(10-06-2012 08:39 PM)Barrett Wrote:  Here's a question to ask yourself (and try to be honest about it): if the number this week were 9%, would not most conservatives embrace the number as being a further indictment of Obama's policies? Why are the numbers illegitimate just because they happen to swing toward good news in an election year? Also, I think if we're being honest, we'd have to acknowledge that there is a rather larger segment out there who want the numbers to be terrible, just because they hate the current president that much.

Kind of like the thought (which spawned an endless thread) about how there are those here who *want* to see a sh-tty football record this year to get rid of Bailiff. If people can hate Bailiff more than they love Rice football, I think it's certainly possible that people can hate Obama more than they love America.

I think there are two things that lead some observers to sit up and say "What?"

The magnitude of the change is one. Here are some numbers:


2012-02-01 8.3
2012-03-01 8.2
2012-04-01 8.1
2012-05-01 8.2
2012-06-01 8.2
2012-07-01 8.3
2012-08-01 8.1
2012-09-01 7.8

It took 7 months to drop .2%, then fell .3 in one month.

But the other, and more important, thing is the timing. This anomolous drop just happens to be in the last report before the election? Coincidences do happen, and this could be one, but the timing here has to make one's eyebrows rise, unless one is predisposed to accept it because it helps Obama.

Lots of people have questions about this, not just the antiObamaites.

I will be interested to see if the corrected numbers raise the rate and to what degree.

I fall short of believing in some sort of conspiracy, but I also fall short of being blindly accepting. Does skeptical fit that situation?

I think that there are similarities between those who want to see Obama out and those who want to see Bailiff out, in that they see those results as the silver lining to the dark cloud of the bad news. Nobody wanted to lose to memphis, but there are those who say "At least that brings Bailiff's departure a little closer".

I don't think disagreeing with Obama's policies and actions means you hate America. Don't confuse a dislike of the policies with a hatred of the man. I, for one, would love to sit down for a beer with ex-President Obama. Next February works for me. I have to laugh every time someone accuses me of opposing Obama just because he is black. I have opposed those kinds of policies for 30 years, and now people think I would be embracing them if only Obama was white? Get real.

(10-07-2012 01:16 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  2012-02-01 8.3
2012-03-01 8.2
2012-04-01 8.1
2012-05-01 8.2
2012-06-01 8.2
2012-07-01 8.3
2012-08-01 8.1
2012-09-01 7.8

It took 7 months to drop .2%, then fell .3 in one month.

First and foremost, I never mentioned race. You just did.

Second, what do you mean it "took 7 months to drop .2%"? It dropped .2% from July to August (8.3 to 8.1). What this shows is that there can be .2% variance from month to month; this past month, it was a .3% variance from the prior month. Did anyone freak out when July to August fell by .2%? Were there accusations of cooked numbers then? I understand that, for a long time, the numbers had hovered around 8.1 and 8.2. The 7.8 could very well be a statistical anomaly, and we may be above 8.0 next month. I think Obama would be silly to point to one month's number and hang his whole presidency on it (much in the way one good game for Bailiff doesn't mean the program is necessarily healthy).

But I just think it's silly to immediately start thinking the numbers are cooked.

I was never originally an Obama supporter. But I do think the absolute hatred and lack of respect for our current president is puzzling.

(10-07-2012 01:40 PM)Barrett Wrote:  But I do think the absolute hatred and lack of respect for our current president is puzzling.

I don't think people hate him. The anti-Obama people that I know don't hate him, they hate his ideas, because they are terrible ideas.

The left doesn't understand this because they start with the assumption that his ideas are all wonderful ideas, and therefore only personal hatred could lead one to oppose him. If you start with the understanding that his ideas are terrible, then you conclude differently.

(10-07-2012 01:40 PM)Barrett Wrote:  But I do think the absolute hatred and lack of respect for our current president is puzzling.

So what did you think of the absolute hatred and lack of respect for President Bush when he was the current President? I wasn't puzzled - I just thought it was ideological.

(10-07-2012 03:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 01:40 PM)Barrett Wrote:  But I do think the absolute hatred and lack of respect for our current president is puzzling.

So what did you think of the absolute hatred and lack of respect for President Bush when he was the current President? I wasn't puzzled - I just thought it was ideological.

I'm inclined to think that 1) four years of incessant "birther" talk and 2) members of the other party unabashedly acknowledging that seeing Obama fail is more important than fixing the country surpass any disrespect ever shown towards Bush. Nobody ever accused Bush of impugning the integrity of the entire presidential election process. Nor did anyone ever affix Bush's face onto a picture of an aborigine for political gain. Poking fun at Bush's "Texan" character is one thing - criticisms bordering on xenophobia are another.

(10-07-2012 08:05 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  I'm inclined to think that 1) four years of incessant "birther" talk and 2) members of the other party unabashedly acknowledging that seeing Obama fail is more important than fixing the country surpass any disrespect ever shown towards Bush. Nobody ever accused Bush of impugning the integrity of the entire presidential election process. Nor did anyone ever affix Bush's face onto a picture of an aborigine for political gain. Poking fun at Bush's "Texan" character is one thing - criticisms bordering on xenophobia are another.

Are you kidding? Actually both those things were done to Bush. And it was made pretty clear in 2007-08 that Reid and Pelosi were more interested in seeing Bush fail than in fixing the country.

I really think the personal attacks on presidents did cross the line with the republicans--but with Clinton, not Obama. It's stayed across the line ever since.

(10-07-2012 08:05 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  Nobody ever accused Bush of impugning the integrity of the entire presidential election process. Nor did anyone ever affix Bush's face onto a picture of an aborigine.

Really? Because I would generally consider stealing an election in a swing state that would decide the election impugning the integrity of the process, and it seems like I remember one or two people accusing him of that.

But you're right on the second one. I don't remember anyone affixing his face onto an aborigine. Only a chimp, or two, or two hundred. But not an aborigine.

There are good examples you could have pointed to - "You lie!" being probably the best - but I don't think those are it.

eta: The above was the content of the quoted post at the time I began my reply. The edit was made while I had wandered off to do laundry.

(10-07-2012 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 08:05 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  I'm inclined to think that 1) four years of incessant "birther" talk and 2) members of the other party unabashedly acknowledging that seeing Obama fail is more important than fixing the country surpass any disrespect ever shown towards Bush. Nobody ever accused Bush of impugning the integrity of the entire presidential election process. Nor did anyone ever affix Bush's face onto a picture of an aborigine for political gain. Poking fun at Bush's "Texan" character is one thing - criticisms bordering on xenophobia are another.

Are you kidding? Actually both those things were done to Bush. And it was made pretty clear in 2007-08 that Reid and Pelosi were more interested in seeing Bush fail than in fixing the country.

I really think the personal attacks on presidents did cross the line with the republicans--but with Clinton, not Obama. It's stayed across the line ever since.

I agree in principle, but I think it started under Ford - the bumbling, stumbling President that was a danger too all around him. It continued at a low level through Carter and Reagan, escalated a little under Bush "Lied" 41, went way up under clinton, and reached a crescendo with Bush 43. Now, as one famous person has put it, the chickens are coming home to roost. I don't know if we will ever get that genie back into the bottle.

I remember well dozens of people telling me that rising gas prices under Bush were because the President was lining the pockets of his rich friends. At least Obama was spared those whispers when gas prices rose again under his watch.

I don't see the attacks on Bush as attacks on Texans. I don't see the attacks on Obama as attacks on Chicagoans, although Texas and chicago both certainly get mentioned.

It is academic who threw the first stone, and when. I don't think we can say that only one side is casting stones, though. Welcome to politics, 21st century-style.

(10-07-2012 09:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 08:19 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 08:05 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  I'm inclined to think that 1) four years of incessant "birther" talk and 2) members of the other party unabashedly acknowledging that seeing Obama fail is more important than fixing the country surpass any disrespect ever shown towards Bush. Nobody ever accused Bush of impugning the integrity of the entire presidential election process. Nor did anyone ever affix Bush's face onto a picture of an aborigine for political gain. Poking fun at Bush's "Texan" character is one thing - criticisms bordering on xenophobia are another.

Are you kidding? Actually both those things were done to Bush. And it was made pretty clear in 2007-08 that Reid and Pelosi were more interested in seeing Bush fail than in fixing the country.
I really think the personal attacks on presidents did cross the line with the republicans--but with Clinton, not Obama. It's stayed across the line ever since.

I agree in principle, but I think it started under Ford - the bumbling, stumbling President that was a danger too all around him. It continued at a low level through Carter and Reagan, escalated a little under Bush "Lied" 41, went way up under clinton, and reached a crescendo with Bush 43. Now, as one famous person has put it, the chickens are coming home to roost. I don't know if we will ever get that genie back into the bottle.
I remember well dozens of people telling me that rising gas prices under Bush were because the President was lining the pockets of his rich friends. At least Obama was spared those whispers when gas prices rose again under his watch.
I don't see the attacks on Bush as attacks on Texans. I don't see the attacks on Obama as attacks on Chicagoans, although Texas and Chicago both certainly get mentioned.
It is academic who threw the first stone, and when. I don't think we can say that only one side is casting stones, though. Welcome to politics, 21st century-style.

I can go along with that. I thought of going to go back to Ford, with the idea that it really got over the top with the visceral republican hatred of all things Clinton. It's certainly a far cry, on every level, from the Ike-Rayburn-LBJ days. And I don't think we are better for it.

(10-07-2012 09:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I can go along with that. I thought of going to go back to Ford, with the idea that it really got over the top with the visceral republican hatred of all things Clinton. It's certainly a far cry, on every level, from the Ike-Rayburn-LBJ days. And I don't think we are better for it.

Agree - but how do you put that genie back in the bottle? - nasty divorce after all the things that shouldn't ever be said got transcribed in a depo.

Was in the San Antonio media market this weekend (mercifully away from broad band) so caught a bunch of the Quico Canseco v Pete Gallego ads. Both of those guys are going after each other pretty hard - Halloween type graphics.

Pete Gallego is a decent guy and actually seemed to have some respect from the other side of the aisle in the nuthouse that is the Texas House of Rep.

According to the Canseco ads, Gallego is the second coming of Che and 40 lbs overweight to boot. And the Gallego ads are a mirror image attacking Canseco.

We should all vote for Gary Johnson - if Johnson got 30% of the vote maybe that would scare the crap out of both parties.

And maybe the Saints will play defense this year and find a running game.

(10-07-2012 08:21 PM)owl7886 Wrote:  

(10-07-2012 08:05 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  Nobody ever accused Bush of impugning the integrity of the entire presidential election process. Nor did anyone ever affix Bush's face onto a picture of an aborigine.

Really? Because I would generally consider stealing an election in a swing state that would decide the election impugning the integrity of the process, and it seems like I remember one or two people accusing him of that.

But you're right on the second one. I don't remember anyone affixing his face onto an aborigine. Only a chimp, or two, or two hundred. But not an aborigine.

There are good examples you could have pointed to - "You lie!" being probably the best - but I don't think those are it.

eta: The above was the content of the quoted post at the time I began my reply. The edit was made while I had wandered off to do laundry.

Eh, I still think there's a difference. The ire over the 2000 election was directed as much at SCOTUS as it was at Bush, and as far as I know, nobody accused Bush of stuffing ballot boxes himself. On the other hand, Obama's been accused of being a radical Kenyan Muslim socialist hell-bent on circumventing presidential qualification requirements for four years. I don't know - it just seems different to me.

Also, putting Bush's face on a chimp CLEARLY carries less offensive connotations than putting Obama's on an aborigine. The latter would fit in quite well in a D.W. Griffith film, while the former might acceptably find its way onto the New York Times' political cartoon pages.

FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  .

Also, putting Bush's face on a chimp CLEARLY carries less offensive connotations than putting Obama's on an aborigine.

I see little difference, and find neither acceptable. Both images are meant to demean a person and meant to demean the then current President. If you think Bush on a chimp is more acceptable, OK, that's your opinion and we all have a right to one of those.

Lincoln was also compared to an ape, so maybe this isn't so new.

(10-08-2012 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  .

Also, putting Bush's face on a chimp CLEARLY carries less offensive connotations than putting Obama's on an aborigine.

I see little difference, and find neither acceptable. Both images are meant to demean a person and meant to demean the then current President. If you think Bush on a chimp is more acceptable, OK, that's your opinion and we all have a right to one of those.

Lincoln was also compared to an ape, so maybe this isn't so new.

Well said. In both cases, there is a vocal group that focuses its efforts on way-out-there conspiracy theories. Certainly not intellectually stimulated, fact-based or productive.

Personal attacks and dirty campaigning are nothing new in presidential elections. The accusations and rhetoric we have in 2012 pales in comparison to what was said in the early 1800s. From Jefferson v. Adams in 1800:

Quote:Jefferson hired a writer to pen insults rather than dirty his own hands (at least at first). One of his most creative lines said that Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

Adams' Federalists carried things even further, asking voters, "Are you prepared to see your dwellings in flames... female chastity violated... children writhing on the pike? GREAT GOD OF COMPASSION AND JUSTICE, SHIELD MY COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION."

At the end of the day, the reason we see so many personal attacks and so little real debate is because it would quickly become apparent that the candidates agree in principle on all the substantive issues. Neither one of them has a core set of beliefs which guides their decision-making process.

Now that they have the momentum, I noticed several Republican talking heads yesterday urging the Democrats to abandon their negative ads going forward, since they're just a sign of fear.

(10-08-2012 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  .

Also, putting Bush's face on a chimp CLEARLY carries less offensive connotations than putting Obama's on an aborigine.

I see little difference, and find neither acceptable. Both images are meant to demean a person and meant to demean the then current President. If you think Bush on a chimp is more acceptable, OK, that's your opinion and we all have a right to one of those.

Lincoln was also compared to an ape, so maybe this isn't so new.

Regardless of your defense of Kantian moral theory, the history of race relations in this country clearly creates a hierarchy of offensiveness that you're apparently unwilling to accept. Unlike Bush's face on a chimp, Obama's on an aborigine carries the context of centuries of slavery and subjugation of African Americans in this country, and, quite frankly, I find it ludicrous that one would equate the two.

Agreed. Much in the same way that, if one were to hang Bush in effigy, it takes on different connotations than if one were to hang Obama in effigy. Or hell, if one were to call a white person "boy," it's not the same as calling a black man the same thing.

How many movies have been made about assassinating Obama?

And how many of you expressed similar indignation about Death of a President?

(10-08-2012 01:15 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  

(10-08-2012 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote:  .

Also, putting Bush's face on a chimp CLEARLY carries less offensive connotations than putting Obama's on an aborigine.

I see little difference, and find neither acceptable. Both images are meant to demean a person and meant to demean the then current President. If you think Bush on a chimp is more acceptable, OK, that's your opinion and we all have a right to one of those.

Lincoln was also compared to an ape, so maybe this isn't so new.

Regardless of your defense of Kantian moral theory, the history of race relations in this country clearly creates a hierarchy of offensiveness that you're apparently unwilling to accept. Unlike Bush's face on a chimp, Obama's on an aborigine carries the context of centuries of slavery and subjugation of African Americans in this country, and, quite frankly, I find it ludicrous that one would equate the two.

So, would Obama's face on a chimp be less offensive than Obama's face on an aborigine? Just trying to discern if the difference to you is the President demeaned or the method of demeaning.

Personally, I find the comparison to a beast a tad worse than the comparison to another human. But that is just my opinion.

I am not familiar with Kantian moral theory. I guess I got there independently, wherever that is.

(10-08-2012 02:13 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  How many movies have been made about assassinating Obama?

And how many of you expressed similar indignation about Death of a President?

I had to google it.