Friday, March 20, 2009

people aren't even THAT dumb!

OMG OMG,

I just finished watching President Obama on the Tonight Show (w/ Jay Leno) - and boy, he thinks people are dumber than I do! that's just scary.

This guy (Obama) was comparing how toasters come with warnings because its the law but the credit cards and mortgages don't and so the consumers are being taken advantage off.

Well WTF Mr. President...lemme tell you something, even I don't think people are that dumb that they don't understand that a credit card can get them into trouble. I mean REALLY!?!

People who need the government to print warnings on credit cards to inform them that they are dangerous are fiscally irresponsible and they should be locked up. Seriously. Those people are hazardous to the health of the few smart people. They should be locked up somewhere, like a retards home.

OMG OMG.

And puh-leeze, those bozo's who were "conned" by the subprime mortgages need to get brain transplants.

They weren't conned. They wanted the easy way out, so they acted stupidly. How the hell is it not common-sense that paying a mortgage that isn't at a fixed rate bad?

WTF...these people aren't stupid. They're irresponsible.

Like my dad's friend said (his second house is on one of those subprime mortgages) "you only live once"

Yea yea... live once.

Some people shoulda never had the right to take out loans, Mr. Obama (who was the senator who received the most from the Freddie/Frannie scandal -$100,000).

WTF, WTF.

this president has GOT to go! Heck, what the hell is the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES doing on a comedy show in the midst of a financial crisis orchestrated by himself and his buddies (Obama received $101,000 from the execs at AIG for his campaign)?

ERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

46 comments:

Jessica said...

Why is it that the only things I've heard about Obama since he's been president is that he's considering getting a dog for his kids, he predicted the outcome of the college basketball tournament and he was on Jay Leno? Sure is a lot of change... just doesn't seem to be in the right direction.

Honestly Frum said...

His comments about the special Olympics were in horrible taste and offensive. This guy has no clue. If he wants to be a movie star go to Hollywood not Washignton.

Tea Party anyone?

frumskeptic said...

Jessica- cuz this guy has no idea what he's talking about. he is not fit to be President. he was elected by the media solely because of his skin color. it makes me so mad. he shouldn't have been on Leno to begin with.

HF- focusing on the special olympics comment is a red herring. I saw the tonight show and he lied about why the bail out money didn't trickle down. ( he said cuz the banks aren't spending it). no. thy're spending it alright, to bailout the Europeans they owe to (well ok, AIG mainly did that). but still. its like how we have geithner is being an a$$ just so we don't focus on how non of congress actually read the stimulus bill before they passed it.

I have hope for 2010. if we focus on his comment that has nothing to do with pplz 401k's we may not succeed in turning this country in the right direction

Anonymous said...

"he was elected by the media solely because of his skin color. . . "

Don't forget about the fact that he also had Soros's blessing.

Ichabod Chrain

Mikeinmidwood said...

I am still waiting for him to bring the moshiach.

Jewish Sceptic said...

I'm waiting to see (from across the Atlantic) if he really does bring the US a free, national health service like he said he would.

That would be a great thing he does, even if it's the only thing he does...but he seems to be doing well. Bringing in that 90% tax on bonuses is a great idea, we need to do that in Britain.

His handling of the US economy has similarly been good so far, though the jury is still out on the idea of printing more money.

In all, he may not be as sparkly and shiny and new as everyone thought he would be, but then, there never are messiahs in politics, are there?

Anonymous said...

"His handling of the US economy has similarly been good so far. . ."

Well that's true only if you think that taxing and/or nationalizing everything, and subsidizing Acorn, is good. I'm afraid President Obama is in way over his head.

Ichabod Chrain

Anonymous said...

Relax! he is just reading his scripts. Besides if you really want to know the truth about obama then turn off the tv and watch that new documentary "the obama deception".

frumskeptic said...

Jewish Sceptic- What has he done so far that was good for the economy?

The 90% tax is an absolute AWFUL idea. plus, that's not even his idea. its mostly that jackass Chuckie cheese Schumer's and NY attorney General Coumo.

And may I ask how nationalizing healthcare is a good idea? Nevermind a good idea at a time that people are stressed about their savings?

PLEASE PLEASE keep euro trash economy in Europe. We *dont* need it here.

I'd very much like our standard of living to remain second-to-none thank you very much. And if we tax the hell out of corporations and people who employ others- "the rich" -it won't be good.

Please Please tune in. Even Nikolas Sarkozy (however u spell it) said Obama is spending to much.

Nu come on. A frikkin sissy socialist country is laughing at Obama's spending. HOw on earth is that GOOD?

Anonymous 9:18 am- Yup. It's all the teleprompter

The Leader, Garnel Ironheart said...

He won the election for US President based on a vacuous campaign free of details or vision save for "Yes we can!" and "Change!"
Who's dumb? Him or 54% of the American populace?

Moshe said...

People aren't that dumb? Of course they are!

How many people do you know that pay their balance in full each month? Even better, there are morons who use the cash advance feature. The warnings, though, are there, they're called APR and late fees and they're printed on the statement. But, as they say, "You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think"

Sam said...

I can't really understand the point of this post, or how this at all reflects on President Obama instead of the American public. The president used a humorous analogy to point out that people are making riskier moves with serious economic matters than they would with their kitchen appliances. He's a hundred percent right about it--and yes, I think he understands the difference between stupidity and irresponsible choices--and I cannot understand where you justify somehow attacking him over it. Sounds rather like seeing what you want to see from your own biases.

Moreover, as an American who supported Obama because I believed we desperately needed changes he offered, I absolutely take offense at the ridiculous supposition that "he was elected by the media because of his skin color." President Obama was elected by the majority of YOUR country DESPITE his skin color, because of what he stands for. Please think twice before writing offensive and ignorant comments such as those.

frumskeptic said...

Sam-

" The president used a humorous analogy to point out that people are making riskier moves with serious economic matters than they would with their kitchen appliances."

Did you watch the Tonight Show? He was not being humorous. He was being VERY serious. The guy is out trying to grab as much power as he possibly can. As Moshe had pointed out, there already ARE warning labels. A person must be a complete jackass to need the president to give more warnings. Such people are better off locked up.

"because I believed we desperately needed changes he offered,"

He offered changes? How come all I heard was "Change Change..Hope hope.. Yes we can?"

He didn't Offer ANYTHING!

And why are you out supporting him?

He promised Bipartisanship, and then he went and told the republicans who rightfully complained about overspending on the stimulus bill- "WE won" implying no bipartisanship.

He promised no lobbyists, and he has lobbyists.

He has a tax cheat in charge of the IRS. He had to have 2 of his cabinet members resign so far for tax evasion. And he has an incomplete treasury dept at a time of economic crisis.

Go tell me where I'm biased. This guy is a douche bag and YOU along with the media elected him SOLELY for his skin color (maybe not in your case because you're clearly not so bright)

He offered change and then appointed people from CLINTON'S cabinet. WHERE THE HELL IS THE CHANGE?

WHY ARE YOU SUPPORTING HIM?

I'm beginning to wonder if he'll be having an affair with a white house intern as well...

"I absolutely take offense at the ridiculous supposition that "he was elected by the media because of his skin color." "

I'm not trying to offend you. But maybe you'll think about why you actually did it. The dude had no substance in his campaign.

"President Obama was elected by the majority of YOUR country DESPITE his skin color,because of what he stands for. "

Yup. Skin color. And HA! not even an overwhelming majority.

"Please think twice before writing offensive and ignorant comments such as those."

You're talking to yourself about this one, right?

Sam said...

Ha! Lovely. A general suggestion is to avoid ad hominem attacks against those who criticize you, as they tend to decrease your credibility, especially when you're fairly dead wrong (though I suppose you've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh to be aware of that one).

"Did you watch the Tonight Show? He was not being humorous. He was being VERY serious. The guy is out trying to grab as much power as he possibly can. As Moshe had pointed out, there already ARE warning labels. A person must be a complete jackass to need the president to give more warnings. Such people are better off locked up. "

See, I have no problems with your (slightly) more substantive criticism of him as president. But the above, upon which your post is based, is just silly and really reaching. A)The connection between warning labels on credit cards and grabbing as much power as one can is...what, exactly? B) If a person needs to be a jackass to need such warnings, I'd suggest we live in a nation of jackasses. The president was responding (yes, still in a vaguely humorous way--it's a LATE NIGHT COMEDY SHOW, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, NOT A CABINET MEETING) to the reality of what people have actually done. And then your accusation is that he thinks Americans are stupid? Please. What a vapid and substanceless attack for the sake of trying to attack him. You'd best stick to the stuff about the appointees and financial decisions you don't like.

"He offered change and then appointed people from CLINTON'S cabinet. WHERE THE HELL IS THE CHANGE?"

Right, see, the change was away from Bush's cabinet, which was primarily the change I wanted, personally.

Again, your obsession with his skin color speaks more to your attitude on the matter (and, presumably, that of the Fox News team) than mine or those who voted for him. I doubt you even know what you mean when you spout nonsensical rhetoric such as "the media elected him." Perhaps you should get over the fact that a majority liked him and wanted him as president.

Sam said...

As for your claims that Obama "hasn't changed anything"--I'm pretty pleased with the opening of avenues for stem cell research, ending of what has been happening at Guantanamo Bay, and working to get out of Iraq, among other things. Those are fairly overdue changes.

In general, though--give me a break. President Bush et al got us embroiled in two wars with no exit strategies, shut down avenues of scientific advancement, oversaw the torture of foreigners and abuse of civil liberties of US citizens, and held the regulatory policies that in large part allowed the economic crisis we now have. Bush's vice president was dishonest with congress to get support for the Iraq war, and Bush's closest adviser spilled the name of a CIA operative in political retribution.

And you're attacking Obama because he didn't vet two cabinet members closely enough for tax-related issues? Oh wait, he also made a comment you interpret as displaying a lack of total bipartisanship. Ooh boy...

Please. You want to criticize economic policy in an enlightened way, go ahead (as opposed to the criticisms here that seem to somehow miss the fact that, oddly enough, we have yet to hear Obama discuss the uprising and rule of the proletariat). See, for example, an interesting critique of the reaction to AIG bonuses in a recent NYTimes editorial. But the kind of petty nastiness you focus on reflects, again, more on you than on the president.

mlevin said...

Sam - Bush was a president for 8 years and all the criticism you were able to say about him was summarized in four paragraphs. Obama is a president for a bit over two months and there is no end to the incompetence of his presidency.

We are at war with at least three countries, economy is in a toilet and this guy is working on improving his bowling score, playing basketball and choosing a dog, that's in addition to going to comedy shows.

Every time he is asked a difficult question about economy or war he is switching a subject to socialized health care and centralized educational system. Basically he wants to implement the same system here that brought down Soviet Union.

In the meantime he allowed partial birth abortions = translation a slaughter of partially born babies by sucking their brains out. Stem cell research was always going on with previous presidents. What Bush did was stop a government sponsorship of embryonic stem cell research. But Obama opened a door for government to women to get pregnant and subsequently abort their babies to get more embryonic stem cells.

As far as AIG is concerned, what Obama managed to accomplish in his 9 weeks as a president is make honest citizen be fearful for their lives. Last Thursday, AIG employees had to sneak out at 5 o'clock to go home. They were warned to hide all evidence of ever being affiliated with AIG, such as security badges. That's right, the cleaning crew and receptionists who happened to work for AIG are afraid for their lives.

Sam said...

Please. I may have summarized criticisms of Bush into a few paragraph (though I could certainly keep going), but that paragraph contained wars, incredible loss of life, betrayal of the values for which America stands, deception, and economic disaster. The criticisms OneFrumSkeptic has lobbied on and on have primarily been either over petty matters (Obama didn't vet people thoroughly enough, he made a comment on TV that I didn't like) or over Obama not yet cleaning up all of Bush's messes. Or now in your case, ridiculous claims such as "he wants to implement the same system here that brought down Soviet Union" or accusing him of making AIG employees fearful of their lives (I have yet to read his executive order concerning the formation of angry mobs. Funny how the Democrats are at fault both for the AIG bonuses--which make us so very angry!-- and for letting people get so angry about it). Frankly, I think the AIG thing wasn't handled well, but I wouldn't turn to that kind of silly hyperbole. Same with economic criticisms.

I'm fairly disappointed--the only substantive opposition you have shown is a difference in viewpoint towards the stem cell research opened up, where I respectfully disagree with you. The rest is smoke and mirrors. Seriously, these nonsense writings of "all I hear about him is his dog and basketball?" Why are adults writing this? I don't know about you, but I've heard about a whole lot more than that--and if you're not hearing about it, blame your news networks, not the president. (Again, Obama is simultaneously at fault for the moves he has made, and for not making any moves. Let's pick one, shall we?)

mlevin said...

Not sure what you have been reading, but I never heard anyone blaming Obama for AIG bonuses. He is responsible for inciting angry reaction from people by saying things like he was "shocked" and "outraged" to learn about it when the document to include these bonuses as part of a bailout was signed by him.

Obama and his people faked outrage and painted those who received these bonuses as greedy villains. But where is the real story that majority of people receiving these bonuses were not high executives but hardworking employees who brought in profit to the company and that bonus was part of their compensation for their good work. And before you say anything let me remind you that not all divisions of AIG were losing money. There were many that produced profit and those responsible deserved to be properly rewarded for their hard work. Also, no one is talking about the fact that some of the bonuses were as small as 18K and for some people this bonus comprised more than half of their annual salary.

As far as the wars are concerned, let me remind you that it wasn't Bush's idea to fly huge passenger planes into buildings. Let me also remind you that if we relax our terrorism watch (which is what Obama is doing at the moment) we will have more similar attacks on our soil.

So, yes, I do have high criticism of a president who in the midst of war and financial crisis plays bowling, searches for dogs and vilifies employees of private companies.

Anonymous said...

What I find the most humorous about this post is that Frumskeptic sounds so much like a "Frummie." Seriously, while you may not agree with what Obama has done so far as president, one cannot accuse him of doing not much more that choosing a dog and going on Leno. He has been busy and it will take a while for the country to feel the effects of his decisions. Also - only a frummie says he was chosen because of his skin color. Come on.

Anonymous said...

Sam said: "I'm pretty pleased with the opening of avenues for stem cell research, ending of what has been happening at Guantanamo Bay, and working to get out of Iraq, among other thing"

Sam, we have stem cell research. The issue is embryonic stem cell research, and there are arguments pro and con about that. As far as Guantanamo Bay, of Obama is going to release these people into the general prison population, it's a disaster in the making because of their contacts on the outside and their ability to take advantage of the rights inmates have for outside contacts. As far as getting out of Iraq, Obama is basing it on a fixed date rather than on certain benchmarks being met. That's also a recipe for disaster.

As far as AIG goes, yes you can blame Obama at least in part because he pressured Congress to pass the bill before anyone had a chance to thoroughly review it.

Ichabod Chrain

frumskeptic said...

"Also - only a frummie says he was chosen because of his skin color. Come on."

So what was he chosen for?

THe media is super left-wing. So fine, they chose him because he was a liberal as well.

But why him and not Clinton? Afterall, Hil was waaaaaaaaaaaay more qualified. Her husband was well-loved by the media, even before his famous affair. Why Obama?

Simple-

They wanted to make history. They wanted to have a black man in office.

It's that simple. Or else, they wouldn't have given Hillary such a hard time.

frumskeptic said...

Sam-
"A)The connection between warning labels on credit cards and grabbing as much power as one can is...what, exactly?"

Umm, you know. If the government is allowed to force more laws on companies, they're kinda um, you know, using power they shouldn't be using, cuz um, its a capitalist country. So um, what didn't you get? Look at this whole bonus thing. They need it as an excuse to regulate everything. When the whole issue with AIG is the London division. They're faking this outrage. Really, its in the bill HE signed. Mr. President Obama SIGNED the bill that exempted bonuses that were contracted before 2/11/09.

"B) If a person needs to be a jackass to need such warnings, I'd suggest we live in a nation of jackasses."

Why yes, yes we do. This post was defending the people. Now that I'm reading your comments, it concerns me that I've underestimated the stupid of the people, and that you may be right. We live in a nation of jackasses.

"The president was responding (yes, still in a vaguely humorous way--it's a LATE NIGHT COMEDY SHOW, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, NOT A CABINET MEETING)"

No, clearly you didn't watch the tonight show. For a moment Leno wasn't being humorous. He was being serious with Obama. So no, I'm sorry, he wasn't "vaguely humorous" the entire time.

"to the reality of what people have actually done"

People took loans they could not afford because the government pressured banks to give them. You know, that bill by Jimmy Carter in '77 The community reinvestment act. Yea, that one. Acorn (huge sponsor of Obama) was a major factor in giving out those loans.

Obama made a huge chunk from Fannie and Freddie. Why wasn't he going around and lecturing people in the community he organized, about the dangers of sub prime mortgages? Oh wait, he was out giving them!!!

**
Comment on:

Stem cell research?

Bush never denied embryonic stem cell research, just outlawed using tax=payers money to fund it. And at a time of economic crisis, why would any president WANT to spend tax-payers money on s/t like this? Its one thing to be a liberal, but be liberal AFTER a terrible economy stabilizes.

Guantanamo Bay comment:

Long over do? The CIA has said (and recently, forgot where I read it) that the "torture" has saved 9 plane loads of people. You'd rather save a terrorist than a normal, non-suicidal American citizen? Why release those terrorists? They deserve to be tortured. They aren't people. Not even an animal would strap explosives on their own offspring. What kind of a goon allows their kid to fly planes through building to kill innocent civilians? I've got the answer- Those at Guantanamo! Why the HELL should that place be closed?

Khalid Sheikh Mohammad isn't a human, he's an animal. Why was his trial postponed when Obama took office?

And I ask you, what is your preferred method of release for these beings? Would you rather they be released in the terror countries so they run free and take over Northern Pakistan (oh wait, they've done that)? Or would you rather stick them into regular US prisons, where they're tried "fairly?" while even the Geneva convention laws don't expect you to try terrorists the same as regular war-criminals.

What are you spewing, and why?

I have an idea for you...move to France. They love surrender over-there. They love pretending that everything is Bush's fault, and they love socialism.

I think you'd love it there too.

Keep in mind, they have a double digit unemployment, Because socialism works soooo well.

Sam said...

Good God. I don't have the time to deal with half of these rantings. I'll pick the two most egregious pieces of claptrap for now, starting with one of the most absurdly ridiculous pieces of work I've read in a while (from the mouth of someone who claims on their blog to be a philosophy major, inexcusably so):

"Umm, you know. If the government is allowed to force more laws on companies, they're kinda um, you know, using power they shouldn't be using, cuz um, its a capitalist country. So um, what didn't you get? "

Are you serious? Government regulation (in this case, in the form of warning labels) translates into a bid for personal power on behalf of the president (as you previously claimed)? Do you have any conception what "trying to take power" refers to, and how petty and hateful you sound when you use it like that? And, being a capitalist country means the government can't regulate businesses? Um, right. Do you have any idea how the federal government works, what it was founded to do, and the amount of things in your life (very thankfully) that are regulated by it--including economic aspects? (Or, the relationship between our economic structure and government, and how faulty it is to talk about the government overstepping its lawful limits by engaging in the economy?) Ergh. It's times like these I wish civics courses would be mandatory in middle schools. Let me guess, you think a progressive income tax system is socialism and that Adam Smith is listed somewhere in the constitution as its patron saint.

"You'd rather save a terrorist than a normal, non-suicidal American citizen? Why release those terrorists? They deserve to be tortured. They aren't people."

A) First sentence is a false dichotomy. Logical fallacy. B) I see you've already tried the prisoners at Gitmo and sentenced them. What a great way to make a case that they shouldn't be tried fairly. (Hint: it's called begging the question, and it's an argumentative fallacy. Look it up on Wikipedia.) C) How nice for the rest of us that you have become the arbiter of who is human and has the right not to be tortured--you could have saved centuries of Western thought a lot of trouble. It's also nice to know how easy it also is to justify the internment of the Japanese in WWII, McCarthyism, the Terror during the French revolution, and Stalin's purges. D) I love that you can't see the irony in the tension between these two points of yours. Above, you want the federal government to have no powers to interfere with our lives (in some misguided attempt to...to what? Stop the Deomcrats from pillaging our fields and taking our women through economic regulation?), and here you want to take away the very restraints placed upon the federal government so that it does not directly harm us. Which leads into: E) civil liberties are what make America free as it is, and once you're willing to sell those...well, you show me where it ends. You also put Americans in danger when you sell out that value.

As a side note, repeatedly resorting to calling your opponents "stupid" is unbecoming and unimpressive, and shows weakness in the strength of your argument. Personally, I can't deny that it leaves me a little smug that you have to resort to it, because, friend, I'm not worried about the intelligence level on my end of the argument.

Generally, I'll say this. You complain about the economic situation. Here's the funny thing--I'm unhappy with how it's being handled at the moment as well. The difference is, you vent through a load of conservative-talk-radio-inspired rhetoric that is empty, often ignorant and poorly thought-out, and sometimes simply hateful. I.e., rhetoric about the media electing the president, or government interference with the economy being incontrovertibly evil, or standing up for civil rights as "surrender" instead of the courage to take a moral stance it really is. All of that, OneFrumSkeptic, is petty, shallow, and weakens your country. Crawl out of the mental niche you've let yourself get into, and start to think for real about it.

Sam said...

Oh, and I'm really not sure where you get the ideas that caring about civil liberties equals surrender and wanting economic regulation equals socialism (actually, I think I know exactly where you get this from, but I think I've already gone into that).

But it's blatantly false. I support necessary and just wars (almost ended up volunteering for the IDF) and am a capitalist (out of intellectual conviction). Yet I somehow care about protecting those who can easily be abused (physically and economically). Boy, what an un-American value.

My point about Bush was about perspective. As in, Bush did all that, and yet you HATE Obama over the pettinesses I have already described. A bit lacking in perspective, I'd say. France, indeed.

Sam said...

(Apologies for the separate posts--as I said before, I didn't really have time for this before.)

I can't believe I actually have to do this, but you keep insisting on this...

"The media elected Barack Obama because of his skin color."

Ok. First of all, right off the bat, that sentence is nonsensical as presently written. Flashy as rhetoric, meaningless as substance. The media did not elect anyone president. A majority of US citizens aged 18 and above elected Barack Obama president.

So perhaps what you mean is: "The media unduly influenced the election to cause the public to vote for Barack Obama." This would be on the borderline between nonsensical and false, in this case because of the deceptive use of the word "media." There is no one entity known as "the media" that can influence anything; there are many outlets of news media, some of which may have extreme biases to the right or left, some of which may have slight biases, some of which have little if any bias.

Realistically, many (if not most) consumers of a biased outlet already ascribe to its position, and a minority may be undecided voters. So your claim essentially becomes: "The portion of the news media that is heavily slanted to the left effected an overly powerful influence on the segment of the undecided American public that read/viewed it." Seems to lack some of the punch of your original line, no?

Finally, there's the "skin color" bit you can't seem to get over. A poor case to try to make. A) The NYTimes editorial board DID support Hillary Clinton in the primaries (perhaps you should have looked that one up). B) I think it's safe to assume most newspapers on the conservative side of the spectrum discussed above would support the Republican candidate, and most outlets on the liberal side would support the Democratic one, regardless of skin color. Barack Obama was the Democratic candidate. So the race argument carries a rather large burden of proof for you. C) White Americans chose the president BECAUSE he's black? Clearly, you have a far different understanding of race relations in this country than I do.

So your claim essentially amounts to pointing out that some left-leaning news/editorial outlets supported the Democratic contender for office. Thanks for the tip.

Whew, I can't believe I actually just seriously engaged with that. But maybe you'll finally put it to bed.

--------

"Bush never denied embryonic stem cell research, just outlawed using tax=payers money to fund it. And at a time of economic crisis, why would any president WANT to spend tax-payers money on s/t like this?"

Boy, I agree. Trying to find cures for diseases that afflict millions of people, destroy lives, and yes, thus also hurt the almighty economy--who would want to waste money on s**t like that? Parkinson's? Paralysis? MS? Gah, what s**t that is. Medical breakthroughs and scientific advances that can increase the strength of the country, the standard of living of its citizens, its standing in the world, and its economy? Puh.

As for the other responses put forth here about it--yeah, I'm aware that there was some stem cell research available in Bush's time. The point is, he limited what could have been done by a lot.

Done.

Anonymous said...

Sam,
As you say, the media isn't monolithic. But when you compare the audiences of CBS, NYTimes, Oprah, LATimes, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, Washington Post, Slate, NPR, People Magazine, the Burkle papers, and the Soros funded media, to talk radio, and the right leaning blogs, wouldn't you agree that there's a skew far to the left.

Now the skew to the left had some consequences. Were you confident that the media fully investigated Obama's background? There were plenty of things brought out on the right leaning blogs that didn't quite make it into the mainstream media.

While Obama had a softball treatment, and made the cover of People Magazine, the mainstream
media just unloaded on Sarah Palin. Not only was she treated very unfairly in the ABC interview, but they even made up phony quotes about her not knowing that Africa was a continent. SNL made fun of her, but how many in the mainstream media said anything about Biden's numerous gaffes. So you can't just say that the only media bias was that some left leaning newspapers supported Obama. There was a blatant disinformation/propaganda campaign that pervaded the mainstream media.

(Granted, now they're starting to have buyer's remorse, but if they had done their jobs the way they should have before the election, they wouldn't have had to have buyer's remorse.)

Also I think you're dismissing the skin color charge too easily. I remember reading commenters saying that the only reason not to vote for Obama was racism. I also heard plenty of people saying that they were voting for Obama because of his skin color. Now some of these people might have voted Democrat anyway, but that's what I heard them say.

As for embryonic stem cell research, the cures you mention are more likely to come from adult stem cell research. That's why private research funds stayed away from embryonic stem cell research.

You say the federal government was founded to regulate business. The federal government was founded in the 18th century. They didn't regulate business then. Of course they can regulate business, but the question is how much they can, and whether the regulation is cost-efficient. I fear Obama is going to regulate just to regulate or to impose an agenda.

Ichabod Chrain

mlevin said...

Sam - This is a blog not a book, had it been a book FS would have had a chapter "Obama elected by the media" and then 20 or so pages supporting that statement.

Any regulation of business is fundamentally against the capitalism. Any business regulation is socialist at the core. Although small regulation is advisable what Obama administration is trying to achieve is to transform this country from capitalist to socialist. Here are a few examples of what he is trying to achieve: Nationalized banking, nationalized health care, cap on salaries.

Most of the cures in this country were discovered in the private sector, not government and without government funds, so insinuating that Bush interfered with science because he refused to have federally funded embryonic stem cell research is pure slander.

We, as a nation, are already financially stretched and there is absolutely no reason why we should be forced to spend more money on controversial research.

Sam said...

Sigh...I'd rather not keep this going much longer. So briefly:

First, I realized that I earlier mistook OneFrumSkeptic's abbreviation for "something" to be an abbreviation for an expletive, which rather surprised (and upset) me in my response. Oops...

(Hey, look at that, it's ok to admit having made a mistake!)

-I didn't make an accusation that the media comment wasn't supported well, as it would be in a book. I charged that it's fundamentally unsupportable/meaningless as it was phrased, and I fully stand by that. The points that have been brought up in response are very different than what OneFrumSkeptic said, and when analyzed, in no way back up her comment (in addition to, I think, being incorrect).

-I absolutely NEVER said the federal govt was founded to regulate business. I expressed incredulity that, with an understanding of how the federal govt was founded and what its powers are, one could claim it is illicitly expanding its powers by regulating a business. (In contrast, I understand a legitimate fear of overregulation alluded to by Ichabod, but fear a lack of regulation more.)

-"Any business regulation is socialist at the core." Aargh! That's just plain not true. It also twists around what socialism actually is. (As a side note, should we get rid of anti-trust laws as well?) There are different philosophies as to how to best run a capitalist economy, and they have NOTHING whatsoever to do with Marxism/socialism. Let's start using terms precisely so we can discuss them cogently.

-Finally: "insinuating that Bush interfered with science because he refused to have federally funded embryonic stem cell research is pure slander." Ok...I think that refusing to fund a scientific endeavor would be called, by definition, interfering with science (passively, at least, if not actively). Call it justified if you think it is, but let's not just throw out inapplicable terms.

Katie said...

Well, I don't really lean too far in either direction, but speaking from the heart I do hope something gets done about health care....I know too many people who can't afford dental work or other necessities....

Anonymous said...

There are not different philosophies as to how to best run a capitalist. It is Capitalism economy or Socialism.
Eventually any government involvement into economy leads to governments control of the economy.
Eventually people more and more becoming depended on the government and slowly government takes control over peoples life.
Obamas economic plan is a disaster and step forward to Socialism.
I have a feeling for people who do not have any medical coverage, but we can not and must not guaranty the same access to the doctors for people who work and those who never worked. Equality is Marxism.
Equality does not work. Remember USSR?

McCarthy saved this country from Leninists/Stalinism. Great man.

Closing gitmo is a big mistake.

We Jews do not learn from our mistakes. We jews create socialism in USSR and it led to WW2. We Jews suffered from both Socialist systems (USSR and Hitler).
Never again. STOP Socialism.

I agree with FS, MLEVIN and Moshe.

Anonymous H.

Sam said...

"There are not different philosophies as to how to best run a capitalist [state]."

Laissez-faire capitalism, Keynesian capitalism, monetarism, and neo-classical economics come to mind.

"It is Capitalism economy or Socialism."

If you pervert the actual definition of socialism to mean "government involvement in the economy," then government involvement in the economy would imply socialism. And if I change the definition of "Judaism" to mean "belief in Jesus as savior," then Jews believe in Jesus.

"Socialism" is concerned with the abolition of private property--namely, meaning that the means of production are publicly owned (i.e. by the state)--during the rise and rule of the lower classes, aiming at the abolition of classes and thus class struggle. Its aim could also be seen as the redistribution of wealth in more equitable ways.

Capitalism is primarily based on the idea that the means of production should be privately, not publicly owned. Now, you seem to be advocating laissez-fair capitalism ("pure" capitalism, with no intervention) and claiming that it is the ONLY type of capitalism. Not only is it false, but if it were true, it would mean there has probably never been an actual capitalist country.

"Government regulation" is meant to place guidelines on a free market to protect rights and stop the system from harming itself. Government intervention can include: minimum wages, corporate welfare, anti-trust laws, intellectual property, welfare programs, and onwards. Out of curiosity, are you against all of these things?

I'm no economist, but understanding a basic definition of these terms directly contradicts what you have tried to claim. To sum in a more formal argument, we have three points/claims here:

A) Only pure, unregulated capitalism is actually capitalism--anything else is socialism.
B)The US is a capitalist country.
C) The US has had lots of economic regulation during all of our lifetimes.

The first two were claimed by you, the third is a straightforward fact. The three points cannot all be true, as they contradict each other. C) is factually true, and I doubt you would want to say B). As such, A) is false--even if we did not understand the definitions above, which show it to be so.

"Eventually any government involvement into economy leads to governments control of the economy. "

Funny that you contradict yourself here. Above, you were claiming that the only type of capitalism is absolutely unfettered free-market capitalism. Now you're admitting that this is not true, but you claim that economic regulation can LEAD towards too much government involvement, which you incorrectly call "socialism" (see above).

This is closer to a better point. However, I don't believe there is no particular reason to assume that this will be the case, given the very different aims of socialism (equitable distribution of wealth through getting rid of private property) and capitalist state regulation (protect the economy, people, and privately owned property). At most, I see this as a reason to be wary and proceed carefully, not disavow and reject needed laws and rules.

Finally, I find the fact that you see a hero in McCarthy--a man judged by history as a fearmongerer who committed a witch hunt that ruined the lives of many decent and innocent citizens--as unfortunate. I suppose you'd admire a doctor who treats an ingrown toenail by cutting off the toe, and then the surrounding toes as well because they "associated" with the problematic one?

My final message: there are perfectly valid reasons to object to the current financial policies and actions, and valid reasons to be wary of too much financial regulation. I have NOT been arguing against attempts to express those. The ONLY thing I have tried to counter here are arguments based on misinformation or simplifications (such as some of the ones above). I would absolutely respect and thoughtfully consider disagreement were it founded on something more solid. So, please take the time to look into this more carefully so that what you hand me is argument, not rhetoric.

It is this turning of political discussion into rhetoric and invective with little thought and truth value that I have tried to counter. Keep your positions, if you believe in them--but for the right reasons.

Moshe said...

OMG!
Would you shut up already!
Nobody here cares about your propaganda!
You know, for someone who doesn't have time for this, your comments are the longest.

Sam said...

Hee hee! I was hoping someone would say something like that. The problem is that you missed the point. My comments are long precisely because I'm purposefully responding in a thoughtful and analytical way to rhetoric.

Propaganda is given out in sound bites like yours, and reasoned discourse in actual analysis; it is easier to write a quick falsehood than to demonstrate a truth. You may want to try actually seeing if you can argue in any real way with anything I wrote, or pointing to anything in it that you find to be "propaganda."

Anonymous said...

Sam,

You have serious disease called 'leftisides'. Unfortunately very few people are cured from it with maturity.

It is your leftists philosophy brought some much suffering for us Jews and the rest of the world.

Juts try for a moment to concentrate and repeat a few times 'All forms of socialism at one point of time brought one or more nations to the disasters . Think of USSR and Hitler's Socialism'!????

Anonymous H

Anonymous said...

Moshe 2:50

Even if you disagree with Sam, he's playing by the rules.
Sam's trying to respond to what people have argued. That's part of a legitimate discussion.
If OFS feels the discussion has gone on too long, then she can say so, but she might just want a spirited discussion on her blog, and that's what we have.

Ichabod Chrain

Sam said...

Ichabod: Thanks. I'm very glad to know that someone gets that. In general, thank you for actually engaging with what I wrote earlier and making me think again.

Anonymous H: The entire point of my post disagreeing with you was to show that what you CALL socialism is NOT, in fact, socialism. I claimed that saying so is just rhetoric, and so your conclusions are unjustified. And your response is...to call me a socialist and tell me why ACTUAL socialism is dangerous. See what I'm talking about here?

I'd love to be argued against, if you'd actually like to do that.

frumskeptic said...

Sam-
"Sigh...I'd rather not keep this going much longer. "

Please don't. Dealing with liberals makes my head hurt, but i always feel as if I just HAVE to respond.

"I didn't make an accusation that the media comment wasn't supported well, as it would be in a book. I charged that it's fundamentally unsupportable/meaningless as it was phrased, and I fully stand by that. The points that have been brought up in response are very different than what OneFrumSkeptic said, and when analyzed, in no way back up her comment (in addition to, I think, being incorrect). "

Ok, You assume people are smarter than they are. MOST people do NOT even know wth they had voted for.

My manager was going on and on about how much she just loves Hillary, and if Obama were to win the primaries, for once in her life she'd vote for a republican (only if McCain) because Obama was too radical.

So then what? McCain wins, and she's still cheering Hillary. Finally Obama wins, and she's all upset. A week later, she's all hailing Obama, why? "He's a fabulous speaker." & "Did you see how cute his girls are?"

its like...ummm... How come no one spoke about McCain and his "cute" family?

And um, really, speaks well? Why does it matter how anyone speaks when its the president of the US. Its about how educated he is. And obama, ivy league schooling? HA, where was his transcript? We all saw Bush's and Kerry's, how come no one knows abotu Obama;s? They just assume it was full of A's.

And now, that its all the telepromptor, how come she still loves him?

You know why? Becuase THE MEDIA DOESNT TALK ABOUT IT!!

"I absolutely NEVER said the federal govt was founded to regulate business. I expressed incredulity that, with an understanding of how the federal govt was founded and what its powers are, one could claim it is illicitly expanding its powers by regulating a business. (In contrast, I understand a legitimate fear of overregulation alluded to by Ichabod, but fear a lack of regulation more.)"

Firstly, in my sisters words "This guy is soo annoying the way he writes"

Seriously, this is a blog, not a NYTimes editorial.

When I made my comment I didn't mean NO government regulation should be allowed, just not too much of it. This dude (President Obama) is about to takeover banks and investment companies and healtcare and education. Come on, the charter schools in DC were the only ones actually doing well. Now he's allowing hte frikkin unions to throw those out.

"Any business regulation is socialist at the core." Aargh! That's just plain not true.

Oh YES YES it is!

"As a side note, should we get rid of anti-trust laws as well?"

again, SOME regulation. SOME.
But at the same time, if looking at the philosophy of capitalism, according to Smith, trusts will not form, as people thrive better when in competition. Plus, the concept of a trust, in and of itself defies capitalism. So to maintain capitalism, one must prevent a trust.


"Ok...I think that refusing to fund a scientific endeavor would be called, by definition, interfering with science (passively, at least, if not actively). "

Thats fine. Thats beside the point. At a time of economic crisis, why should anyone fund a scientific endeavor that is morally questionable as well? Why take a chance on embryonic stem cell research? What if it doesn't work out. Then what do we have to show for it? A pissed off public (and obama didn't win THAT much on the popular margin) and a bankrupt country.

If you're to argue that Bush didn't spend the money WHILE we had a thriving economy, that's one issue. BUt to approve of this NOW,only shows how you blindly follow Obama wherever he shall take you. and thats just a retarded thing to do at a time of economic crisis (ethical issues aside).

frumskeptic said...

Sam,

and btw, socialism is a stepping stone towards communism. It still is a theory that allows the concept of private ownership/property and forms of individuality.

The concept of Progressive income tax IS exactly that. It *is* EVIL, and out-right anti constitutional. It punishes acheivment and risk-taking, and rewards lazy people.

Obama's plan of redistribution of wealth, is a stepping stone towards ending private property. If you can't even choose how to spend your own money, how is it any different than what stalin did, and forced people to all have the same income?

Its evil, and outright wrong.

I'm with anonynous "H".
Its all the Jews fault. Thats why they hate us. Our hearts bleed too much, and we expect everyone to feel the same.

Do you feel bad for poor people? So do I, but u know what, Unlike you I give charity and don't give a damn if everyone around me does as well. It's not my business, and its not my place to elect a government beaurcrat to monitor how much everyone is giving.

You feel bad for people w/o healthcare? Give to Bikur Cholim.

Don't touch MY money in a form of a tax.

frumskeptic said...

" rhetoric about the media electing the president, or government interference with the economy being incontrovertibly evil, or standing up for civil rights as "surrender" instead of the courage to take a moral stance it really is."

You mean kinda like how the white house (not even the media) is bashing Limbaugh?

You mean to say that I'm as pathetic as the president of the US for caring what a talk-radio show host says about him?

Hmm...

How come throughout the campaign Obama kept tlaking about how we shouldn't listen to talk radio? How come he never said "don't listen to CNN?" (which my awesome fiance refers to as Communist News network?)

Why is there such a threat towards talk radio?

hmmm..

maybe its because they actually told the truht about throughout the election. My manager (who is a product of media-crowd following), didn't even know that Obama had little experience until AFTER the election. And this is a woman that watches the news on a regular basis.

You know what? Only talk radio pointed that out.

And unfortunatly the "empty rhetoric" you speak of, wasn't heard by enough, because this guys inexperience is CLEARLY showing. His own party members are starting to dislike him. The CBO (which is run by Dem's) say he's spending too much!
Oh boy oh boy...

It took a Carter to elect a Raegan. What frightens me, is that Obama is going SOOOOOOOOOOOO fast with all this waste that 4 years may be too long, and no Reagan can even save us!

"My point about Bush was about perspective. As in, Bush did all that, and yet you HATE Obama over the pettinesses I have already described. A bit lacking in perspective, I'd say. France, indeed."

Yes yes, Bush did "all that" yet Obama is continuing on with teh wasteful spending tactics that Bush started.

Where's the change man, WHERE'S THE CHANGE?

Anonymous said...

'socialism is a stepping stone towards communism. It still is a theory that allows the concept of private ownership/property and forms of individuality'.
FS, I am 100% in agreement with you on this issue.

I mentioned USSR and Germany with Hitler twice in my comments but Sam ignored them because these regimes are results or prelude to government control over every aspect of people life.

Just a couple days ago, GM leader resigned because Obama conditioned this step for helping GM.

May be GM leader is incompetent, but it not for the government to decide who runs company (They may suggest, but not condition it).

The problem with big 3 is a legalized MAFIA/SOCIALIST ORGANIZATION call LABOR UNION.

It is another proof that socialism/communism does not do any good for anybody.

Anonymous said...

Last comment was made by Anonymous H.

frumskeptic said...

I was just going to ask if u were 'H' :)

lol.

I hate labor unions. so counterproductive. also, the concept of a tenure. work hard for 10 yrs, then be lazy, and you still have all the job security.

Its funny. the lib are screaming that Bush left with such a huge deficit, yet no one is screaming about Obama's proposed spending to be so large that if u combine all the spending of all the presidents in history, Obama is spending more.

and about gm (aka socialist step Obama took), they say Obama may even fire executives at the financial institutions, and Barney Frank wants to control the pay of ALL employees in those institutions not just the executives.

errr...liberals give me a headache.

frumskeptic said...

I was just going to ask if u were 'H' :)

lol.

I hate labor unions. so counterproductive. also, the concept of a tenure. work hard for 10 yrs, then be lazy, and you still have all the job security.

Its funny. the lib are screaming that Bush left with such a huge deficit, yet no one is screaming about Obama's proposed spending to be so large that if u combine all the spending of all the presidents in history, Obama is spending more.

and about gm (aka socialist step Obama took), they say Obama may even fire executives at the financial institutions, and Barney Frank wants to control the pay of ALL employees in those institutions not just the executives.

errr...liberals give me a headache.

frumskeptic said...

sorry for the double posting. my phone does that sometimes.

red said...

I couldn't agree more!

Great blog, glad I found my way here.

Anonymous said...

OFS,

This is late but kind of on point. Have you seen the latest from Iowahawk:

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/04/red-scare.html
(Hattip Bookwormroom)
Warning- when you read it don't have anything you might spill near your computer.

Ichabod Chrain