Online Now 3997

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 2852
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3940
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

Is Obama...

  • CMXI said...

    What good does it do? It provides context for understanding what Obama has accomplished. As I mention in my 3rd point (which you seem to have completely glossed over), Obama inherited an absolutely FUBAR situation. I point out certain numbers under Bush to emphasize how things have changed for the better under Obama. If someone says "Obama had a high of 14.2 million people on food stamps", that gives an erroneous understanding of the situation. In reality, Obama's high was already lower than the previous president, and the number of people on food stamps is trending down! This is a good thing! By providing context, we avoid the trap of simply throwing out a statistic without any true understanding of what it signifies or what it means.

    As for Obama's failures, I don't care about letting his failures stand on their own, of course he's failed in some things, anyone who would deny that is foolish. That's not even close to the reason I cite statistics under Bush. Would you have a problem with right-wing posters citing statistics under Bush as evidence that things have gotten worse under Obama?

    You say that you are providing context, but if you're truly providing context, citing stats from ONE president isn't good enough. If you claim (as 99% of people do) that Bush was a horrible president, what good does it do to use his stats as context for Obama? Shouldn't you be comparing Obama's numbers to other "good" presidents?

    Otherwise you are juicing the stats in Obama's favor.

    I'm not in favor of statistical comparisons, period. I'm in favor of the numbers standing on their own. Obama's numbers are not good. It doesn't make Obama look any better IMO just because Bush's were worse.

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    You say that you are providing context, but if you're truly providing context, citing stats from ONE president isn't good enough. If you claim (as 99% of people do) that Bush was a horrible president, what good does it do to use his stats as context for Obama? Shouldn't you be comparing Obama's numbers to other "good" presidents?

    Otherwise you are juicing the stats in Obama's favor.

    I'm not in favor of statistical comparisons, period. I'm in favor of the numbers standing on their own. Obama's numbers are not good. It doesn't make Obama look any better IMO just because Bush's were worse.

    It doesn't make sense to compare Obama's numbers to other presidents because of the circumstances in which they entered office. Obama entered office in the middle of the worst recession this country has seen since the Great Depression. It wouldn't matter who the previous president was, I'd still cite their numbers because they represent the lead-in to Obama's presidency. It just so happens that Bush II is pretty much universally regarded as the worst president in history, but it's not like I'm cherry-picking the worst president ever and comparing Obama's numbers to his. I'm using the president before Obama to provide context for the economy Obama inherited.

    Would it be easier for you if I just stopped saying "Bush" and instead said "The 43rd POTUS"?

    signature image signature image signature image

    CMXI

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    You say that you are providing context, but if you're truly providing context, citing stats from ONE president isn't good enough. If you claim (as 99% of people do) that Bush was a horrible president, what good does it do to use his stats as context for Obama? Shouldn't you be comparing Obama's numbers to other "good" presidents?

    Otherwise you are juicing the stats in Obama's favor.

    I'm not in favor of statistical comparisons, period. I'm in favor of the numbers standing on their own. Obama's numbers are not good. It doesn't make Obama look any better IMO just because Bush's were worse.

    Context is also needed to offset the rapid advancement of the population and inflation. OMG WE SPEND ALLTIME HIGH X DOLLARS. Ya, let's compare that to 20 years ago when dollars were not the same. Let's cite population numbers, even though our population is always growing. Spouting off a number without any sort of context is useless. This is sadly what news and rhetoric have devolved into and you are a prime example.

    dinkmctip

  • CMXI said...

    It doesn't make sense to compare Obama's numbers to other presidents because of the circumstances in which they entered office. Obama entered office in the middle of the worst recession this country has seen since the Great Depression. It wouldn't matter who the previous president was, I'd still cite their numbers because they represent the lead-in to Obama's presidency. It just so happens that Bush II is pretty much universally regarded as the worst president in history, but it's not like I'm cherry-picking the worst president ever and comparing Obama's numbers to his. I'm using the president before Obama to provide context for the economy Obama inherited.

    Would it be easier for you if I just stopped saying "Bush" and instead said "The 43rd POTUS"?

    I'm not sure how to put this... my problem isn't with people citing Bush, it's with people thinking that citing Bush means anything of significance.

    If Bush is the worst president in history, and Obama's numbers are only slightly better (and in some cases, worse)... what does that mean? Nothing.

    Arguing about stats is pretty irrelevant, because the sitting president doesn't really do much to contribute to those numbers in many cases. Sometimes, they clearly do. But a lot of the time, it's the economy recovering on its own that impacts things.

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • dinkmctip said...

    Context is also needed to offset the rapid advancement of the population and inflation. OMG WE SPEND ALLTIME HIGH X DOLLARS. Ya, let's compare that to 20 years ago when dollars were not the same. Let's cite population numbers, even though our population is always growing. Spouting off a number without any sort of context is useless. This is sadly what news and rhetoric have devolved into and you are a prime example.

    I just don't think numbers that Obama had zero impact on help an argument, at all.

    I don't use statistics. I look at what Obama has actually put into effect while in office. Policy, laws, etc.

    What has he done of substance?

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    I just don't think numbers that Obama had zero impact on help an argument, at all.

    I don't use statistics. I look at what Obama has actually put into effect while in office. Policy, laws, etc.

    What has he done of substance?

    Since he is the President he actually doesn't produce much of substance...usually produces intangible things like policy and signs bills into laws and heads agencies.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "The Michigan Man is certain he invented the Big Ten, along with intellect, cocktails and sex."

    Wendel Clark

  • Wendel Clark said...

    Out of recession, terrorists killed, less american lives lost, better environmental standards, more gay rights, saved US auto industry, improved strength of the dollar, good effort in Libya,

    Woah, Woah, Woah. When we asked for a list a accomplishments, we didn't actually want a list of things he's accomplished.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    That is the very definition of leading. You were asking a question with specific answers, intending to LEAD the person to a result. That is LEADING. Think about it for one second, please. If you can't understand that you were trying to LEAD people to see things in a certain way, I can't help you.

    No. No. No.

    A leading question is designed to suggest the answer. The answer I was looking for was only revealed until I stated it in a post much later. One could argue either way for each possible answer posed, but having possible answers does not make it leading.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    No. No. No.

    A leading question is designed to suggest the answer. The answer I was looking for was only revealed until I stated it in a post much later. One could argue either way for each possible answer posed, but having possible answers does not make it leading.

    Well, first off, you did suggest the answer, because you only provided two possible answers, one of which was generally racist. So that in itself is leading.

    Secondly, the question was also leading in the sense that you were trying to get the person to realize the contradiction in the answers. So that is also leading.

    Durrr.

    This post was edited by AbsenteeTrojan on 7/2/2012 at 1:06 PM

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • cuznchips28 said...

    Google is your friend

    Gas prices fluctuated rapidly. On July 2, 2008 gas prices were somewhere are around 4 dollars a gallon.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "Madness is rare in individuals - but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule." - Friedrich Nietzsche

    joetheogre

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    Well, first off, you did suggest the answer, because you only provided two possible answers. So that in itself is leading.

    Secondly, the question was also leading in the sense that you were trying to get the person to realize the contradiction in the answers. So that is also leading.

    Durrr.

    Good strategy just focusing on this argument over what the definition of a leading question is. Your debate on politics really wasn't looking so good for you.

    signature image signature image signature image

    mac1992

  • joetheogre said...

    Gas prices fluctuated rapidly. On July 2, 2008 gas prices were somewhere are around 4 dollars a gallon.

    Context doesn't matter. Obama bad.

    signature image signature image signature image

    mac1992

  • gobigblue21 said...

    Good strategy just focusing on this argument over what the definition of a leading question is. Your debate on politics really wasn't looking so good for you.

    Who said I wanted to debate politics? No one has pointed out this great accomplishment of Obama's yet. Until that happens, I'm just here to point out the idiocy inherent in the OP's questions.

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    Well, first off, you did suggest the answer, because you only provided two possible answers, one of which was generally racist. So that in itself is leading.

    Secondly, the question was also leading in the sense that you were trying to get the person to realize the contradiction in the answers. So that is also leading.

    Durrr.

    No. Any question that provides answerS is not necessarily a leading question. Having multiple answers that does not lead one to an immediate conclusion,but requires thought. In addition, it could possibly be neither. Asking," Is Obama a socialist or a communist?" is nowhere near the same as "Obama is a socialist, isn't he?". I just proposed the questions with an affirmation. It takes no thought.

    The original question was not posed for the realization of contradiction. That was going to come later when it was going to be pointed out. One could possibly come to that conclusion independently,but it is not explicitly original as proposed.

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    No. Any question that provides answerS is not necessarily a leading question. Having multiple answers that does not lead one to an immediate conclusion,but requires thought. In addition, it could possibly be neither. Asking," Is Obama a socialist or a communist?" is nowhere near the same as "Obama is a socialist, isn't he?". I just proposed the questions with an affirmation. It takes no thought.

    The original question was not posed for the realization of contradiction. That was going to come later when it was going to be pointed out. One could possibly come to that conclusion independently,but it is not explicitly original as proposed.

    Yeah, sure. Convince yourself all you want. However, you even point out that a question with multiple answers is "not necessarily a leading question." That implies that you know and acknowledge that a question with multiple answers CAN be a leading question, which your were.

    Those questions are a joke, and you know they were an attempt to lead people to a certain answer.

    This post was edited by AbsenteeTrojan on 7/2/2012 at 1:15 PM

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • The way the argument about Obama's presidency so far is contexted ITT, it is futile to post anything because this thread has been so partisan, that positives will be posted for one and they will be negatives for the other (and vice versa).

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    The way the argument about Obama's presidency so far is contexted ITT, it is futile to post anything because this thread has been so partisan, that positives will be posted for one and they will be negatives for the other (and vice versa).

    Oh, and you had no part in it becoming partisan with those questions of yours, right? lol

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    Yeah, sure. Convince yourself all you want. However, you even point out that a question with multiple answers is "not necessarily a leading question." That implies that you know and acknowledge that a question with multiple answers CAN be a leading question, which your were.

    Those questions are a joke, and you know they were an attempt to lead people to a certain answer.

    That Republicans can't even create coherent and non-contradicting claim over the long-term?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    That Republicans can't even create coherent and non-contradicting claim over the long-term?

    I love how you lump ALL REPUBLICANS together, and then complain about a thread somehow becoming partisan. Hmm... I wonder how that happened?

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    Oh, and you had no part in it becoming partisan with those questions of yours, right? lol

    Wait. What's partisan about pointing about the reality that Obama is none of the following:a socialist,a communist,a radical Christian,a muslim, an atheist (well he may be,but you can only take his word for his faith),a fool,a tyrant,and his mandate is not socialism?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    Yeah, sure. Convince yourself all you want. Those questions are a joke, and you know they were an attempt to lead people to a certain answer.

    I did see the questions as a joke, but they weren't trying to lead you to an answer. They were trying to point out that all of those contradictory statements have been used by the same people to answer the same questions. Like you, they do not understand what they are talking about and just say something negative hoping no one notices.

    This post was edited by dinkmctip on 7/2/2012 at 1:20 PM

    dinkmctip

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    Wait. What's partisan about pointing about the reality that Obama is none of the following:a socialist,a communist,a radical Christian,a muslim, an atheist (well he may be,but you can only take his word for his faith),a fool,a tyrant,and his mandate is not socialism?

    What's partisan about it? Maybe the fact that you were implying that all republicans believed either one or the other.

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • AbsenteeTrojan said...

    I love how you lump ALL REPUBLICANS together, and then complain about a thread somehow becoming partisan. Hmm... I wonder how that happened?

    I'm apologize for being too lazy to use more descriptive adjectives.

    Is the phrase "most Republicans can't make coherent and non-contradictory claims in the long-term" ok with you, Mr. Objectivity?

    signature image signature image signature image

    "A political call, the fall guy accord...We can't afford to be neutral on a moving train..."

    BamaLivesFootba

  • dinkmctip said...

    I did see the questions as a joke, but they weren't trying to lead you to an answer. They were trying to point out that all of those contradictory statements have been used by the same people to answer the same questions. Like you, they do not understand what they are talking about and just say something negative hoping no one notices.

    I'm still waiting for you to make any sort of contribution here.

    AbsenteeTrojan

  • BamaLivesFootba said...

    I'm apologize for being too lazy to use more descriptive adjectives.

    Is the phrase "most Republicans can't make coherent and non-contradictory claims in the long-term" ok with you, Mr. Objectivity?

    No more acceptable than saying "most Democrats are poor white trash that live in backwoods Alabama"

    Do you really believe that? Or do you only argue politics on the internet? If the internet (or TV) is your only source for political discourse, you are not going to hear the intelligent arguments. The reason for that is because you are only utilizing media targeted at idiots.

    AbsenteeTrojan