Obama so far

You see, this is the issue:

I think the idea that debt is bad is on par with the idea that Reagan was not so bad--an objective rational person cannot hold the position in good faith.

See, this is just talk. I don't really have an opinion on the matter, not really verses in national economics. And still, I can make that statement. It's argumentation where the rubber meets the road. And since your opinion on the matter is quite outspoken, you can show off how rational and objective your argument is with regard to debt. There's a stage set for you, and you're invited :)

 
I had the same reaction to that quote, but Commodore already said he was using that hyperbole for comedy purposes. And usually it would have been recognized as such.

It's just unfortunate that he posted it in this thread where loonier claims than that have been made quite seriously. For instance the same poster claims:



Which describes Obama ramming through healthcare ... with his feet?

So you see Commodore, this is why people have a hard time realising you were exaggerating for comedy purposes.

Yeah, I see how my sarcasm was lost in the sea of right-wing extremism, but I still have a problem with the fact that he completely missed what my viewpoint on the matter really is. He thinks I'm on the "Obama is Hitler reborn!" side based on one sarcastic sentence that I wrote. If he had bothered to read the entire post and my posts after that, he would realize that is not my position at all. I'm more on the "Obama is completely ineffective as a leader" side of the argument.
 
Yeah, I see how my sarcasm was lost in the sea of right-wing extremism, but I still have a problem with the fact that he completely missed what my viewpoint on the matter really is. He thinks I'm on the "Obama is Hitler reborn!" side based on one sarcastic sentence that I wrote. If he had bothered to read the entire post and my posts after that, he would realize that is not my position at all. I'm more on the "Obama is completely ineffective as a leader" side of the argument.

Mussolini, surely.

J
 
Yeah, I see how my sarcasm was lost in the sea of right-wing extremism, but I still have a problem with the fact that he completely missed what my viewpoint on the matter really is. He thinks I'm on the "Obama is Hitler reborn!" side based on one sarcastic sentence that I wrote. If he had bothered to read the entire post and my posts after that, he would realize that is not my position at all. I'm more on the "Obama is completely ineffective as a leader" side of the argument.
Honestly, anyone who feels there's a tension between "someone is a weak leader" and "someone is a tyrant" has to have a certain romanticism of tyranny.
 
Aren't tyrants, by nature, essentially weak? They really only have the one trump card: blind force.
 
Yes. But a non-tyrant must rely on other means: reasoned argument, emotional appeals, and the like.

A tyrant, who presumably cannot use these other means, must therefore have a much weaker case.
 
So tyrants don't use argumentation and emotional appeals?
 
They can indeed. But when they do they're being less tyrant..ty.

I'm in favour of "tyrants" using reasoned arguments and emotional appeals all the time. Just like ordinary people.
 
Aren't tyrants, by nature, essentially weak? They really only have the one trump card: blind force.

Like bullies are cowards? There is a certain symmetry to that notion. I doubt it is generally true, but in specific cases it is quite possible.

So tyrants don't use argumentation and emotional appeals?

This is such an odd turn of conversation for a thread about President Obama.

J
 
And the Carter v. Reagan hijacking is not an odd turn of conversation for a thread about a President who is in office 30 years later?
 
That makes me expect an explanation. Please, amuse me.
 
Top Bottom