify something about the OP. My point isn't that Obama is actually a great president, it's that we haven't had very many good presidents at all, especially over the last 100 years. Yet I hear reports from people who absolutely hate the guy and turns out it's not because they don't like taking orders from a black man, it's because he hasn't been a good president...

Right?

So who have the good presidents been?

Is the U.S. Presidency a list of the greatest Americans in our history? I'd say no.

Is Obama particularly bad compared to the rest? I'd say no.

Does Obama abuse the Constitution more than the rest? I'd say no.

So anyway, I'd like to know why Bush jr or Reagan or Nixon or Ford are better presidents than Obama. Or, if you're on the other side (then you probably don't think Obama is one of the 5 worst all time) Clinton, Carter, JFK, Truman.

What's particularly bad about Obama?

I disagree with the stance on Edward Snowdan and the NSA.
I disagree with not letting big banks fail(although I can not propose a solution that would would hurt our way of life less)
I disagree with taking ownership of GM(although I can not propose a solution that would have kept the same number of jobs in America)

Nothing else really comes to mind. The way I see it, there were problems, and he did something. There's nothing worse than having the ability to do something, and sitting on your hands. Including doing things that I don't like.

 

[Harambe]

I think you should do better than this.

There are subtleties you're missing entirely.

My friend from years ago was a real Marxist, and he would have been willing to explain for hours why Obama is not a Marxist, but a State Capitalist. Obama evidently holds a notion that he is a Marxist, but his beliefs are not carefully aligned with the dialectics of class warfare. I suppose he might just be clever enough to "use" capitalists to their own destruction, but I observe that his programs run right along the interests of his fascist handlers.

What we are getting is still State Capitalism, a fascist governance by the elites, for the elites, and serving the elites far better than any poor folks. Blacks have taken the hardest blow from Obama's policies and are having a far worse life generally than they had under the preceding State Capitalists' Stooges, the Clintons and Bushes.

Anyone, of course, whose focus in life is on not rocking the boat we've been on for over a hundred years, will see some "benefits" to their hopes of hanging onto some niche in the system, and so a lot of us are pleased, at the moment, that our economy has not gone completely to Hell. But why would intelligent capitalists with multiple lines of control over the State let that happen. They will keep the little people supplied with means to buy their stuff as long as they can simply run up the national debt to do so. It's our debt, not theirs, in their minds.

So, he's not a Marxist now. But a state capitalist.

The real gap in wealth between the uber-rich and the ordinary American has grown under Obama. Not exactly the hope or change the ordinary Americans thought Obama was talking about.

What policy did he sign in to law that affected that gap?

And before you say Obamacare, there are just as many people saying it will help, as won't.

 

[Harambe]

But while we're on the subject, here's this thing from the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/23/dont-think-obama-has-reduced-inequality-these-numbers-prove-that-he-has/

Today, the average after-tax income of a member of the top 1 percent of earners is $1.12 million. The average after-tax income of someone in the bottom 20 percent is $13,300. That means the average person at the top takes home 84 times the income that the average person in the bottom takes home.

Now, consider what it would be like if none of President Obama’s tax policy changes had happened: not the upper-income tax hikes negotiated at the beginning of last year, not the upper-income tax increases imposed by the Affordable Care Act, not the low-income tax credits enacted in the 2009 stimulus and later renewed.

In this alternative universe, the average member of the top 1 percent would take home $1.2 million, or 6.5 percent more in income, according to a new analysis. The average member of the bottom 20 percent would bring home $13,100, or 1.2 percent less in income. As a result, the average member of the 1 percent would take home 91 times what the average person in the bottom would bring home.

Imagine the AC6000CW diesel electric train coming at you at 60 mph. That's kinda what's happening here... you're not going to stop it all at once. But you can slow it.

 

[Jamezz]

May or may not be related but I cringe every time I see a bumper sticker with the words "I'm ready for bitch"

 

[babe]

So, he's not a Marxist now. But a state capitalist.



What policy did he sign in to law that affected that gap?

And before you say Obamacare, there are just as many people saying it will help, as won't.

A lot of people are confused with Obama, including Obama. I think if you examine his parentage, his education, his associations with various "mentors", or his speeches, you will see a lot of ideas associated with communism, with progressive objectives derived from Marxist imperatives. He believes in that idea of the future.

I think the term might be cognitive dissonance in his whole person. Since I reason that the evidence supports my theory that Marxism is just a tool, an ideological or political tool, to be used skillfully on the world stage by essentially elitist or moneyed folks, for dividing the commoners into manageable or manipulatible subgroups that can be misdirected away from addressing the relevant threads of power, it is today just a continuation of the scheme that has prevailed across the world for ages, with the one irritating exception of the American colonies who succeeded for a while in independence, self-government, and human rights to a small extent.

What I'm putting out is an ad hoc sort of argument for more of that "America" with a hope of the idea getting around to other places as well.

 

[babe]

May or may not be related but I cringe every time I see a bumper sticker with the words "I'm ready for bitch"

pretty clear that's a Hillary fan.

 

[Harambe]

A lot of people are confused with Obama, including Obama. I think if you examine his parentage, his education, his associations with various "mentors", or his speeches, you will see a lot of ideas associated with communism, with progressive objectives derived from Marxist imperatives. He believes in that idea of the future.

I think the term might be cognitive dissonance in his whole person. Since I reason that the evidence supports my theory that Marxism is just a tool, an ideological or political tool, to be used skillfully on the world stage by essentially elitist or moneyed folks, for dividing the commoners into manageable or manipulatible subgroups that can be misdirected away from addressing the relevant threads of power, it is today just a continuation of the scheme that has prevailed across the world for ages, with the one irritating exception of the American colonies who succeeded for a while in independence, self-government, and human rights to a small extent.

What I'm putting out is an ad hoc sort of argument for more of that "America" with a hope of the idea getting around to other places as well.

Dalabro, help me out here. Babe is smart, but he gets caught up sometimes(as do we all).

Let's say some time passes, and you become North America's leading expert in Angiosarcoma.

You spent your pre-medschool internship with a Cardiologist.

You spent rotations in the ED, Bone Marrow Transplant, Oncology, Geriatrics, Cardiology, Thoracic Surgery, and Sports Medicine.

The end of your residency is spent at a Cancer hospital(like Huntsman Cancer Institute), and your fellowship is done under an Oncologist specializing in Cardiac Liposarcoma.

Because your specialty now is Cardiac Angiosarcoma;

1. Are you a Cardiac Liposarcoma specialist?
2. Are you a Cardiac Angiosarcoma specialist?
3. Was your time with the Liposarcoma specialist a hinderance, or help to your career and standing?
4. Would your time under an attending specializing in Lipoosarcoma help your patient outcomes in a positive manner? Negative?

 

[LogGrad98]

I'm deathly afraid the thread title means the NEXT 100 years.