Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As a sitting President right before beginning budget negotiations its pathetic. He's campaigning, not performing the duties of his office. It explains why his ratings keep falling.
-Partisan Chacago hack in campaign mode "the other side is EEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIL!"
-US President. "I applaud, the Republican beginning. I applaud the Bipartisan commission's efforts. Here is my plan. As your President each group has some ideas with merit, and we all want to balance the budget. Now begins the process of coming together on a joint plan that will fix this crisis. It will be difficult. There will be many stumbling blocks. But with compromise and firm conviction we can come forth with a final plan, a better plan, that will solve this. "

It's hard to be magnanimous when you're already losing the message. It wasn't that long ago that Obama was suggesting moderate increases in so-called "targetted spending" to "win the future." Now, he's on his heels trying to fight cuts as Republicans are essentially directing the message.

If you're a populist, you can't let the other side control the message. In contrast, Bush was a pragmatist, and when the opposition controlled the message, he worked with them to limit the amount of (perceived) damage they could do.

Basically, Obama has to control the message again in order to get control. The only way to do so is to get people talking about his ideas, not compromise deals cut in Congress. This is why he came out and claimed credit for the budget deal that avoided government shutdown. His message is about himself rather than his ideas.

How did he claim credit for the budget disaster that made both parties look like the bickering fethed up simpering toolbags that they are? I thought his strategy was to hold the outfield and then come in with a third way while tearing Ryans idiotic proposals apart on national television after republicans propped it as the "next big thing" once they finished salting the earth with their first meaningless round of micro cuts. I mean, I agree that controlling the message is vital, but isn't it more common belief currently that he hijacked the message from both parties and squarely layed down some science on the bickering idiocy of the 35-60 billion dollar cuts the parties were struggling to get through in the first place? It looked to me that he managed to avoid falling into a lake of gak by staying out of congresses way and then set the table for some good conversations in the coming months for an actual and realistic budget.

Also, as an aside, bush wasn't a political pragmatist. He was a demagogue who rode 9/11 into a second term and then became one of the most unpopular presidents in history once people started to regain emotional composure and realized his policies, speeches, and administration were insanely partisan and utterly dysfunctional.

ShumaGorath wrote:

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As a sitting President right before beginning budget negotiations its pathetic. He's campaigning, not performing the duties of his office. It explains why his ratings keep falling.
-Partisan Chacago hack in campaign mode "the other side is EEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVIL!"
-US President. "I applaud, the Republican beginning. I applaud the Bipartisan commission's efforts. Here is my plan. As your President each group has some ideas with merit, and we all want to balance the budget. Now begins the process of coming together on a joint plan that will fix this crisis. It will be difficult. There will be many stumbling blocks. But with compromise and firm conviction we can come forth with a final plan, a better plan, that will solve this. "

It's hard to be magnanimous when you're already losing the message. It wasn't that long ago that Obama was suggesting moderate increases in so-called "targetted spending" to "win the future." Now, he's on his heels trying to fight cuts as Republicans are essentially directing the message.

If you're a populist, you can't let the other side control the message. In contrast, Bush was a pragmatist, and when the opposition controlled the message, he worked with them to limit the amount of (perceived) damage they could do.

Basically, Obama has to control the message again in order to get control. The only way to do so is to get people talking about his ideas, not compromise deals cut in Congress. This is why he came out and claimed credit for the budget deal that avoided government shutdown. His message is about himself rather than his ideas.

How did he claim credit for the budget disaster that made both parties look like the bickering fethed up simpering toolbags that they are? I thought his strategy was to hold the outfield and then come in with a third way while tearing Ryans idiotic proposals apart on national television after republicans propped it as the "next big thing" once they finished salting the earth with their first meaningless round of micro cuts. I mean, I agree that controlling the message is vital, but isn't it more common belief currently that he hijacked the message from both parties and squarely layed down some science on the bickering idiocy of the 35-60 billion dollar cuts the parties were struggling to get through in the first place? It looked to me that he managed to avoid falling into a lake of gak by staying out of congresses way and then set the table for some good conversations in the coming months for an actual and realistic budget.

Also, as an aside, bush wasn't a political pragmatist. He was a demagogue who rode 9/11 into a second term and then became one of the most unpopular presidents in history once people started to regain emotional composure and realized his policies, speeches, and administration were insanely partisan and utterly dysfunctional.

+1 to this!

ShumaGorath wrote:How did he claim credit for the budget disaster that made both parties look like the bickering fethed up simpering toolbags that they are?

Politico story
"Like any worthwhile compromise both sides had to make tough decision and give ground on issues that are important to them and I certainly did that," Obama said. "Some of the cuts we agreed to will be painful, some of the programs people relied on will be cut back, infrastructure projects will be delayed."

His speech on the issue used statements like "we" and "I". He thereby gave the appearance that it wasn't Congress negotiating on the issue, but that he had an active hand in it. Something he certainly did not give the apperance of during the whole 'budget battle.'

ShumaGorath wrote:I thought his strategy was to hold the outfield and then come in with a third way while tearing Ryans idiotic proposals apart on national television after republicans propped it as the "next big thing" once they finished salting the earth with their first meaningless round of micro cuts.

Are we still talking about the "budget disaster" or are we talking about the new budget?

Also, when you use terms like "Ryan's idiotic proposals" and accusing Republicans of "salting the earth", you give the appearance that you're trolling and not seriously discussing the issue.

ShumaGorath wrote:I mean, I agree that controlling the message is vital, but isn't it more common belief currently that he hijacked the message from both parties

Well, he certainly hijacked the issue of avoiding the shutdown after the deal was reached. If this is what you're referring to, then yes.

ShumaGorath wrote:and squarely layed down some science on the bickering idiocy of the 35-60 billion dollar cuts the parties were struggling to get through in the first place?

Not sure what you mean by "layed down some science." He avoided the budget battle almost entirely.

ShumaGorath wrote:It looked to me that he managed to avoid falling into a lake of gak by staying out of congresses way and then set the table for some good conversations in the coming months for an actual and realistic budget.

I'm not sure what you mean, did he "lay down some science" and force both sides to compromise, or did he "avoid falling into a lake of gak by staying out of congress's way"?

ShumaGorath wrote:Also, as an aside, bush wasn't a political pragmatist. He was a demagogue who rode 9/11 into a second term and then became one of the most unpopular presidents in history once people started to regain emotional composure and realized his policies, speeches, and administration were insanely partisan and utterly dysfunctional.

Ah yes, there's the trolling. Nice work.

Note that I was distinguishing between political pragmatism and populism as different paths taken by different presidents. Bush was pramatic and worked with the opposition to get his pet projects passed. Obama is a populist who doesn't care about what gets done as long as he is the one getting credit for the good stuff that happens (see Libya, BP, budget deal, HCR, DADT, etc.)

edit: stupid edit button too close to quote button...

Also, when you use terms like "Ryan's idiotic proposals" and accusing Republicans of "salting the earth", you give the appearance that you're trolling and not seriously discussing the issue.

I don't consider wanton corrupt idiocy worth discussing seriously, nor do I truly believe people who espouse such are worth discussing such with. I've gotten pretty annoyed with conservative bs lately. It's peaking, and it's showing up on this forum in threads exactly like this one (or the previous SOCIALISM HURR DURR thread).

ShumaGorath wrote:

Also, when you use terms like "Ryan's idiotic proposals" and accusing Republicans of "salting the earth", you give the appearance that you're trolling and not seriously discussing the issue.

I don't consider wanton corrupt idiocy worth discussing seriously, nor do I truly believe people who espouse such are worth discussing such with. I've gotten pretty annoyed with conservative bs lately. It's peaking, and it's showing up on this forum in threads exactly like this one (or the previous SOCIALISM HURR DURR thread).

Then why are you posting here, other than trolling?

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Also, when you use terms like "Ryan's idiotic proposals" and accusing Republicans of "salting the earth", you give the appearance that you're trolling and not seriously discussing the issue.

I don't consider wanton corrupt idiocy worth discussing seriously, nor do I truly believe people who espouse such are worth discussing such with. I've gotten pretty annoyed with conservative bs lately. It's peaking, and it's showing up on this forum in threads exactly like this one (or the previous SOCIALISM HURR DURR thread).

Then why are you posting here, other than trolling?

I suppose the same reason as you are after you've quite the OT section three times. I mean, you did post this troll thread with a troll article in the first place.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Also, when you use terms like "Ryan's idiotic proposals" and accusing Republicans of "salting the earth", you give the appearance that you're trolling and not seriously discussing the issue.

I don't consider wanton corrupt idiocy worth discussing seriously, nor do I truly believe people who espouse such are worth discussing such with. I've gotten pretty annoyed with conservative bs lately. It's peaking, and it's showing up on this forum in threads exactly like this one (or the previous SOCIALISM HURR DURR thread).

Then why are you posting here, other than trolling?

I suppose the same reason as you are after you've quite the OT section three times.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Also, when you use terms like "Ryan's idiotic proposals" and accusing Republicans of "salting the earth", you give the appearance that you're trolling and not seriously discussing the issue.

I don't consider wanton corrupt idiocy worth discussing seriously, nor do I truly believe people who espouse such are worth discussing such with. I've gotten pretty annoyed with conservative bs lately. It's peaking, and it's showing up on this forum in threads exactly like this one (or the previous SOCIALISM HURR DURR thread).

Then why are you posting here, other than trolling?

I suppose the same reason as you are after you've quite the OT section three times.

As a registered Republican who is not always happy with the choices his party makes (like ignoring the economic warnings until too late), I still sincerely doubt that Republicans want to turn America into a third world country.

Frankly it is the overspending that is turning us into a third world country (owned by a communist China unfortunately). From what I recall of U.S. history work on the infrastructure has always been a hotbed of political graft and a simple place to hide pork (by both parties BTW), so limiting that while we diminish the debt sounds reasonable and efficient to me. Removes a temptation to both parties.

Personally, what bothers me (and admittedly I am no expert on the issue) is when I see on TV about how we are giving aid (i.e. money) to other countries. What?!! we are poor, in debt, why are we giving money away . . .

How about everyone calms down and discusses the issue at hand.



I remember when I visited Japan in the early 90s it was like time travelling to the future with all the electronic gadgetry. The UK has now largely caught up, and feature like automatic doors and self activating taps are common, in London anyway.

I've heard that visiting the USA is like time travelling back to the 60s. A lot of infrastructure and "stuff" is quite old fashioned compared to what we are used to in Europe. I don't know if that is really true. I haven't been to the US since 2003.

Bastion of Mediocrity wrote:Personally, what bothers me (and admittedly I am no expert on the issue) is when I see on TV about how we are giving aid (i.e. money) to other countries. What?!! we are poor, in debt, why are we giving money away . . .

We're not technically giving them aid. We're asking China to give them aid and then promising to pay for it.

In some cities the usa is far advanced, but most like the simple home and hearth style. I find places like London and Japan way to crowded and hectic for my tastes. IN the south of the usa we like to sit back BBQ and watch the sunset while fishing. That's way better than fancy robo doors and self activating taps.

sexiest_hero wrote:In some cities the usa is far advanced, but most like the simple home and hearth style. I find places like London and Japan way to crowded and hectic for my tastes. IN the south of the usa we like to sit back BBQ and watch the sunset while fishing. That's way better than fancy robo doors and self activating taps.

I'll take a good BBQ or a chest full of speckle trout over a self flushing toilet any day.

FITZZ wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:In some cities the usa is far advanced, but most like the simple home and hearth style. I find places like London and Japan way to crowded and hectic for my tastes. IN the south of the usa we like to sit back BBQ and watch the sunset while fishing. That's way better than fancy robo doors and self activating taps.

I'll take a good BBQ or a chest full of speckle trout over a self flushing toilet any day.

In Houston we have both. This is counterbalanced by being in a semi liquid environment (except when in drought like now) and flat, really really flat.

Kilkrazy wrote:How about everyone calms down and discusses the issue at hand.



I remember when I visited Japan in the early 90s it was like time travelling to the future with all the electronic gadgetry. The UK has now largely caught up, and feature like automatic doors and self activating taps are common, in London anyway.

I've heard that visiting the USA is like time travelling back to the 60s. A lot of infrastructure and "stuff" is quite old fashioned compared to what we are used to in Europe. I don't know if that is really true. I haven't been to the US since 2003.

There is nothing to discuss in this thread. The original article, the thread title, and Frazzleds first post were all politically hyper charged lies about a misquote from a stump speech and are now being discussed ideologically out of context by people with no interest in actually discussing what was said. The thread should be locked because it was a troll post in the first place.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:How about everyone calms down and discusses the issue at hand.



I remember when I visited Japan in the early 90s it was like time travelling to the future with all the electronic gadgetry. The UK has now largely caught up, and feature like automatic doors and self activating taps are common, in London anyway.

I've heard that visiting the USA is like time travelling back to the 60s. A lot of infrastructure and "stuff" is quite old fashioned compared to what we are used to in Europe. I don't know if that is really true. I haven't been to the US since 2003.

There is nothing to discuss in this thread. The original article, the thread title, and Frazzleds first post were all politically hyper charged lies about a misquote from a stump speech and are now being discussed ideologically out of context by people with no interest in actually discussing what was said. The thread should be locked because it was a troll post in the first place.

No no that was so last hour. Now we're talking about remote control toilets. I wonder, if you could rig an auto toilet, what awesome teenage shenanigans could ensue?

Oh and just because:

If you don't like the thread just don't read it.

I think there is the potential for quite an interesting discussion about the role of goverment, local government, private citizens and private industry in provision of important national infrastructure.

I've heard that visiting the USA is like time travelling back to the 60s. A lot of infrastructure and "stuff" is quite old fashioned compared to what we are used to in Europe. I don't know if that is really true. I haven't been to the US since 2003.

Honestly the whole place is probably just a decade, maybe two from starting to come apart at the seams.

Public transportation is (comparatively), non-existent outside major cities and is more often than not unreliable in the places that do have it. At least by non American standards.

Maintenance is inadequate and infrequent, inspectors are understaffed and under trained, and most new projects finish grossly over budget and behind schedule.

Yeah our infastructure sucks. but that's because we have a habit of trying to do things the cheapest "D+ is passing) way. I wish we could get a railway to go through all the rural areas of the country, if you don't have a car and live in the boondocks, you are out of luck.

Chongara wrote:

I've heard that visiting the USA is like time travelling back to the 60s. A lot of infrastructure and "stuff" is quite old fashioned compared to what we are used to in Europe. I don't know if that is really true. I haven't been to the US since 2003.

Honestly the whole place is probably just a decade, maybe two from starting to come apart at the seams.

Public transportation is (comparatively), non-existent outside major cities and is more often than not unreliable in the places that do have it. At least by non American standards.

Maintenance is inadequate and infrequent, inspectors are understaffed and under trained, and most new projects finish grossly over budget and behind schedule.

We also own more cars per capita then europe and our road system is fairly well upkept and very pervasive. We're a car country, not a bus country.

Fair enough, KK. This thread can remain open and be productive if we can talk more about infrastructure and budgetary wrangling.

I think I'll just retitle the thread to make it more factual, as at least one recent post shows that some people are still thiking that "quote" was actually said by Obama.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Mira Oberman apparently cannot be trusted with a quote. Fraz, why fan flames that incompetent reporter is trying to light?

The quote is: "I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."

He's talking only about infrastructure, and the only Third World comparison he's making is about airports.

He called Ryan's budget plan "UnAmerican" while Ryan was actually there. Brilliant.

That's awesome. Way to have a backbone and stand up for what you believe in.

Ryan's Ayn Rand-infected ideas and plans are UnAmerican.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you don't like the thread just don't read it.

I think there is the potential for quite an interesting discussion about the role of goverment, local government, private citizens and private industry in provision of important national infrastructure.

And if the thread title and frazzled first post werent hyperbolic trolling that exacerbates already bad writing in the piece we could have a great conversation about it. It's just too bad one of the mods likes to troll a lot.

Shuma, the thread has been retitled. Keep it productive and discuss the topic, or get out of the thread please. Thanks!

Im agreeing with Shuma again..

Matty, if so, then your powers of perception are still as bad as they were on April 1.

Mannahnin wrote:Fair enough, KK. This thread can remain open and be productive if we can talk more about infrastructure and budgetary wrangling.

I think I'll just retitle the thread to make it more factual, as at least one recent post shows that some people are still thiking that "quote" was actually said by Obama.

Frazzled wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Mira Oberman apparently cannot be trusted with a quote. Fraz, why fan flames that incompetent reporter is trying to light?

The quote is: "I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought -- that we used to call the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure."

He's talking only about infrastructure, and the only Third World comparison he's making is about airports.

He called Ryan's budget plan "UnAmerican" while Ryan was actually there. Brilliant.

That's awesome. Way to have a backbone and stand up for what you believe in.

Ryan's Ayn Rand-infected ideas and plans are UnAmerican.

You mean like actually having a balanced budget and not become Argentina in two years?
A President should act like a President and not a Chicago politician.

Wait, Obama just stood up and displayed some leadership in regards to his principles and priorities, which was the most Presidential thing Bush ever did (even though I disagreed with Bush's p&p), and you don't think that's presidential?

I disagree. A President needs to stand up for what he believes and lead his party. He also needs to compromise with the other side to get crap done. Obama's been doing a whole lot of compromising over the last few years and not enough standing up and pushing back for my tastes. I'm glad to see him doing it a bit more now.

Anyway, Ryan isn't actually trying to balance the budget.

What was the last year in which the Republicans controlled two out of three of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and we had a balanced budget?

Mannahnin wrote:Wait, Obama just stood up and displayed some leadership in regards to his principles and priorities, which was the most Presidential thing Bush ever did (even though I disagreed with Bush's p&p), and you don't think that's presidential?

I disagree.

Anyway, Ryan isn't actually trying to balance the budget.

What was the last year in which the Republicans controlled two out of three of the House, Senate, and Presidency, and we had a balanced budget?

Which Obama budget? The smoke and mirrors campaign speech he just did or the actual budget he proporsed earlier that grew expendituyres massively?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If you don't like the thread just don't read it.

I think there is the potential for quite an interesting discussion about the role of goverment, local government, private citizens and private industry in provision of important national infrastructure.

And if the thread title and frazzled first post werent hyperbolic trolling that exacerbates already bad writing in the piece we could have a great conversation about it. It's just too bad one of the mods likes to troll a lot.

It is indeed too bad isn't it?

You're changing the subject.

You can't suddenyl grow a pair and say you stood up, when all you said was pablum nonsense.

When you state the economy is going to grow 5% annually for years as an assumption to your budget you just told everyone you're not serious.

Woops toodles, off for the weekend!