Barack Obama Honeymoon period: How long before you start?

[mikemc]

He was on 60 minutes, which has a reputation as one of the hardest hitting news magazine shows out there. He was interviewed by one of the more hardnosed interviewers.

In the interview, he was given one kind of a jab and one pretty hard body blow. The jab was when the interviewer indicated he may be 'punch drunk', which was handled well. The other, when the interviewer mentioned that some of the relased prisoners from Guantanamo were apparently involved in terrorist recruiting after their release, Obama kind of shrugged it off, as if to say 'well, that is the price of living by one's principles and we can afford that', but he did not dispute the factuality of the statement.

So his appearances tend to leave him exposed here and there, the 'special olympics' thing, the above example... which are things the people who are with him can understand and tolerate, but which are things that his detractors will inflate and grind in as best they can.

The honeymoon is over when his detractors have accrued enough minor spills to use as paint to concoct a distasteful portrait that seems plausible. My thought is that he is smart, and so will learn from these spills, and extend the honeymoon for another 3-5 months.

[edit] to keep his high approval rating through the end of the year, the economy needs to be visibly turned around. The government really doesn't have too much direct control of that-- they can sow some seeds, but how they grow depends on a fair amount of other things.

[LoopStationZebra]

meh.

When 1 out of 3 Obama news clips on NPR are still all about exactly what brand of grape soda is Grandfather liked to drink in Kenya, I'd say the Honeymoon period is still in full force - with no sign of slowing.

"Up next on NPR: President Obama and his iPod playlist. What's on it and why you should care."

meh.

[db91977]

Again, you haven't answered why you think environmental laws are bad? and spent a good amount of time trying to debunk global warming? You seriously cannot believe that global warming issues are the cause of the recession? Had nothing to do with corporate greed right? You know the same greed that fueled poisoning Lake Erie? You make connections between things that simply aren't there, it's why I said it's silly to debate you, you won't answer questions that don't play into your rhetoric. It's talking to a brick wall.

For instance Obama. I didn't vote for him, but I'm well aware that no matter how crazy I think his policies are, two months simply isn't enough time to come to any rational conclusions. You've actually argued that it is.

Why debate with a brick wall? We all know where you stand:
All business is OK, and any government intervention there is wrong, the government will screw it up.
Social programs by the government are bad because the government can't do anything right.
So accordingly spending on social issues is bad.
Intervention into other countries by our government are however OK, if the paperwork is in order.
So accordingly, in light of the threat of 'terrorism', military spending is necessary.
I would bet you're anti UN as well.......

Prove me wrong, I would be delighted to be.

I'm not sure why you feel that you're talking to a brick wall- I've pointed out facts, figures, gave my opinions and viewpoints on various topics (this is becoming quite a broad thread!) and think I have been forthright and said what I mean. If you're willing to converse and discuss the issues, then great. If not, I guess you don't have to read or participate in this thread.

The global warming thing came up because of an off-hand comment I made about Al Gore. It's not the central topic here, obviously, but people wanted to talk about it, so here we are. No, I don't believe that global warming is a cause of the recession. Not at all. It is a peripheral issue, but one related to the role of government and business, and their propensity to "bend" (to put it kindly) scientific consensus to further their agendas. The recession has everything to do with corporate greed, corporate and government corruption, lack of government oversight (where was the Securities and Exchange Commission when they got tipped off numerous times ( http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/ ... f-hearing/ )about the Madoff situation, for one example), the cluelessness, gullibility, and greed of the general public. And probably other factors, but these come to mind immediately.

What things have I made connections between that "simply aren't there"? It could be that I misstated my position, or incompletely stated it. And I have answered most of the questions posed here.

We gradually perceive where other people 'stand' through conversation, discussion, etc.. give it some time.

One thing that I can say for sure- each of us has opinions, viewpoints, beliefs, on various topics. I can also state with near certainty that none of our opinions and viewpoints are based on complete knowledge of a topic. Especially topics as broad as social, government, and business issues. I have been known in the past to change my viewpoints on various topics, through exploration, increasing my knowledge, discussion with others who have different viewpoints, etc.. I think that's what any reasonable person does. Growth is life. When you're done growing, you're dead. So "where I stand" on a given topic might shift now and then, as I grow. Is everyone else in this forum willing to hear different viewpoints, and consider them carefully, when those viewpoints challenge closely-held beliefs or opinions? Perhaps not, but good listeners make good conversationalists.

Running out of time- I'll come back to this later.

[db91977]

Interesting report I ran across this morning - "U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009"

link to .pdf report here:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... N=75887915

There are plenty of supportive links within the report. What's not surprising about this report is that it shoots down, rather effectively, that there is a "consensus" in the scientific community regarding the contention that the anthropogenic component of global warming is significant. The fact that the number of scientists worldwide who dissent this claim is growing, ought to raise a few eyebrows, though.

Another interesting page from the EPW site, which reveals that a significant amount of suppression of scientific data goes on, when those data are not in agreement with the agenda of certain entities...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 9098538277

Seems to me that with the growing amount of dissent regarding the claims of anthropogenic global warming, we ought to sit up and take notice, and wonder if they might have something there. After all, these claims are much like the claims of that crazy Copernicus, who said that the Earth revolved around the sun. How dare these rogue scientists go against the holy scriptures of The Goreacle and his disciples!

[Machinesworking]

It is a peripheral issue, but one related to the role of government and business, and their propensity to "bend" (to put it kindly) scientific consensus to further their agendas.

You're aware that the major players in this are not necessarily what you think they are right? Exactly how for instance was GWB admin, with it's multiple cabinet members and president who had their hands in oil (Rice has an oil tanker named after her for christs sake?), well how is them not voting for the Kyoto treaty some sort of stand against big business and government greed etc. ? How much clearer could the connection be? We stand virtually alone in this, and you would have to be blind not to see that the last admin had a far too obvious reason for not wanting to vote yes? Let's make this clear here shall we? GWB and co. were the government, they had none too hidden interests in keeping on the same track with oil production, and they voted against global warming.

Pretty much everything you stated but to the opposite conclusion, that big business does not want clean air acts and compliance with a world wide accepted problem. That they don't care as long as the profit margins remain high.

Think about this sincerely, exactly how much money do you think the big oil companies, and hardcore industrial polluters have put into research? Do you really think the government, ( with people at every level who are part of big oil, family ties or directly involved etc. blocking research funding as much as they can ), is somehow some separate entity that can somehow force a scientific study that's accepted as fact by 99% of the worlds governments and an overwhelming majority of the scientists in the field? Don't you think it's maybe just remotely possible that you are the one who's being hoodwinked into believing a particular agenda that very obviously has only one goal in mind, to stop anti pollution laws?

My feeling is 99% of the time, if the entire planet believes it to be an issue, I'm going to at least give it serious thought, and question the dissenters. In this case, it's obvious to me that the "problem" (global warming being a lie) isn't nearly as much of a threat to the planet as listening to the naysayers. I'm right, we don't mess things up, you're right, our air is a little cleaner and as a whole, all of us are better off for it IMO, and no threat was diverted.

Anyway time has become an issue. Suffice to say you still didn't try to correct any of my vast generalizations I made about your politics.

[Machinesworking]

Another interesting page from the EPW site, which reveals that a significant amount of suppression of scientific data goes on, when those data are not in agreement with the agenda of certain entities...

Seems to me that with the growing amount of dissent against the claims of anthropogenic global warming, we ought to sit up and take notice, and wonder if they might have something there. After all, these claims are much like the claims of that crazy Copernicus, who said that the Earth revolved around the sun. How dare these rogue scientists go against the holy scriptures of The Goreacle and his disciples!

Out of curiosity, are you a proponent of intelligent design? Do you think it should be taught in science class?

[db91977]

Out of curiosity, are you a proponent of intelligent design? Do you think it should be taught in science class?

No, I am not a proponent of 'intelligent design'.

I know that intelligent design is not considered 'science' by many, although since intelligent design can be included in the field of theology, and theology is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is a science, they are technically wrong. I could go along with teaching it in a science class, as long as it is framed within the study of philosophy and theology.

[Tone Deft]

Out of curiosity, are you a proponent of intelligent design? Do you think it should be taught in science class?

No, I am not a proponent of 'intelligent design'.

I know that intelligent design is not considered 'science' by many, although since intelligent design can be included in the field of theology, and theology is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is a science, they are technically wrong. I could go along with teaching it in a science class, as long as it is framed within the study of philosophy and theology.

the irony is that the GOP is a direct violation of any notion of intelligent design.




fucking-a, how cool is that?

[Homebelly]

I know that intelligent design is not considered 'science' by many, although since intelligent design can be included in the field of theology, and theology is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is a science, they are technically wrong. I could go along with teaching it in a science class, as long as it is framed within the study of philosophy and theology.

WOW!
This is probably one of the best spins i have ever seen.

[Machinesworking]

Out of curiosity, are you a proponent of intelligent design? Do you think it should be taught in science class?

No, I am not a proponent of 'intelligent design'.

I know that intelligent design is not considered 'science' by many, although since intelligent design can be included in the field of theology, and theology is a branch of philosophy, and philosophy is a science, they are technically wrong. I could go along with teaching it in a science class, as long as it is framed within the study of philosophy and theology.

To echo Homebelly WOW!

[b0unce]

what honeymoon ?

[Homebelly]

what honeymoon ?

Me and you.
And your the bride.

[b0unce]

what honeymoon ?

You and I.
And you're the mean-spirited husband who re-triangulates the co-ordinates of my shit-pipe with his steel-tipped, hollowed-out & then lead-filled nightstick. daily.

fix'd.




But seriously, what honeymoon ?

[acatcalledanarchy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw - interesting viewing for the more open minded.

[knotkranky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw - interesting viewing for the more open minded.

What a giant hunk of shit that video is.

Obama in office 64 days and he's got his own 911 style conspiracy doc

Open minded? You have to be anti every presidents ever.
It takes all that is wrong with our government and blames Obama for it.

Pure crap for the ever so gullible conspiracy nutters.