NYC Local News

Monsey Local News

Photos

Photos



YWN Coffee Room » Politics

Palinmania: Please, Not Another Obama

(29 posts)
  • Started 4 years ago by Dave Hirsch
  • Latest reply from nfgo3

Tags:

No tags yet.

  1. Dave Hirsch
    Member

    The job of the President of the United States is the toughest in the world. The job carries many responsibilities that can change the world for the better or for the worse. He is, essentially, the leader of the free world; he leads their meetings and summits and is the ultimate decider for policy regarding the nation. He must work with the country’s legislators to pass effective laws and enforce them. The commander-in-chief has the duty to guide the country during troubling times and lead the people during times of crisis. He must work with his cabinet members to solve problems plaguing the country and make government work effectively. Being the country’s chief executive demands much creativity, skill and experience. Imagine yourself hiring a person without originality, talent or expertise to run your business or corporation. It will falter.

    The United States is bigger than any corporation and, therefore, needs an inspirational and knowledgeable leader. Indeed, many protested that Barack Obama didn’t have those qualifications to become president. They claimed that he had nominal experience to lead the greatest and most powerful nation in the universe. In fact, some claim that his naiveté and inexperience had a direct effect on executing some of his signature legislations and presidential duties. Ever since Obama’s approval ratings tanked that eventually led to become a “shellacking” at the recent midterm elections, eyes are on the potential GOP nominees for president. With Sarah Palin as one of the frontrunners, I am aghast; are we going to do all of this over again? Barack Obama and Sarah Palin seem to be nearly identical in their qualities and rise to politics when put side by side; ideals and philosophies aside, their similarities are striking.

    Barack Obama had a distressed youth: moving across the globe and growing up without parents, he used drugs and other illegal substances to alleviate his pain. Sarah Palin also grew up in poverty, switched between schools and colleges in multiple states and smoked pot – legal in her state at that time. Barack Obama got much criticism from critics for covering up his past and deceiving the public about his youth. Sarah Palin too, was repeatedly condemned for distorting facts and lying about her story. An eloquent speaker and best-selling author, Barack Obama, became a rising star in his party after giving an anti-war speech in 2002, and further ascended the ranks in politics after his speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. In contrast, Sarah Palin, a powerful and well-expressed speaker, was thrust onto the national scene after John McCain picked her as his running mate; her acceptance speech made her a darling for conservatives around the nation.

    Obama was criticized for making the presidency a personal discovery, being naïve and unqualified to serve as commander-in-chief. Sarah Palin was also criticized for going on a journey for personal discovery, being incapable to lead and having limited experience to serve as the leading executive of the nation. Barack Obama, who is often called arrogant and out of touch, touted his inexperience and outsider status as an asset. Sarah Palin, considered an egoist by many, also ran on the platform of change, and claimed the mantra of an average family mom.

    Barack Obama got the rock-star status in his party after being the first black candidate to win his party’s nomination and the presidency. Sarah Palin, a conservative celebrity, made history for being the first woman on a GOP ticket and would be the first female president, if elected. Barack Obama, often called divisive and partisan by his critics, has a populist approach and used a grassroots campaign to become president. Controversial and opinionated, Sarah Palin, an author of two best selling memoirs, is also considered a polarizing figure who leads grassroots campaigns largely responsible for her popularity. Barack Obama, a charismatic individual, introduced technological means such as Twitter to connect to his followers and fans. He took on the conventional candidate of his party and defeated her to receive the nomination for president on behalf of the Democratic Party. Sarah Palin, a charming and appealing personality, uses Facebook and Twitter to get her message out. She has often challenged incumbents and establishment picks of her party.

    Ronald Reagan points to his years serving as the Governor of California – the eighth biggest economy in the world – for preparing his terms in the White House. The years in Sacramento gave him the skills necessary to negotiate and broker deals with an opposition. He knew that not always can he remain steadfast with his position, and that he needed to induce some creativity in getting his policy done. The Democrats freaked out when a rookie politician straight from Hollywood hit back at them and vetoed their spending bills. They learned it the hard way – but so did Reagan. His ulcer – a condition he got first in the State Capitol – thought him that nothing in politics gets done without a fight, and how to fight he learned. A fight that should leave his enemy bruised.

    Experience isn’t the only key in being a good president. Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the least experienced candidate for president in US history, is rated one of the best presidents according to historians. In contrast, James Buchanan – an experienced and seasoned politician and diplomat before being elected president– is considered one of the worst presidents ever. However, in trying times like these with the country divided like never before, we need an experienced leader that can unify the country and Congress and pass effective legislation. Sarah Palin was an effective mayor and governor, but her experience is still scarce for being president of the biggest and strongest nation in the world. The White House isn’t Hollywood and the presidency isn’t a reality show.

    A stint of executive experience is lacking for a presidential resume; you need the competence to reach out to Congress with policy and ideas and work on effective legislation. We ought to elect a harmonious, competent and articulate person to lead the nation; a level-headed person that will be able to influence Congress and Washington in passing effective legislation, and create a better future. Sarah Palin has excited the Republican Party as no one had done before; however, one term with a campaigner-in-chief in the White House is enough.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  2. nfgo3
    Member

    Does this post comply with the Coffee-Room rule against "megillahs"? If there were a rule about getting the facts right, it would certainly be in breach of that rule. For example:

    "Barack Obama had a distressed youth: moving across the globe and growing up without parents, he used drugs and other illegal substances to alleviate his pain." Where did "David Hirsh" get this from? Moving around is not necessarily stressful, and Mr. Obama learned from the broad variety of his childhood experiences. He did not use drugs or "other illegal substances" - whatever that is - because of the stress in his life. He tried drugs as a youth because that is what a lot of youths do.

    "Barack Obama, often called divisive and partisan by his critics, has a populist approach and used a grassroots campaign to become president." Yes, it's true Mr. Obama is called divisive by some of his critics, but those critics are lying liars. It is not divisive to propose a policy that some people don't like. It is divisive to suggest that Sarah Palin is not an American citizen - oh, wait, no one, not even the "divisive" Mr. Obama, alleged that about her. I must be thinking of someone else.

    As for the "similarity" between Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama: the similarity is non-existent. Mr. Obama advanced himself to high levels of academic and scholastic achievement - an Ivy League college and law school, top honors in law school, vs. Ms. Palin's intellectual mediocrity and simple-minded opinions about a complicated world. Ms. Palin does not begin to grasp the complexity of the problems facing the US and the world today, and she has demonstrated - in her 2 years in the public eye - that she does not have the education or experience to address anything more complicated than skinning a large dead mammal.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  3. tzippi
    Member

    A megillah about the former nominee could be called a Palindrone.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  4. Dave Hirsch
    Member

    Does this post comply with the Coffee-Room rule against "megillahs"? If there were a rule about getting the facts right, it would certainly be in breach of that rule. For example:

    Well, if you can’t read the Coffee Room rules properly, how can you lecture me about facts? Here’s what's stated in the Coffee Room’s rules:

    Moderating
    1 - Please try to keep your comments short and to the point. We don’t have the time to read through long essays. We can not edit your posts, we just don't have time. Any long "Megillah" will most probably be deleted without even being read.

    Now, can you please show me where in indicates that “megillahs” are prohibited? They might indeed not be read (to be moderated) and therefore deleted before posted, but if the moderators have patience to read it – they will and it will be posted. So, are you the one to lecture others about facts when you can’t read (or understand) a short list of rules?
    Read: most probably!

    Where did "David Hirsh" get this from? Moving around is not necessarily stressful, and Mr. Obama learned from the broad variety of his childhood experiences.

    “David Hirsch” got this from “Barack Obama.”
    Here’s what he had to say about his childhood (“Dreams of My Father”): I was a confused kid and was making a bunch of negative choices based on stereotypes of what I thought a tough young man should be…

    This is yet another confession about his youth: It wasn't until I got out of … high school, and went to college that I started realizing, man, I wasted a lot of time.
    Yet another confesion: It was reflective of the struggles and confusion of a teenage boy…

    Do you know that Obama talks about his unstable youth and his abusive father in his memoir “Dreams of My Father”? This is what he says about drugs: I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. and I got high for just the opposite effect, something that could push questions of who I was out of my mind. Something that could flatten out the landscape of my heart, blur the edges of my memory.

    He did not use drugs or "other illegal substances" - whatever that is - because of the stress in his life. He tried drugs as a youth because that is what a lot of youths do.

    Well, you can suggest that Obama was lying in his memoir as some of his friends suggest, but I gave him the benefit of doubt.

    "other illegal substances" - whatever that is -

    That is alcohol beverages. I didn’t address Larry Sinclair’s claim, for obvious reasons. Google it if you wish.

    Yes, it's true Mr. Obama is called divisive by some of his critics, but those critics are lying liars. It is not divisive to propose a policy that some people don't like. It is divisive to suggest that Sarah Palin is not an American citizen - oh, wait, no one, not even the "divisive" Mr. Obama, alleged that about her. I must be thinking of someone else.

    Notice that you attempt to dispute my honesty and facts by agreeing to the fact I stated, yet fending off those critics. Now, that’s someone I call misleading and truly divisive.

    However, I will agree with these critics: In my dictionary “Divisive” is interpreted as ”creating disunity or dissension”. Yes, Obama did and is doing just that. Firstly race relations under Obama hit a new low. His bills and legislations passed weren’t bi-partisan. His votes as US Senator were partisan – which is divisive in other words. His campaign rhetoric was as divisive as they come . Sarah Palin was perhaps the least divisive Governor in the United States and governed from the center. Barack Obama is a hard-core liberal whereas Sarah Palin is a populist-leaning conservative. Perhaps I ought to apologize to Sarah Palin for comparing her to a polarizing figure such as Obama, the most polarizing President ever : my apologies, indeed.

    As for the "similarity" between Ms. Palin and Mr. Obama: the similarity is non-existent.

    You are right, I erred. Barack Obama’s anemic experience as community organizer cannot be compared to Palin’s experience as an effective Governor. Let’s compare their experience:

    In 1992, Sarah Palin was elected to the Wasilla City Council (although it is a small city – nevertheless, it is elective experience to some extent and she was elected to represent) – Obama was still in search for himself and served as “Community Organizer” while preparing his first book.

    In 1995, Sarah Palin was reelected to another term at the Wasilla City Council – Obama was busy organizing voter drives while practicing law and serving on some boards (on which, people like Bill Ayers served) in Chicago.

    In 1996, Sarah Palin was elected Mayor of Wasilla (getting executive experience – the experience needed to lead the country) by defeating the incumbent – Obama was preparing a run for Illinois State Senate (in a Democratic district) after winning the Democratic primary with no opposition. We should note that Palin’s election was officially nonpartisan.
    During her tenure as Mayor, Palin cut taxes while the (sales) tax revenues increased: Obama, as Illinois State legislator, voted “Present” on the “tough” votes.

    In 1999, Sarah Palin was elected to serve as the President of Alaska Conference of Mayors. Barack Obama, recently started his first term as a State legislator, prepares a run for the US House – which he goes on to lose 2 to 1.

    In 2003, Palin is appointed to chair the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission where she and restored honor to the bi-partisan commission. Obama, hardly finished campaigning for the House (and his re-election campaign) as he announces his run for the US Senate - something he was working on since 2002.

    In 2006, Palin once again takes on an incumbent and goes on to become elected Governor of Alaska. Obama prepares his run for national office. Palin gets high marks and gains executive experience – she operates a $9 billion dollar budget and employs 25,000 people. Obama, with help from his political advisor – David Axelrod, further explores a presidential run where his budget is a margin of the above managed by his campaign manager - David Plouffe. This is what Obama will claim as his executive experience. Sarah Palin dealt with foreign nation during her term as AOGCC Chair and time as Governor – Obama chaired the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs, which had some oversight in Afghanistan through NATO – he never called it into session though.
    Sarah Palin served as Commander in Chief of Alaska National Guard, Obama didn’t he have any military experience prior to being elected President.

    Mr. Obama advanced himself to high levels of academic and scholastic achievement - an Ivy League college and law school, top honors in law school, vs. Ms. Palin's intellectual mediocrity and simple-minded opinions about a complicated world.

    Sarah Palin was Miss Wasilla. I mean, your charge is absurd. He might’ve made a good professor but since when does an Ivy League graduate qualify as President? You liberals claimed that George W. Bush wasn’t prepared to lead the nation; yet, he also attended Ivy League colleges. Ronald Reagan didn’t attend any Ivy League college and he’s got high marks; Abraham Lincoln had NO college education whatsoever.

    Ms. Palin does not begin to grasp the complexity of the problems facing the US and the world today,

    Obama was hesitant on the Russian-Georgian conflict , dithered our troops in Afghanistan , and accepted a nuclear Iran and North Korea . Obama showed his true leadership capabilities at the Gulf Spill. I won’t mention the other flops he endured (Olympics, Healthcare and G-20 to name a few).

    and she has demonstrated - in her 2 years in the public eye - that she does not have the education or experience to address anything more complicated than skinning a large dead mammal.

    Hey! I didn’t address the Birthers, Bill Ayers, Reverend Wright and all other (legitimate) controversies Obama is hiding under the rug - steer clear from those non-controversies.

    In light of the above, I agree with you that Obama isn't to be compared to Palin. Sarah Palin would bring more experience and bi-partisan leadership to the Oval Office. However, I believe that is is still too scarce for the US Commander-in-Chief.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  5. Dave Hirsch
    Member

  6. Midwest2
    Member

    Actually, I kind of like Sarah'le. She won't get the Republican nomination, so I hope she runs as an independent and does to the Republicans what Nader did to Gore/Lieberman. Of course, I'm not a Republican;-)

    Posted 4 years ago #
  7. Dave Hirsch
    Member

    Midwest2,
    I fret over that notion. Her third party candidacy can turn out to be another Ross Perot spoiler. Although she denies it, I believe that her presidential aspirations will lead her to do just that. It might depend on the GOP nominee, but she is capable of pulling it off and become quite a force for a third party candidate. I hope, though, that she'll put the country before her prestige and self-interest. We can't afford another term with Obama in the White House; too much (irreversible) damage has already been done.
    And, who tells you that she won't pull off a victory in the GOP primary? She can do it the same way Obama did; run a good campaign, give eloquent speeches, duck important questions and talk about insubstantial things such as Hope and Change. She might also take others' slogans and campaign promises and make it hers. Remember how Obama hijacked John Edward's Healthcare reform?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  8. charliehall
    Member

    Is this redstate.com?

    Posted 4 years ago #
  9. More like redstate than daily kos.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  10. tzippi
    Member

    I think she'll make a laughingstock of the GOP is she tries to run.
    No wait. I'm wrong. Let her run, and have Newt Gingrich as her running mate.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  11. Dave Hirsch
    Member

    Charlie, is this all you have to defend your thin-skinned, unpopular, naive and inexperienced "Messiah" President. It's interesting how you claim that those supporting Palin are hypocrites while you do exactly the same. Those are facts (therefore they're more Restate.com than DailyKos). If you want to disprove it, be a man, let's go. I'm fully ready and prepared for a debate. Just don't quit suddenly as you did by every debate you had with me until now.

    How is it possible that those liberal and Democrat icons were able to swear that Obama isn't prepared; yet, miraculously after he became the nominee he is and even better (because of Palin!)? Hypocrisy!

    Yes, I prefer "Fair & Balanced" news over sources that "Get thrills up their legs" and "journolists" that manipulate news. I'm color-blind when it comes to race and don't differentiate between Man and Woman, Religion or Race; I elect one that's fit for office. I look out for the day when Martin Luther King's dream will come true. I wait for the day when we will live in a nation where we won't be judged "by the color of the skin but by the content of our character." I look forward to a life of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" where white men won't be discriminated against; a time when "reparations" will be the talk of yesteryear and presidents will be elected according to their merits. I didn't demand FDR to compensate me for the genocide of my grandparents and nation - I want everyone treated in kind. I also don't vote for hype and rhetoric, I vote for substance!

    Posted 3 years ago #
  12. Midwest2
    Member

    Dave, are you running for office :-)? Are you practicing to set up a right-wing political blog?

    I hate to disillusion you, but there are still plenty of Democrats in our circles. We don't make as much noise - or usually write such long posts - but we're here. And some of us are doing content analysis on some of the more enthusiastic "redstate" posts because we want to understand a mindset that's so totally removed from the reality of the country.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  13. nfgo3
    Member

    I don't know where to start repudiating Dave Hirsh's refudiation, as it is so wrong in so many ways. So I'll start with a few points.

    First, as for DH's comments headed "Moderating": Yes, I know your post was posted, and therefore was either (i) approved or (ii) not disapproved by the moderators. The fact of its posting does not, however, conclusively establish that it is not a "megillah" in violation of the Coffee Room requirement for brevity. The rule you quoted uses the term "megillah" to refer to proposed posts which are unduly long and says they "probably" will be deleted, not that they absolutely will be deleted. In other words, the rule says explicitly that some unduly long posts will get posted notwithstanding the work of the moderators, and so my question about your "megillah," and my implication that your post is too long under Coffee Room rules, is reasonable, and your refudiation is not only incorrect but illogical. The rule you quoted uses the term "megillah" as short-hand for "too long to post," much as Americans use the term "separation of church and state" as short-hand for the text of the First Amendment of the US constitution which prohibits Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. But, of course, a Palin supporter such as former Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell does not understand the difference between (a) the words and meaning of the US constitution, and (b) a short-hand phrase to refer to a provision of the US constitution. Your misunderstanding of "megillah" represents the same inability.

    Second: your discussion of Obama's youthful drug use. I stand by my explanation, i.e., he was youthful and youths do stupid things. He outgrew it. His explanations are consistent - and more detailed, and more personal - than my explanation, but mine is correct and helpful in evaluating the adult's fitness to be president. As for your statement that "other legal substances" refers to alcohol: that is dead wrong outside Utah. Maybe you are from Utah, in which case I can forgive the confusion.

    Third: Barack Obama's "anemic experience". Mr. Obama's intellectual gifts, education and experience enabled him to win a hard-fought primary and a US election. That does not per se mean he would be a good president (we've had bad presidents who won elections, and I'm not even counting W, because he did not win his first election0, but Mr. Obama clearly figured out how to get from no where - i.e., South Side of Chicago, or Hawaii, or Indonesia - to the White House. As for Ms. Palin's experience, being mayor of a village of 9,000 people, or governor of a state of 600,000 (which state receives substantial federal aide and has oil tax revenue that enables it to pay cash subsidies to its citizens) is hardly adequate preparation for governing a nation of 308,000 000 people, and Ms. Palin's policy statements (e.g., I can see Russia) hardly indicate that she learned anything on the job.

    More importantly: You correctly stated, "The job of the President of the United States is the toughest in the world." I would add, and I think you would agree, that no job can adequately prepare anyone for the job of president of the US. It takes extraordinary personal gifts of intellect, education, determination, organizational skill and reasoning ability to execute the job well. As between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin, there is no comparison between their personal qualities as to who is better equipped to fulfill the duties of the office.

    One other point: The comparison of Mr. Obama's vs. Ms. Palin's fitness and qualifications for the office of president is in some respects meaningless, because no one favoring Mr. Obama would consider a woman (qualfied or not) of Ms. Palin's political views; and, likewise, no one favoring Ms. Palin's views would consider Mr. Obama. A more meaningful comparison would be between, say, Ms. Palin vs. Mitt Romney, or Newt Gingrich, or Mitch McConnell, or even Dave Hirsh. Many Republicans have publicly expressed their doubts about Ms. Palin's fitness for office, so you don't have to take my word for it. And please note, some of the Republicans who have doubts about Ms. Palin have no intention of running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Mr. Obama's primary opponents in 2008 had other interests in suggesting that he was not the best person for the job.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  14. "megillahs" are not prohibited, just recommended against as it is usually too big of a tirchah for the mods to read them

    DHs post was probably too short to be included in our admittedly nebulous definition of what is a megillah

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. charliehall
    Member

    "We don't make as much noise - or usually write such long posts - but we're here"

    And I don't have time to respond to the anti-Obama megillah point by point. I have a day job. And the Obama-haters wouldn't care anyway.

    We just finished the most productive Congressional session in decades. It passed two huge economic stimulus packages. It set up a framework so that no American will ever be forced to go without health insurance, something that was originally proposed (by Theodore Roosevelt!) 98 years ago. It ratified the strategic arms treaty with Russia. It finally provided for the healthcare needs of the 9/11 responders -- over nine years after the terrorist attack. It finally got rid of the stupid prohibition against Gays serving in the military. Arguably there has not been a Congress since the 1965-1966 session has so much progress been made in so many areas.

    That is pretty good for an inexperienced President. He knew when to compromise and when not to compromise. He gets grief from the Left and from the Right, so he is probably right in the center where he belongs. Similarly, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid deserve a huge amount of credit. Most commenters here are from the Right so they don't appreciate what has just happened. Our country is better off as a result of the actions our elected officials have taken.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  16. charliehall
    Member

    "I didn't demand FDR to compensate me for the genocide of my grandparents and nation "

    FDR didn't commit genocide.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  17. Midwest2
    Member

    nfgo3 - Thank you. I have neither the time nor patience to respond to Dave at length, and you did a much better job than I would have.

    charliehall - You're right. The Obama-haters wouldn't care anyway. That would require taking a good look around at what's going on in the country and actually stopping to think about it, instead of going off on feel-good rants. Thinking is hard work.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  18. nfgo3
    Member

    charliehall: your post about the productive session of Congress that ended 12/22/10 understates the contributions of President Obama and overstates the contributions of the Congress. Republicans in the Senate invoked filibusters at a record-breaking pace, and their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, stated unequivocally that the role of the Senate Republicans is first and foremost to prevent the reelection of President Obama. I do not recall ever hearing that from a Congressional leader, and it gives the lie to any Republican claim that their primary concern is the well-being of the nation. The Senate Republicans have been - dare I say it - divisive, solely for the purpose of advancing their own interests. While I was disappointed with President Obama's compromise on taxes, it apparently was the key to getting any worthwhile legislation out of this Congress.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  19. Peanut Butter
    Member

    Dave Hirsch
    Please clarify your opening statement.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  20. charliehall
    Member

    nfgo3,

    The irony about McConnell is that the tax package he agreed to probably ensures Obama's re-election as it is essentially a massive economic stimulus. But it now looks like the ONLY essential priority for Republicans is low tax rates for their base supporters, millionaires. Everything else is a candidate to be thrown under the bus.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  21. klach
    Member

    congress is obviously quite incompetent

    Posted 3 years ago #
  22. nfgo3
    Member

    charliehall: If you are correct that the recently approved tax package ensures President Obama's re-election, then it's not irony - it's very skillful politics. I hope you are right, but I am wary.

    One other thing: why do we Jews use "megillah" as slang short-hand for a too-long comment or too-long statement or too-complicated situation. The Five Megillos are holy writings. Shouldn't we refrain from using "megillah" as a negative term. Perhaps the Coffee Room moderators could lead the way be removing the word from the CR rules.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  23. nfgo3
    Member

    One other other thing: The most polarizing president ever is not Barack Obama. That distinction belongs to President Abraham Lincoln - his election and subsequent actions in defense of the authority of the federal government led to The Civil War. Mr. Lincoln is also considered by many as one of the three greatest US presidents. What is striking about this error by Mr. Hirsch is his readiness to attribute horrible qualities to Mr. Obama and his presidency, without considering simple and widely known facts.

    A related flaw in Dave Hirsch's thinking is his calling Mr. Obama a "messiah". I have never read or heard an Obama supporter call Mr. Obama a "messiah," but he is regularly called, facetiously, a "messiah" by his extreme right-wing critics, for the porpose or with the effect of insulting Mr. Obama's supporters by alleging that they overrate his competence. I fully understand President Obama's limits, but overall, I am satisfied that he is doing as well or better than anyone else could do in the current circumstances.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  24. charliehall
    Member

    nfgo is correct. Lincoln was unquestionably the most polarizing President. He could have simply let the South secede. The North would have abolished slavery, and refused to return fugitive slaves to the Confederacy, whose economy would have completely collapsed. The other polarizing aspect of Lincoln was that he pushed throught the aggessive Republican domestic agenda while a war was in progress. The next president to do that was George W. Bush, with disasterous results. It was not until Grant's presidency that the consequences of the Republican Give Everything to Business economic policy were seen, and what resulted was the longest recession in American history.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  25. charliehall
    Member

    nfgo is also correct on the alleged characterization of Obama as a messiah. I've been reading dailykos for years and I've never seen that term used except by a troublemaking Republican troll.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  26. tzippi
    Member

    Nfgo, no time to really read these posts but davening through them, I see that I was guilty of misusing the word megillah.

    IOW, I get your point.
    (And this time, I was employing irony.)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  27. Dave Hirsch
    Member

    As you liberals view the Republicans as lazy bums who cash in on the wealthy and use unemployment, Food Stamps, Medicaid and all other “transfer payments” and “spreading the wealth” programs, I will take ample time to make yet another “Megillah” to dispute your outrageous claims and inaccuracies.

    Dave, are you running for office :-)? Are you practicing to set up a right-wing political blog?

    No. I’m planning on becoming a “Community Organizer” first. Can you get me into the elitist circles? Do you know anyone in South-Side of Chicago (you know the famous corrupt political underground – the place nfgo3 calls “nowhere”)? Oh, maybe editing a journal can also make me President (you know, people like nfgo3 will call it an intellectual gift and capable of running a country), do you have pull within Harvard university?

    I hate to disillusion you, but there are still plenty of Democrats in our circles.

    Well, if I would be sheltered as you think, I wouldn’t spend my time trying to enlighten liberals here in the Coffee Room. I would post my comments only on CNN, MSNBC and the likes. I know and it’s unfortunate; yet, it is their right. Although I believe that most of their views isn’t supported by the Torah – it is their choice. I’m not a Democrat and I don’t think I have to attack those with different opinions. I don’t paint those relinquishing much of our freedom (George Soros – MoveOn) as “stealing our democracy” because I use facts, beliefs and common sense to make correct judgment.

    We don't make as much noise - or usually write such long posts - but we're here.

    Well, you made enough noise for me to take some of my precious time (Charliehall thinks I don’t have – after all, Republicans are all bums) and spend it here in the Coffee Room to repudiate your nonsense. Additionally, I see on the way you liberals try to manipulate the Coffee Room and hijack threads to favor liberalism.

    And some of us are doing content analysis on some of the more enthusiastic "redstate" posts because we want to understand a mindset that's so totally removed from the reality of the country.

    I call someone disillusioned if they’re sheltered within their shell. We’ve seen whose mindset was removed from reality at the recent midterms, but if you want the public’s way of thinking here you go:
    People’s Outlook. Healthcare. 111th Congress. Obama (and I didn’t cite the “Republican” pollsters from Fox and Rasmussen). You might want to start reading something other than DailyKos and Huffington Post to see some truth… And don’t lecture others about being detached from reality…

    I don't know where to start repudiating Dave Hirsh's refudiation, as it is so wrong in so many ways. So I'll start with a few points.

    Start with everything you missed. Why did you skip Obama’s rock-star status, citing of people without education that made great presidents and all other things I mentioned. What about this: Notice that you attempt to dispute my honesty and facts by agreeing to the fact I stated, yet fending off those critics. Now, that’s someone I call misleading and truly divisive. I’m offended of your arrogance and liberal way of spinning things to portray others’ statements as wrong.

    …and so my question about your "megillah," and my implication that your post is too long under Coffee Room rules, is reasonable, and your refudiation is not only incorrect but illogical…

    You are dead wrong (as Mod-80 truthfully pointed out). Of course a liberal of your rank won’t agree that he was wrong, but that doesn’t point in your favor. You’re making charges against me, prove it. I didn’t opine that it wasn’t a “Megillah” I stated correctly that it isn’t against the rules. It might not be advisable as it might not be posted – but it is permitted.

    former Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O'Donnell does not understand the difference between (a) the words and meaning of the US constitution, and (b) a short-hand phrase to refer to a provision of the US constitution.

    You can also add the actual Senate-elect of Delaware, Harry Reid’s pet - Chris Coons - doesn’t know what it says in the constitution. The same one who didn’t know whether the seat he’s running for is Joe Biden’s or Delaware’s. Obviously, a lib won’t vote for a man based on his/her merit rather by bashing the opponent.

    Second: your discussion of Obama's youthful drug use. I stand by my explanation, i.e., he was youthful and youths do stupid things

    It’s one out of two. Either you never read “Dreams of my Father” and you are speaking without a clue, or you’re spinning someone’s words once again. It is evident what he meant and you’re dead wrong yet again. Of course maybe your “astute” understanding in scripts can change the meaning of words; however, that’s what Barack Obama wrote. His father’s absence and abuse cannot be explicated as youthful.

    "other legal substances" refers to alcohol: that is dead wrong outside Utah. Maybe you are from Utah, in which case I can forgive the confusion.

    Is Utah the only state where a high-schooler is prohibited to drink? Well, I’m probably an alien (being a Republican) so you tell me.

    Mr. Obama's intellectual gifts, education and experience

    How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a “quitter” . And can you elaborate on “Experience”? What private sector experience did he have in addition to his meager campaigning experience?

    That does not per se mean he would be a good president

    Thanks! I won’t take such a gamble. Electing a president based on winning a campaign is a no-no situation for me.

    I'm not even counting W, because he did not win his first election

    Well, in that case Obama is ineligible to serve. He was born in Kenya and he isn’t a naturalized citizen. You don’t want to start with conspiracies because Obama’s past is far more mysterious. And don’t tell me that the courts threw out the “Birthers” law suits, because it is the court system that ruled in favor of Bush. Now again, you can bash the justices at the State of the Union.

    As for Ms. Palin's experience, being mayor of a village of 9,000 people, or governor of a state of 600,000 (which state receives substantial federal aide and has oil tax revenue that enables it to pay cash subsidies to its citizens) is hardly adequate preparation for governing a nation of 308,000 000 people

    Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education. Palin’s resume seems more likely for hiring prospects. Nothing may be enough to fully prepare you to lead the nation but governing 600,000 people effectively would be better that heading the Harvard Law Review. It doesn't matter where their revenue comes from (not to mention that Palin chaired the commission) it’s still balancing a budget. The US treasury also receives substantial federal aid (from the Federal Reserve Bank printing machine) and has much revenue. They still cannot seem to be balancing the budget.

    and Ms. Palin's policy statements (e.g., I can see Russia) hardly indicate that she learned anything on the job.

    This highlights your ignorance and dependence on the “mainstream” media. I won’t mention Obama’s (worse) gaffes but I’ll scream out loud: SHE NEVER SAID THAT!!! She did say that Russia (and Canada) borders Alaska (with its proximity in view) thus giving her sort of experience with foreign policy.

    As between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin, there is no comparison between their personal qualities as to who is better equipped to fulfill the duties of the office.

    Well, you just stated that they were/are both not prepared. I want someone that would be further prepared; therefore, both, Obama and Palin, don’t seem to be an option for me. And as I’ve clearly stated, ideals and philosophies aside , I was talking non-partisan. I was highlighting preparedness not beliefs.

    Mr. Obama's primary opponents in 2008 had other interests in suggesting that he was not the best person for the job.

    Palin’s attackers are largely not from within the GOP. You might find commentaries (with Republicans far more detached from its philosophies than Paul Krugman’s liberal stances) but no Republican Party leaders and power brokers.

    So that nfgo3 shouldn’t complain about yet another long Megillah, I’ll leave the rest to be continued…

    Posted 3 years ago #
  28. nfgo3
    Member

    Well, Dave Hirsch, I will oblige you:

    DH writes: "Start with everything you missed. Why did you skip Obama’s rock-star status, citing of people without education that made great presidents and all other things I mentioned."

    Obama's "rock-star status" is a characterization which I have seen only in right-wing attempts to blame the news reports they do not like for Mr. Obama's popularity, first as a candidate and then as President. It is not worthy of a comment. It is also also an attempt to overstate his talents, for the purpose of bringing him low when he does not walk on water.

    DH writes: "What about this: 'Notice that you attempt to dispute my honesty and facts by agreeing to the fact I stated, yet fending off those critics. Now, that’s someone I call misleading and truly divisive.' I’m offended of your arrogance and liberal way of spinning things to portray others’ statements as wrong."

    I do not know what you are referring to in this statement. I will say that I am not questioning your honesty, only your grasp of the facts. As for my arrogance, I would like to know what I wrote that shows you my arrogance. As for my "liberal way of spinning things ... ": Spinning is neither conservative nor liberal, it is a rhetorical device. Which of my statements do you consider to be "spinning."

    DH and I discuss Obama's drug use: First, I have not read either of Mr. Obama's books. I haven't read a book by Palin, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don't read politicians' books until they are dead, and I do not read them for the truth of the matter stated therein, but only to see how they tried to explain themselves and then compare their claims to what they actually did. Politicians' books tend to be bunk. Perhaps the books of Messrs./Ms. Palin, Obama, Bush, and/or Clinton are the exception to the rule, but I do not care to waste my time reading their books. If I want to waste my time, I argue with people in the Coffee Room. ;-)

    DH's objection to my "megillah" comment: I was not purporting to characterize your post as a violation of the Coffee Room rules, I was simply asking for an opinion from the moderators, and one of them provided comments which indicate that (i) the mere posting of a comment does not mean that the post complies with the rules, and (ii) your particular comment does comply with the rules. That is all I wanted to know. You continue to fail to see the illogical nature of your understanding of my comment.

    DH's comment about my comment about Christine O'Donnell: is, as written, a non-sequitur.

    DH writes: "Of course a liberal of your rank won’t agree that he was wrong, but that doesn’t point in your favor."

    Do you mean to say that I am a "rank" liberal, or a "ranking" liberal. The latter would imply that other liberals hold me in high regard. The former would imply that you hold all liberals in low regard. I don't know what other liberals think of me, but I am confident that I am not rank.

    DH writes, in response to my praise of Mr. Obama's education and intelligence: "How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a 'quitter'. "

    You evidently think that the only way to judge a person's education and intelligence is to view his college transcripts. No, I have not seen them. I have heard him speak, I even read his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia, and it is excellent - not for its political effectiveness but for the understanding it reveals of American history. As for his being a "quitter": I don't think his election as president shows any quitting tendencies. And his other career choices shows that he had an interest in public service. And there are very few unintelligent or uneducated members of the Harvard Law Review. You (and, not incidently, I) might not like their political opinions, or their career choices, but they are, as a group, intelligent and educated. (And I'm not one of them, in case you were thinking of accusing me of that. And please don't use this statement as a set-up for an insult such as: "Don't flatter yourself - I don't think you ever received such an academic honor.")

    DH writes: "Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education."

    Actually, I do know of one business that hired a guy as CEO because he had brassy educational credentials and no executive experience, and he was awful. Yes, I am agreeing with you that brassy education credentials do not necessarily make good chief executives of private companies (which is what I think you mean by "capital business"). You never thought a rank liberal would agree with you about anything. Is this going to get you kicked out of the rank conservatives' club? I hope so, for your sake.

    I'm tired. I think I'll watch the second half of the Jets game.

    Posted 3 years ago #
  29. nfgo3
    Member

    Well, Dave Hirsch, I will oblige you:

    DH writes: "Start with everything you missed. Why did you skip Obama’s rock-star status, citing of people without education that made great presidents and all other things I mentioned."

    Obama's "rock-star status" is a characterization which I have seen only in right-wing attempts to blame the news reports they do not like for Mr. Obama's popularity, first as a candidate and then as President. It is not worthy of a comment. It is also also an attempt to overstate his talents, for the purpose of bringing him low when he does not walk on water.

    DH writes: "What about this: 'Notice that you attempt to dispute my honesty and facts by agreeing to the fact I stated, yet fending off those critics. Now, that’s someone I call misleading and truly divisive.' I’m offended of your arrogance and liberal way of spinning things to portray others’ statements as wrong."

    I do not know what you are referring to in this statement. I will say that I am not questioning your honesty, only your grasp of the facts. As for my arrogance, I would like to know what I wrote that shows you my arrogance. As for my "liberal way of spinning things ... ": Spinning is neither conservative nor liberal, it is a rhetorical device. Which of my statements do you consider to be "spinning."

    DH and I discuss Obama's drug use: First, I have not read either of Mr. Obama's books. I haven't read a book by Palin, or George Bush or Bill Clinton. I don't read politicians' books until they are dead, and I do not read them for the truth of the matter stated therein, but only to see how they tried to explain themselves and then compare their claims to what they actually did. Politicians' books tend to be bunk. Perhaps the books of Messrs./Ms. Palin, Obama, Bush, and/or Clinton are the exception to the rule, but I do not care to waste my time reading their books. If I want to waste my time, I argue with people in the Coffee Room. ;-)

    DH's objection to my "megillah" comment: I was not purporting to characterize your post as a violation of the Coffee Room rules, I was simply asking for an opinion from the moderators, and one of them provided comments which indicate that (i) the mere posting of a comment does not mean that the post complies with the rules, and (ii) your particular comment does comply with the rules. That is all I wanted to know. You continue to fail to see the illogical nature of your understanding of my comment.

    DH's comment about my comment about Christine O'Donnell: is, as written, a non-sequitur.

    DH writes: "Of course a liberal of your rank won’t agree that he was wrong, but that doesn’t point in your favor."

    Do you mean to say that I am a "rank" liberal, or a "ranking" liberal. The latter would imply that other liberals hold me in high regard. The former would imply that you hold all liberals in low regard. I don't know what other liberals think of me, but I am confident that I am not rank.

    DH writes, in response to my praise of Mr. Obama's education and intelligence: "How do you know his intellect and education, have you seen his college transcripts? If all he was able to do was being a lecturer and a 'quitter'. "

    You evidently think that the only way to judge a person's education and intelligence is to view his college transcripts. No, I have not seen them. I have heard him speak, I even read his speech on race delivered in Philadelphia, and it is excellent - not for its political effectiveness but for the understanding it reveals of American history. As for his being a "quitter": I don't think his election as president shows any quitting tendencies. And his other career choices shows that he had an interest in public service. And there are very few unintelligent or uneducated members of the Harvard Law Review. You (and, not incidently, I) might not like their political opinions, or their career choices, but they are, as a group, intelligent and educated. (And I'm not one of them, in case you were thinking of accusing me of that. And please don't use this statement as a set-up for an insult such as: "Don't flatter yourself - I don't think you ever received such an academic honor.")

    DH writes: "Show me a capital business that hires a CEO based on his education."

    Actually, I do know of one business that hired a guy as CEO because he had brassy educational credentials and no executive experience, and he was awful. Yes, I am agreeing with you that brassy education credentials do not necessarily make good chief executives of private companies (which is what I think you mean by "capital business"). You never thought a rank liberal would agree with you about anything. Is this going to get you kicked out of the rank conservatives' club? I hope so, for your sake.

    I'm tired. I think I'll watch the second half of the Jets game.

    Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.