2008 Presidential Election

[Griffith]

Utterly absurd, the US Constitution is a straight forward document it doesn't require a high priest to interpret it and inform the masses what it really "means". Obama has been quite open in holding the constitution in contempt while most US politicians wait until they're in power to show their contempt for it and for the 1 oath they swear when they enter their office.

I agree that it doesn't require a guide, which I never suggested. Though, the understanding of it has hardly been objective, as with even the simplest of law. The constitution is a document that has been studied, interpreted, and reinterpreted for 200 years. Calling it or its application straight forward has simply not been the case, whether you believe it should be or not. Even the most strict constructionists today interpret the Constitution more than those of a century ago. Anyway, my point was not to debate the constitution, but simply that Obama is well versed in it, having taught Constitutional law for a decade. Whatever his perspective, and he's certainly no constructionist, I believe there's an important distinction between one following a map and one knowing the terrain. Hopefully, that will be competence to his advantage rather than a source of hubris to our detriment.

 

[Sanguinius]

Yes, you clearly are. I was replying to someone else in the first place, and obviously my reply to your misguided post was done with that in mind.

No, but the post I first replied to did, and you've made no attempts to distance yourself from it as you were trying and failing to find fault with what I said.

Sorry buddy, but the only problem here is your own lack of understanding of what I said. And you're taking Madam President's line out of its context to try to make it look like you had a good reason to reply to me, but it's not fooling anyone.

I take it that by "commenting" you mean "bitterly trolling" and "being scornful".

What are you rambling about here exactly? I'm sorry to say, but I don't think repeating that I have "extra cerebral abilities" is going to make people overlook the rather pretentious way you have about you.

I still don't think you get the context of my reply, i.e. Madam President's post and her beliefs.

And now you see that you were wrong and that you shouldn't always assume things about other people. Maybe we can move back on topic now that it's clear? I won't ask for an apology, but I hope you will be more careful when replying to people in the future. :)

Are you looking at the post in question? Here it is the quote you took from me and your entire response.

Quote from: Sanguinius on 05 November 2008, 23:22:21
http://europa.eu/abc/keyfigures/work/howmany/index_en.htm#chart24

Even according to the EU in 2006 France had 9.4% unemployment which is above the EU average.

"Overall, 7.9% of the EU’s labour force in the EU-27 was unemployed in 2006, compared with 4.6% in the United States."

Guess you shouldn't talk what you don't know about Aaz, unless you think having recorded unemployment sit around the 9%-10% and consistently twice the rate of the USA is the way things should be.


Aaz's comment on my post:


See, that's what's funny about you: always mindlessly retorting and always missing the point while doing so. Irrelevance at its best. Unemployment has been overly high in France since the 1970s and so through rightwing and leftwing governments alike, and the years taken as example (which weren't the most significant by any length) in the post I replied to were during the term of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin, proud member of our Republican party. There had, previously to his term, been a sharp decrease in unemployment during the term of Socialist Party figurehead Lionel Jospin. So yeah, truly a fine point to be made, not to mention the laughable transition from citing various dictatorships to unemployment rates.



After re-reading your post you're still saying it is me who is being absurd to think that that post was directed at me? And just so I know, what on earth is your point? Every time I say anything you say that's not the point, frankly, if nothing I've said is the point, what is the point? for I am genuinely not getting it at all.

I agree that it doesn't require a guide, which I never suggested. Though, the understanding of it has hardly been objective, as with even the simplest of law. The constitution is a document that has been studied, interpreted, and reinterpreted for 200 years. Calling it or its application straight forward has simply not been the case, whether you believe it should be or not. Even the most strict constructionists today interpret the Constitution more than those of a century ago. Anyway, my point was not to debate the constitution, but simply that Obama is well versed in it, having taught Constitutional law for a decade. Whatever his interpretation, while he's certainly no constructionist, I believe there's an important distinction between one following a map and one knowing the terrain. Hopefully, that will be competence to his advantage rather than a source of hubris to our detriment.

Well I think the best parallel here is the bible, people point at bits they like, ignore most of it and utterly misrepresent bits of it. The constitution has been fought over because it is meant to have such power, but really there can't be any serious doubt by an objective reader that vast aspects of US governance today utterly violate the spirit and clearly violates the letter of it. Even recently, there's no doubt the Constitution forbids finance bills from coming from the Senate only the House can do that but that's what they did with the Bail Out and it's not the first time.

Anyway that kind of thing is so common and has been going on for so long it does almost seem silly to focus on this aspect of Obama. Various Presidents since John Adams have clearly gone against bits of it they dislike and now it is largely at the ceremonial role except for a few parts that certain factions actively defend, but then of course that means that it is the faction who keeps a policy going rather than any actual power of the document.

 

[Aazealh]

Are you looking at the post in question?

Yes.

After re-reading your post you're still saying it is me who is being absurd to think that that post was directed at me?

Yes, I still think so, although what I'm saying is that it's absurb of you to think the last line was aimed at a part of your post I didn't quote instead of referring to what I was originally replying to. Phew, are we done yet?

And just so I know, what on earth is your point? Every time I say anything you say that's not the point, frankly, if nothing I've said is the point, what is the point? for I am genuinely not getting it at all.

I think we've all noticed that you weren't getting it. So, quoting myself:

I was merely pointing out that Madam President's precise example was poorly chosen in the context of her post.

 

[Sanguinius]

Yes.

Yes, I still think so, although what I'm saying is that it's absurb of you to think the last line was aimed at a part of your post I didn't quote instead of referring to what I was originally replying to. Phew, are we done yet?

I think we've all noticed that you weren't getting it. So, quoting myself:

Okay sorry, what you said does seem quite clear you were just ignoring all my previous posts when you commented, I just assumed you were still referring to what I had been saying.

 

[spineylamb]

I was just catching up on all the links (which are pretty much all great, even down to that Bill Hicks one) and reading all the posts... and man oh man, reading this thread recently made me feel ten times stupider.

I'm a humble little lurker, but I felt moved this time to share my feeling that this already interesting community has a lot of bright minds, and I'm psyched for some reason knowing that Berserk had a hand in gathering it (kinda hoping that says something about Berserk? Guess it doesn't matter!). Also, haha, there's just no taking Aazealh for a ride People like me, we have to learn and study stuff like what fallacies are all about... but some of you guys just strike me as, I dunno, sharp as a whip just doesn't seem to cut it. Glad you all seem level-headed to go with it

 

[Sanguinius]

I was just catching up on all the links (which are pretty much all great, even down to that Bill Hicks one) and reading all the posts... and man oh man, reading this thread recently made me feel ten times stupider.

I'm a humble little lurker, but I felt moved this time to share my feeling that this already interesting community has a lot of bright minds, and I'm psyched for some reason knowing that Berserk had a hand in gathering it (kinda hoping that says something about Berserk? Guess it doesn't matter!). Also, haha, there's just no taking Aazealh for a ride People like me, we have to learn and study stuff like what fallacies are all about... but some of you guys just strike me as, I dunno, sharp as a whip just doesn't seem to cut it. Glad you all seem level-headed to go with it

If you're interested in studying fallacies I'd recommended a book by Henry Hazlitt, I believe the book is online at mises.org in the link I showed before. A interview summary and review of the book is done here http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=115 if you want to have an idea of what it's like before you look for the book, he writes in a clear manner and you don't need any special prior knowledge. You can then be on the look out for when the "experts" and "great leaders" say and do the stupidest things.

 

[Ramen4ever]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aAtfQJd9hbSw&refer=home

Rahl Emanuel is now the chief of staff for Obama.

Great!

 

[Walter]

Great!

How do you already have something against this guy?

 

[Ramen4ever]

How do you already have something against this guy?

"On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."[6] His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo".

He sounds like a psychopath.

 

[Walter]

He sounds like a psychopath.

* citation needed.

 

[Ramen4ever]

* citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel

Under Career as political staffer close to the bottom.

 

[Walter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik....

Let's just stop right there.

The citation is for a Rolling Stone column. I don't think that's where anyone gets their news. Anyone except Wikipedia anyway.

 

[Ramen4ever]

Let's just stop right there.

The citation is for a Rolling Stone column. I don't think that's where anyone gets their news. Anyone except Wikipedia anyway.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0DE1DF173FF936A25755C0A961958260

 

[Walter]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0DE1DF173FF936A25755C0A961958260

See, that's much better.

But this is even more hilarious to me than that isolated steak knife incident.

THE EMANUEL BROTHERS GOT TOGETHER NOT LONG AGO in Washington for the bris of Rahm's first child, Zacharia. ''He's fabulous,'' Rahm says.

''He looks cute,'' Zeke agrees. ''We don't think Rahm's the father, though.''

So goes a pre-bris interview with the three over tea at the Four Seasons Hotel that regresses into giggles, insults and much nervous jiggling of legs. At one point, all three brothers, apparently unkowningly, are jiggling in unison; at another point, Zeke and Rahm leap up to give each other a high five. ''Our wives say we go right back to when we were 16, 14 and 13,'' offers Rahm, feeling this needs to be pointed out.

The guy's clearly full of energy ... maybe a little too much though? But it's not like this is the guy calling the shots in our nation.

 

[Ramen4ever]

The guy's clearly full of energy ... maybe a little too much though? But it's not like this is the guy calling the shots in our nation.

Well apparently he knows how to get things done. So that's good. But how he gets things done is what I'm concerned about.
Also it's not like the guy's just going to be there to bring other people coffee.

 

[Scorpio]

I like his spirit!

 

[SimplyEd]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9E0DE1DF173FF936A25755C0A961958260

Heh, that was quite nice.^^

Seriously, don't we all have a few decomposing two-and-a-half-foot fishes in our closets?

 

[Griffith]

If you're interested in studying fallacies I'd recommended a book by Henry Hazlitt, I believe the book is online at mises.org in the link I showed before. A interview summary and review of the book is done here http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=115 if you want to have an idea of what it's like before you look for the book, he writes in a clear manner and you don't need any special prior knowledge. You can then be on the look out for when the "experts" and "great leaders" say and do the stupidest things.

Good show, just be sure to apply that critical eye to everything you read up on, spiney, otherwise there's nothing to guard you from being seduced by the fallacies of those warning you about fallacies.

How do you already have something against this guy?

It must be his deep familiarity with "Rahl". =)

Anyway, after eight years of the bullshit we've had coming in and out of the executive branch, I don't blame people for being skeptical, but I think this is different. If you look beyond the anecdotal stuff, he has a record of cooperating across party lines for mutual gain, and even bringing more conservative Democrats into the fold to be competitive, to the chagrin of his own party. Also, if you notice, most of the outlandish stuff is within his own ranks, not partisan strife. From what I'd seen of him before this announcement, he was sharp, intense, and impressive, as is his history with the Clinton administration, though that was only a couple of interviews. Anyway, time will tell, but if he continues to control and focus that intensity to his advantage, he could be very effective for the Obama Administration.

That's not to gloss over his "bad guy" image, actually, I was planning to do a post with a collection of those... fun facts:

Nicknamed "Rahmbo," he once mailed a dead fish to a Democratic pollster who got on his bad side during a long-ago congressional race. Outraged over what he regarded as disloyal Democrats during Clinton's first presidential campaign, he stunned dinner companions by rattling off names of the offenders, each time stabbing the restaurant table with a dinner knife and shouting, "Dead."

"Rahmbo" is said to have mellowed over the years, but that's relative.

He's dangerous," Cole told Fortune then. "He has a closing intensity. When he's got a political kill in sight, he's absolutely relentless."

Emanuel earned a reputation for a colorful intensity unusual even in the hard-hitting world of politics. His profanity is legendary and seems designed in part to throw his interlocutors off-balance.

Emanuel excelled at fundraising, sometimes screaming and shouting at donors until they agreed to contribute -- generously -- to his candidate. He threatened to tear up checks if he considered them too small.

Emanuel trains for and participates in triathlons.

So yeah, the guy sounds like someone out of the Godfather, and actually, even resembles Michael Corleone:

Note the missing finger too, which he's joked, "Of all the fingers for me to lose."

BTW, Obama's favorite movies? Yep, The Godfather, Parts I & II. =)

 

[Ramen4ever]

So yeah, the guy sounds like someone out of the Godfather, and actually, even resembles Michael Corleone:

Michael Corleone: I don't feel I have to wipe everybody out, Tom. Just my enemies.
Michael Corleone: Tom, you know you surprise me. If anything in this life is certain - if history has taught us anything - it's that you can kill *anybody*.

Let's hope he's not .. too much like Michael.

 

[Skeleton]

I like this guy already!

 

[Griffith]

A couple of basic introductory Emanuel videos:

ABC News - Meet the New Chief of Staff - Very puffy, but covers a lot of general ground with some interesting factoids.

Fox News - Who Is Rahm Emanuel? - A casual conversation about him, his politics, and the varied reactions to his selection.

If you want to play a drinking game while you watch, take a shot every time someone says he "gets things done" and you'll be very happy in about five minutes. Anyway, the consensus seems to be that whether or not people like him and his style, they respect him and his ability.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

^
Well I guess all that's left to see is "what" gets done.
Oh and have fun in Iran.

 

[Bekul]

Frankly, after blowing it's load across the middle east and blowing the economy in general, I'm not sure the US has the *ability* left to start another war, at least not before pulling out of Iraq and possible Afganistan first.

 

[smoke]

I'm guessing some kind of blockade will happen.

 

[Vampire_Hunter_Bob]

And so it begins...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/us/politics/10babies.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Also to make it even worse.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/10/father-goes-beh.html