-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 03:25:20 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Endless Summer Quarterly
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Obama Drops A (another) Turd
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Obama Drops A (another) Turd  (Read 18772 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Smilin Ed H
Guest
« Reply #50 on: March 02, 2015, 11:03:34 PM »

You gotta Roll with the Punches.
Logged
Rocky Raccoon
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2393



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: March 03, 2015, 06:31:31 AM »

If you really want us to take you seriously, don't be so condescending and stop using scatological euphemisms that make you sound like a five year old.  People like you just make me hate conservatives more than I already do.
Logged

filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #52 on: March 03, 2015, 07:02:07 AM »

Chocolate Shake Man - the report on Monroe and the Kennedy brothers was not Geraldo's but his co-worker, Sylvia Chase's.  Geraldo challenged the network head because Arledge caved to the pressure, exerted on the network, politically, to shut down the story.

Yes, I read what you wrote and I responded accordingly. I'm not sure what gave you any other indication. Whatever the case, this has absolutely nothing to do with Geraldo doing anything to challenge the ruling ideology and thus, the status quo. Maybe he challenged the status quo at ABC, but that's meaningless. So did Norm Macdonald at NBC when he made too many O.J. jokes on Weekend Update on SNL. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call what Norm Macdonald was doing, journalism that criticized the ruling elite.

Quote
If one doesn't have a spectrum of resources for news, you listen to one network.  Excluding one side or another frustrates the purpose of being more fully informed.

I'm really unclear on what you are saying here.

Quote
 And, I think Geraldo's work is informed by his background, both from his education and his work defending marginalized groups.

Then, again, please present one incident where Geraldo was remotely critical of the ruling ideology. And by that I mean a stance critical of the political system of the country as informed by the financial institutions.

Quote
I've only recently discovered that Fox does seem to have more guests, who are controversial, but allowed to speak their minds and debate whatever moderator is in the chair.  Then the "editorial" facet triggers.  But, first, with this format, you get to see the opposing opinion guests, first.  You get to see where they are coming from.

Like on any network, you get a difference of opinion within an extremely narrow range of political thought. You essentially have representatives from the moderate-centre-right to the extreme reactionary right, which is the perfectly predictable consequence when you consider the narrow range of people who own the media (see below). Of course, you don't get voices from the political left since the political left has been all-but eliminated from the public sphere in the United States after decades of massive repression that included all sorts of illegal measures largely carried out by the repressive state apparatus. There's a very rich history of that, I'd be happy to go through it.

I will say, though, I've been happy to see Glenn Greenwald appearing on mainstream networks though most his left-wing opinion is usually curbed in favour of the Snowden discussion, which in and of itself is relevant and important.

Quote
We have a free press.

You are right - people are absolutely free to express whatever views they want within that extremely narrow range of political thought. Nobody is ever told what to say, because any person who has opinions that come from the large space of repressed political ideas would either never get a job at a mainstream network, would never be invited to talk at a mainstream network, or would never even consider that their point of view would be considered "newsworthy" - since what counts as "news" is essentially the narrow political thought that I have already discussed.

Quote
 Other nations don't like that.

Such as?

Quote
They have state-run news. What is better?

Well, of course, if a state is democratic then the state-run news would largely be under control of the population. In the United States, 90% of the media is controlled by 6 corporations. In other words, most of the news that you get in the U.S. is produced by an extraordinary small pocket of concentrated wealth and power, which is largely beholden to no one. On the one hand, state-run media has the potential for being democratic (though not saying that it works out that way); while the type of media that you support is always totalitarian in structure. Again, what you have is most of the media being controlled by a few people - that is textbook totalitarianism.

Quote
I'll take my chances with free market

There is exactly nothing "free market" about the U.S. mainstream media. It is merely an expression of an extremely small minority of concentrated wealth and power.

Quote
and boycott or not watch networks, whose sponsors and propaganda I don't care for.

I try and stay away from this line of thinking - the culture tends to turn individuals with real emotions, concerns, etc. into nothing more than consumers that can be exploited to buy things. In a world where we are not people but consumers, we are indoctrinated into thinking that the best solutions are consumer decisions - "I won't buy your product; I'll buy someone else's" - this only works to continue the cycle that the social structure has set up for us in advance - and this de-humanization of the population, incidentally, is a really recent development in human history.

Quote
Genocide happening right now, is the issue, in my view.  That is the "clear and present danger" to the US.  That is what concerns me.  Today's policies concern me.  I can't fix the 1980's, even if it was shameful.

Sorry, you were the one that brought up the 80s and only to talk about Geraldo fighting for a story about politicians from the 60s. Yes, there are terrible things going on right now, I agree.

Quote
We know more, now, than in the 1980's that you mentioned, because of the internet.  

Not really. The internet is good if you know where to look, but the internet has a virtue of appearing that just because someone says something it's true. Or if it sounds true, then it must be true. The internet has really fostered a "ring of truth" belief system, which, to be honest, is why 90% of the hogwash that you read on page one of this thread is spoken as if it were gospel fact when it fact it is a load of crap, for the most part. Of course, because the corporate elite-run mainstream media is so dominating, and sets itself up as a legitimate source, the type of news you find online that has the "ring of truth" is that which reaffirms the point of view that has already been constructed by the mainstream media, or maybe takes that point of view a bit "further."
That splitting of my post, I don't appreciate.  I spent some time fact checking to respond.  The point is that your assertion about Geraldo being right-wing appears from everything I've read a falsehood. I've followed his career for several decades.

And the Internet has enhanced and unveiled information that in the past has been largely concealed in the past.  Don't assume, please that people who are motivated to do deep research online are precluded from doing so.  

However, I was clearly not bringing up the 80's, to just bring them up, but the significanct and extremely courageous event of Geraldo's going out on a limb for a co-worker.  It was newsworthy in the US. And, demonstrating with readily ascertainable facts that the staff at FOX are highly credentialized.  

While the network staffing might be subject to political lines via the owners, Geraldo's past conduct suggests that they take their chances with him, because he is an activist above all.  Hate them if you like.  It is your perogative.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 07:03:20 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: March 03, 2015, 07:19:44 AM »

That splitting of my post, I don't appreciate.

I'm not sure why. From my perspective, I have split up your post because I am taking what you are saying seriously. And when you take what someone says seriously you realize that every statement they make and every single point that they raise deserves a response. The truth is that, like myself, you make statements that require a great deal of unpacking. I really don't know how paying less attention to what you are saying by responding to your claims en masse is more respectful - as far as I'm concerned it's less respectful. Furthermore, it's the way that I converse dialogically and since I'm telling you that from my end it's a respectful way of engaging with your responses, I expect that you will likewise respect the way that I engage in a discussion.

Quote
The point is that your assertion about Geraldo being right-wing appears from everything I've read a falsehood. I've followed his career for several decades.

Well, let's put it this way: if you are left-wing you are in opposition to capitalism - any kind of capitalism, be it free market capitalism, neo-liberal capitalism, state capitalism, etc. If you could demonstrate a single instance where Geraldo expressed a point of view as a reporter where he suggested or supported a view that called for an end to the private ownership of the nation's resources, then you might have a case that he isn't right-wing. But my assumption is that Geraldo, just like everyone else affiliated with a mainstream news organization is as right-wing as the rest of them.

Quote
And the Internet has enhanced and unveiled information that in the past has been largely concealed in the past. Don't assume, please that people who are motivated to do deep research online are precluded from doing so.  

Well, I'm not sure what the Internet has "unveiled" that hadn't been unveiled by other methods before the 1990s. I mean, yes, there was a lot obfuscation pre-Internet and it was always difficult to find out the truth, but there were always dedicated analysts out there and there were things like The Pentagon Papers where the government had frequently been forced to unveil information due to public pressure. I don't necessarily see the internet as doing anything special in terms of unveiling - what makes the Internet different is that information can circulate in a way that it didn't before. But like I said, the internet is mostly a junkyard. People aren't precluded from finding good information, but it's very difficult to find it and even then people have been so misinformed about what constitutes evidence, that they are very likely to accept whatever has the ring of truth.

Quote
However, I was clearly not bringing up the 80's, to just bring them up, but the significanct and extremely courageous event of Geraldo's going out on a limb for a co-worker.

But this had nothing to do with what I said, which is that Geraldo was obedient to dominating power structures. The example that you gave is where Geraldo's obedience to dominating power structures was clashing with his boss's obedience to dominating power structures, and that's why he got fired. But, in the scenario that you describe, neither person involved was doing anything other than being a subservient lap dog for power - they just saw their role as servants in different ways. And that's why, in my opinion, there was nothing "courageous" about what Geraldo did, at least not relatively speaking for a journalism.

Quote
 It was newsworthy in the US.

Of course it was. That's because what counts as news in the US is anything that doesn't disrupt the status quo. That's why they love this kind of story - it is completely and utterly trivial and harmless.

Quote
While the network staffing might be subject to political lines via the owners, Geraldo's past conduct suggests that they take their chances with him, because he is an activist above all.  Hate them if you like.  It is your perogative.

As a reporter, Geraldo is the opposite of an activist - he's a lap dog who says exactly what his masters want him to say. His record is demonstrative of this, and you have still yet to provide me with a single example where he has been critical of the ruling ideology. I don't hate any of these people, though.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 07:38:00 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #54 on: March 03, 2015, 07:22:50 AM »

Reasonable minds can differ.  Wink
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2015, 07:28:49 AM »

Reasonable minds can differ.  Wink

Of course. But you have yet to explain how you can differ. You have spoken several times to me about facts, and I have given several in this conversation that have been ignored while I have been chastised for dealing very directly with the points that are raised. So it is one thing to say, we differ, but it is another thing to explain why we differ. Again, for example, the issue of Geraldo being right-wing is a matter of fact, not opinion, so if I'm wrong, please demonstrate the facts. The idea that the US mainstream media is organized in a totalitarian fashion is a matter of fact, so again, if I'm wrong, please demonstrate this. Otherwise, I'll assume that what I'm meant to believe is that opinion is more important than facts: a point of view that has definitely proliferated in the wake of rising internet culture.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2015, 07:36:11 AM »

Reasonable minds can differ.  Wink

Of course. But you have yet to explain how you can differ. You have spoken several times to me about facts, and I have given several in this conversation that have been ignored while I have been chastised for dealing very directly with the points that are raised. So it is one thing to say, we differ, but it is another thing to explain why we differ. Again, for example, the issue of Geraldo being right-wing is a matter of fact, not opinion, so if I'm wrong, please demonstrate the facts. The idea that the US mainstream media is organized in a totalitarian fashion is a matter of fact, so again, if I'm wrong, please demonstrate this. Otherwise, I'll assume that what I'm meant to believe is that opinion is more important than facts: a point of view that has definitely proliferated in the wake of rising internet culture.
Your assertion or thesis about the US media being "totalitarian" in terms of "organization" needs to be developed on your end.  Not mine.

It might be shown to the rest of the readership if you enumerate those six or so companies and make some kind of diagram which ties them to their investors or other corporations.  I don't fully understand what you are taking about.  Sorry about that.  Wink
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: March 03, 2015, 07:42:25 AM »

Your assertion or thesis about the US media being "totalitarian" in terms of "organization" needs to be developed on your end.  Not mine.

It might be shown to the rest of the readership if you enumerate those six or so companies and make some kind of diagram which ties them to their investors or other corporations.  I don't fully understand what you are taking about.  Sorry about that.  Wink

Well, again, 90% of the media resources are in the hands of 6 corporations. It used to be 50. Now it's six. In other words, almost all of the information we are given is under the control of an extremely small group of concentrated power and wealth, all of which represent the same ideological point of view. That alone is textbook totalitarianism. But when you add to that the fact that a corporation is in and of itself a totalitarian structure, wherein everybody within it has to abide by the decisions of the owners, then there's not even a possibility that there is anything remotely democratic about the mainstream media.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 07:45:23 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #58 on: March 03, 2015, 07:47:18 AM »

Your assertion or thesis about the US media being "totalitarian" in terms of "organization" needs to be developed on your end.  Not mine.

It might be shown to the rest of the readership if you enumerate those six or so companies and make some kind of diagram which ties them to their investors or other corporations.  I don't fully understand what you are taking about.  Sorry about that.  Wink
Well, again, 90% of the media resources are in the hands of 6 corporations. It used to be 50. Now it's six. In other words, almost all of the information we are given is under the control of an extremely small group of concentrated power and wealth, all of which represent the same ideological point of view. That alone is textbook totalitarianism. But when you add to that the fact that a corporation is in and of itself a totalitarian structure, wherein everybody within it has to abide by the decisions of the owners, then there's not even a possibility that there is anything remotely democratic about the mainstream media.
Please name them and we'll all know. Did they consolidate from the 50? Or are they new companies who took them over in hostile takeovers?
Logged
rab2591
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5865


"My God. It's full of stars."


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: March 03, 2015, 07:52:23 AM »

Your assertion or thesis about the US media being "totalitarian" in terms of "organization" needs to be developed on your end.  Not mine.

It might be shown to the rest of the readership if you enumerate those six or so companies and make some kind of diagram which ties them to their investors or other corporations.  I don't fully understand what you are taking about.  Sorry about that.  Wink
Well, again, 90% of the media resources are in the hands of 6 corporations. It used to be 50. Now it's six. In other words, almost all of the information we are given is under the control of an extremely small group of concentrated power and wealth, all of which represent the same ideological point of view. That alone is textbook totalitarianism. But when you add to that the fact that a corporation is in and of itself a totalitarian structure, wherein everybody within it has to abide by the decisions of the owners, then there's not even a possibility that there is anything remotely democratic about the mainstream media.
Please name them and we'll all know. Did they consolidate from the 50? Or are they new companies who took them over in hostile takeovers?

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
Logged

Bill Tobelman's SMiLE site

God must’ve smiled the day Brian Wilson was born!

"ragegasm" - /rāj • ga-zəm/ : a logical mental response produced when your favorite band becomes remotely associated with the bro-country genre.

Ever want to hear some Beach Boys songs mashed up together like The Beatles' 'LOVE' album? Check out my mix!
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: March 03, 2015, 07:58:50 AM »

Your assertion or thesis about the US media being "totalitarian" in terms of "organization" needs to be developed on your end.  Not mine.

It might be shown to the rest of the readership if you enumerate those six or so companies and make some kind of diagram which ties them to their investors or other corporations.  I don't fully understand what you are taking about.  Sorry about that.  Wink
Well, again, 90% of the media resources are in the hands of 6 corporations. It used to be 50. Now it's six. In other words, almost all of the information we are given is under the control of an extremely small group of concentrated power and wealth, all of which represent the same ideological point of view. That alone is textbook totalitarianism. But when you add to that the fact that a corporation is in and of itself a totalitarian structure, wherein everybody within it has to abide by the decisions of the owners, then there's not even a possibility that there is anything remotely democratic about the mainstream media.
Please name them and we'll all know. Did they consolidate from the 50? Or are they new companies who took them over in hostile takeovers?

The fact that people don't know where they are getting the vast majority of their information from is staggering and is a perfect example of just how subservient the media is to power. At last glance, the 6 corporations were: Comcast, News-corp, Disney, Viacom, Time-Warner, and CBS.  And, yes, a lot of it has to do with consolidation.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #61 on: March 03, 2015, 07:59:14 AM »

Your assertion or thesis about the US media being "totalitarian" in terms of "organization" needs to be developed on your end.  Not mine.

It might be shown to the rest of the readership if you enumerate those six or so companies and make some kind of diagram which ties them to their investors or other corporations.  I don't fully understand what you are taking about.  Sorry about that.  Wink
Well, again, 90% of the media resources are in the hands of 6 corporations. It used to be 50. Now it's six. In other words, almost all of the information we are given is under the control of an extremely small group of concentrated power and wealth, all of which represent the same ideological point of view. That alone is textbook totalitarianism. But when you add to that the fact that a corporation is in and of itself a totalitarian structure, wherein everybody within it has to abide by the decisions of the owners, then there's not even a possibility that there is anything remotely democratic about the mainstream media.
Please name them and we'll all know. Did they consolidate from the 50? Or are they new companies who took them over in hostile takeovers?

http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
Thanks, rab2591 - that is just what I was talking about.  A picture is worth a thousand words!

Now everyone can see that information.

So how does one use that chart effectively?
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #62 on: March 03, 2015, 08:03:28 AM »

What?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: March 03, 2015, 08:09:59 AM »

What?

You can either complain about this or do something about it.

Are there conflicts of interest ?

Is there a new cable company coming to town that you oppose?

Do they have policies of intolerance in their workplace?

That chart is useless, unless you use it.

You can rail against "totalitarianism" in the media.  I'm not sure I'd call it that.  It represents or it could represent, more of a merger for consolidation and maybe efficiency.  I'd look (as a U.S. citizen) at how it benefits my country. Or if it hurts my country.  I'm selfish like that.  LOL


Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #64 on: March 03, 2015, 08:12:22 AM »

If you really want us to take you seriously, don't be so condescending and stop using scatological euphemisms that make you sound like a five year old.  People like you just make me hate conservatives more than I already do.

The point is... Obama's stupidity appears as less offending than my scatological references.    Wink
Logged

409.
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: March 03, 2015, 08:18:41 AM »

You can either complain about this or do something about it.

Well, I do what I can - but what would you suggest?

Quote
Are there conflicts of interest ?

Yes, of course. These are representatives of the country's owners - why in the world would they broadcast news that would challenge their authority or rule? The answer is, they don't.

Quote
Is there a new cable company coming to town that you oppose?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Quote
Do they have policies of intolerance in their workplace?

The number one policy of a corporation is intolerance - they are instruments of oppression.

Quote
You can rail against "totalitarianism" in the media.  I'm not sure I'd call it that. 

I said the media is totalitarian in structure - and given that it is controlled by a small pocket of concentrated power that represents the ruling ideology, then what I said was exactly right.

Quote
It represents or it could represent, more of a merger for consolidation and maybe efficiency.

It's been very efficient in one regard: misinforming the public and largely presenting one dominating ideological point of view. Again, the mainstream media is reflective of its ownership in that it presents a very narrow range of political thought.

Quote
I'd look (as a U.S. citizen) at how it benefits my country. Or if it hurts my country.  I'm selfish like that.  LOL

Of course it hurts your country: constantly misinforming the public so that they unquestionably accept the dominant power structure that is working to marginalize and silence their voices, and curb their own power in the name of authoritarian power, is very damaging.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #66 on: March 03, 2015, 08:23:34 AM »

You can either complain about this or do something about it.

Well, I do what I can - but what would you suggest?

Quote
Are there conflicts of interest ?

Yes, of course. These are representatives of the country's owners - why in the world would they broadcast news that would challenge their authority or rule? The answer is, they don't.

Quote
Is there a new cable company coming to town that you oppose?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Quote
Do they have policies of intolerance in their workplace?

The number one policy of a corporation is intolerance - they are instruments of oppression.

Quote
You can rail against "totalitarianism" in the media.  I'm not sure I'd call it that. 

I said the media is totalitarian in structure - and given that it is controlled by a small pocket of concentrated power that represents the ruling ideology, then what I said was exactly right.

Quote
It represents or it could represent, more of a merger for consolidation and maybe efficiency.

It's been very efficient in one regard: misinforming the public and largely presenting one dominating ideological point of view. Again, the mainstream media is reflective of its ownership in that it presents a very narrow range of political thought.

Quote
I'd look (as a U.S. citizen) at how it benefits my country. Or if it hurts my country.  I'm selfish like that.  LOL

Of course it hurts your country: constantly misinforming the public so that they unquestionably accept the dominant power structure that is working to marginalize and silence their voices, and curb their own power in the name of authoritarian power, is very damaging.

It is why critical thinking is taught. So people know what informs their positions.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #67 on: March 03, 2015, 08:29:03 AM »

It is why critical thinking is taught. So people know what informs their positions.

Which can be helpful if critical thinking wasn't often taught by people who only want you to think critically in particularly acceptable ways. In this sense, Foucault is helpful. He notes that even our notions of rational inquiry are dictated by the power structures of one's given society.

This is why "thinking critically" is often a translation of "think objectively" which treats every issue as having only two sides - both of which are typically representative of repressive authoritarian power.

So, yes, critical thinking is crucial but frequently the way that critical thinking is taught only works to reinforce the very problems that I am bringing up. But genuine critical thinking, which is almost always shut down as early as kindergarten, would be a wonderful thing.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: March 03, 2015, 08:44:13 AM »

It is why critical thinking is taught. So people know what informs their positions.

Which can be helpful if critical thinking wasn't often taught by people who only want you to think critically in particularly acceptable ways. In this sense, Foucault is helpful. He notes that even our notions of rational inquiry are dictated by the power structures of one's given society.

This is why "thinking critically" is often a translation of "think objectively" which treats every issue as having only two sides - both of which are typically representative of repressive authoritarian power.

So, yes, critical thinking is crucial but frequently the way that critical thinking is taught only works to reinforce the very problems that I am bringing up. But genuine critical thinking, which is almost always shut down as early as kindergarten, would be a wonderful thing.
Do you mean Michel Foucault who wrote the presentation for "Le désordre des familles - Lettres de cachet des Archives de la Bastille?" (18th century) Or someone else?

This is way off the topic the Obama thing...there was once a lot of support for him, in the first term, which has evaporated over the last couple of years as many inconsistent statements have been unearthed and foreign policy has gone out the window. 

Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #69 on: March 03, 2015, 09:09:58 AM »

Do you mean Michel Foucault who wrote the presentation for "Le désordre des familles - Lettres de cachet des Archives de la Bastille?" (18th century) Or someone else?

That's the one I mean, but what a strange example to bring up.

Quote
This is way off the topic the Obama thing...there was once a lot of support for him, in the first term, which has evaporated over the last couple of years as many inconsistent statements have been unearthed and foreign policy has gone out the window. 

Of course, Obama is like any other US President in that regard. In some ways, he's better than others, in some ways he's worse. Again, pretty standard fare.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: March 03, 2015, 09:16:35 AM »

Do you mean Michel Foucault who wrote the presentation for "Le désordre des familles - Lettres de cachet des Archives de la Bastille?" (18th century) Or someone else?

That's the one I mean, but what a strange example to bring up.

Quote
This is way off the topic the Obama thing...there was once a lot of support for him, in the first term, which has evaporated over the last couple of years as many inconsistent statements have been unearthed and foreign policy has gone out the window.  

Of course, Obama is like any other US President in that regard. In some ways, he's better than others, in some ways he's worse. Again, pretty standard fare.
Strange? It is on my bookshelf, from a prior course.

Obama is not really like many others. He is taking law-making powers, reserved for Congress. And not in the first term but in the lame duck term.  
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 09:17:53 AM by filledeplage » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2015, 09:22:02 AM »

Strange? It is on my bookshelf, from a prior course.

Fair enough. It's just not a canonical text in the way that The Birth of the Clinic, or The Order of Things, or The History of Sexuality or even his articles on the panopticon, and the author function are.

Quote
Obama is not really like many others. He is taking law-making powers, reserved for Congress. And not in the first term but in the lame duck term.  

In reality, by the end of 2014, Obama had made fewer executive orders than any U.S. President since 1901. There are other covert ways that he's going about using law-making powers, but in truth, every President in the last hundred years have issued executive orders, most of which were used far more egregiously than Obama. So on this issue he is exactly like the others, if not less so.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 09:28:05 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2015, 09:34:28 AM »

Strange? It is on my bookshelf, from a prior course.

Fair enough. It's just not a canonical text in the way that The Birth of the Clinic, or The Order of Things, or The History of Sexuality or even his articles on the panopticon, and the author function are.

Quote
Obama is not really like many others. He is taking law-making powers, reserved for Congress. And not in the first term but in the lame duck term.  

In reality, by the end of 2014, Obama had made fewer executive orders than any U.S. President since 1901. There are other covert ways that he's going about using law-making powers, but in truth, every President in the last hundred years have issued executive orders, most of which were used far more egregiously than Obama. So on this issue he is exactly like the others, if not less so.
What others did in other generations I don't care about. I'm concerned with the here and now. I'm concerned about national and local security. And just because someone else did it doesn't cut it for me. 
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: March 03, 2015, 09:47:43 AM »

What others did in other generations I don't care about. I'm concerned with the here and now. I'm concerned about national and local security. And just because someone else did it doesn't cut it for me.  

Then why did you say that "Obama is not really like many others" in "taking law-making powers reserved for Congress." Why do you suddenly not care about this when it becomes obvious that Obama's use of executive orders is, in fact, less than any other President. When the assumption was that Obama was unique in this regard, it was useful for you to compare him to others.

See, this is the problem. I'm very critical of Obama - and there are lots of critical things that one could say about him. However, the conversation on this thread, particularly on the first page, amounts to fabrications and hysterical lunacy. Case in point: you offered the argument that Obama is unique as a bad president because he over-stretched his political powers, when the reality is that in the case that you talk about, he's over-stretched his powers less not more.

So, while you suggest that we are getting off-point by not talking about Obama, my response to that is that it is unhelpful to discuss things fraudulently and hysterically. What this conversation illustrates is that the criticism that Obama gets could be warranted but, here, is false. And it is false, mostly because it is springs from a whole mythological structure that produces false assumptions (ie. what left-wing means, what right-wing means, what power is, how it operates, and therefore, the media is left leaning, Fox news is uniquely balanced, etc.). And it seems to me that we can't begin to have a conversation about what is really going on before we begin to ask what is causing us to have a conversation in which fabrications and hysteria are treated unquestionably as "the way things really are."
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 09:50:18 AM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #74 on: March 03, 2015, 10:04:08 AM »

What others did in other generations I don't care about. I'm concerned with the here and now. I'm concerned about national and local security. And just because someone else did it doesn't cut it for me.  

Then why did you say that "Obama is not really like many others" in "taking law-making powers reserved for Congress." Why do you suddenly not care about this when it becomes obvious that Obama's use of executive orders is, in fact, less than any other President. When the assumption was that Obama was unique in this regard, it was useful for you to compare him to others.

See, this is the problem. I'm very critical of Obama - and there are lots of critical things that one could say about him. However, the conversation on this thread, particularly on the first page, amounts to fabrications and hysterical lunacy. Case in point: you offered the argument that Obama is unique as a bad president because he over-stretched his political powers, when the reality is that in the case that you talk about, he's over-stretched his powers less not more.

So, while you suggest that we are getting off-point by not talking about Obama, my response to that is that it is unhelpful to discuss things fraudulently and hysterically. What this conversation illustrates is that the criticism that Obama gets could be warranted but, here, is false. And it is false, mostly because it is springs from a whole mythological structure that produces false assumptions (ie. what left-wing means, what right-wing means, what power is, how it operates, and therefore, the media is left leaning, Fox news is uniquely balanced, etc.). And it seems to me that we can't begin to have a conversation about what is really going on before we begin to ask what is causing us to have a conversation in which fabrications and hysteria are treated unquestionably as "the way things really are."
Let me repeat for emphasis. It is of no consequence what others did.  We are in a bad place.

And I do not care for the term "hysteria" or the nonsense of "mythology" that is alluded to.

We have concrete security issues that are unresolved, and threats from both within and without the country.  It's time for action and not discussion and parse words like the WH press corps.  We have a tripartite government for a reason.  That is to avoid a dictatorship or a monarchy.

And the president has a duty to follow and respect the branches of the government he was elected to lead.  And no amount of intellectualizing is going to change that. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.775 seconds with 21 queries.