JustAnotherAustinOwl
1st String
Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
|
Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
Paraphrasing from memory: "Make no mistake about it, Obama is a despot. But he is a despot constrained by the will of the people in the November election."
Um, wouldn't that by definition make him NOT a despot?
|
|
07-24-2012 07:54 AM |
|
jh
All American
Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/despot?s=t
World English Dictionary (the second listing) Wrote:1. an absolute or tyrannical ruler; autocrat or tyrant
2. any person in power who acts tyrannically
No. I'm not saying I agree with the characterization of Obama (at least not any more than many of our other presidents), but the second definition is inclusive enough to incorporate elected leaders.
|
|
07-24-2012 02:32 PM |
|
WeatherfordOwl
1st String
Posts: 1,168
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 10
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
Well I didn't hear the comment, nor do I care to interpret it. But what I have learned is that for Obama and his associates the law doesn't seem to have any value other than determining to what ends they must go to evade it. And if you own the courts and the press you get to do pretty much what you want. So if there are problems he hasn't solved yet it is no one's fault but his.
|
|
07-31-2012 09:41 PM |
|
jh
All American
Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
Quote:Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that they men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be chosen by the people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they are now, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is absolute and irresponsible.
Lysander Spooner, No Treason No. VI, 1867
|
|
08-01-2012 12:27 AM |
|
JustAnotherAustinOwl
1st String
Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
Not that I really have much hope of resolving this here, but I have yet to hear someone whose perspective is of the "Obama is a radical" or "Obama is a tyrant" variety offer anything of substance to back that up that seems remotely convincing.
I mean yeah, people who didn't vote for him don't like all his policies, just like I won't like Romney's if he wins. Even if the R's are able to abolish Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamneycare, that's not tyranny. That's just policy that I strongly, vehemently disagree with.
The one place I can see the tyranny argument is with some of the post-9/11 stuff where Obama continued W's policies. I'll give Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, and some on the left credit for being consistent across party lines on those.
I'll grant the second definition of tyrant though. : )
|
|
08-01-2012 11:19 AM |
|
jh
All American
Posts: 3,497
Joined: May 2007
Reputation: 80
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-01-2012 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Not that I really have much hope of resolving this here, but I have yet to hear someone whose perspective is of the "Obama is a radical" or "Obama is a tyrant" variety offer anything of substance to back that up that seems remotely convincing.
I mean yeah, people who didn't vote for him don't like all his policies, just like I won't like Romney's if he wins. Even if the R's are able to abolish Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamneycare, that's not tyranny. That's just policy that I strongly, vehemently disagree with.
The one place I can see the tyranny argument is with some of the post-9/11 stuff where Obama continued W's policies. I'll give Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, and some on the left credit for being consistent across party lines on those.
I'll grant the second definition of tyrant though. : )
You are correct that abolishing social security, medicaid, medicare, and obamneycare wouldn't be tyrannical regardless of how vehemently you disagreed with those actions. Tyranny lies not in the government refusing to do what you want (or chosing to do what you do not want) but in the government forcing you to do what it wants. Abolishing each of those programs would increase, rather than decrease, individual liberty. Each of those actions would reduce the power of the government over the individual, not increase it. And it it the power of the government over the individual that makes all governments, at least all those that have ever existed, tyrannical and all presidents despots. Not all of them have chosen to excercise this coercive power to the same extent, but all of them considered that power to be theirs.
|
|
08-01-2012 12:23 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-01-2012 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Not that I really have much hope of resolving this here, but I have yet to hear someone whose perspective is of the "Obama is a radical" or "Obama is a tyrant" variety offer anything of substance to back that up that seems remotely convincing.
That's probably because you are unwilling to be convinced no matter what. What would in your mind constitute convincing eveidence that he is a radical? What about tyrant?
For the record, I don't know that I'd describe him as a tyrant, though I would describe him as a radical. There is certainly sufficient evidence to support a conclusion the he is a radical, but when it is presented then people like yourself tend to rationalize around it, so I do not see much point in trying to engage.
I would say that it's a bit of a disingenuous semantic trick to try to equate the "Obama is a radical" comments with the "Obama is a tyrant" comments. Radical and tyrant are two vastly different things. I suppose the second is easily marginalized and you are hoping for a bit of guilt by association to spill over onto the first.
I think the Boortz point is that he would be a tyrant if he were not constrained by our system. I think Boortz would probably say the same thing about Shrub or any of a number of others among our past presidents.
(This post was last modified: 08-01-2012 03:56 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
|
|
08-01-2012 03:47 PM |
|
FanViaThresherSports09
2nd String
Posts: 304
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Rice
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-01-2012 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (08-01-2012 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Not that I really have much hope of resolving this here, but I have yet to hear someone whose perspective is of the "Obama is a radical" or "Obama is a tyrant" variety offer anything of substance to back that up that seems remotely convincing.
That's probably because you are unwilling to be convinced no matter what. What would in your mind constitute convincing eveidence that he is a radical? What about tyrant?
For the record, I don't know that I'd describe him as a tyrant, though I would describe him as a radical. There is certainly sufficient evidence to support a conclusion the he is a radical, but when it is presented then people like yourself tend to rationalize around it, so I do not see much point in trying to engage.
I would say that it's a bit of a disingenuous semantic trick to try to equate the "Obama is a radical" comments with the "Obama is a tyrant" comments. Radical and tyrant are two vastly different things. I suppose the second is easily marginalized and you are hoping for a bit of guilt by association to spill over onto the first.
I think the Boortz point is that he would be a tyrant if he were not constrained by our system. I think Boortz would probably say the same thing about Shrub or any of a number of others among our past presidents.
Without necessarily going into details about why, are there any other (post 1900) presidents you would classify as "radical"? Just curious.
|
|
08-01-2012 08:48 PM |
|
JustAnotherAustinOwl
1st String
Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-01-2012 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (08-01-2012 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Not that I really have much hope of resolving this here, but I have yet to hear someone whose perspective is of the "Obama is a radical" or "Obama is a tyrant" variety offer anything of substance to back that up that seems remotely convincing.
That's probably because you are unwilling to be convinced no matter what. What would in your mind constitute convincing eveidence that he is a radical? What about tyrant?
For the record, I don't know that I'd describe him as a tyrant, though I would describe him as a radical. There is certainly sufficient evidence to support a conclusion the he is a radical, but when it is presented then people like yourself tend to rationalize around it, so I do not see much point in trying to engage.
Well, fair enough if you don’t want to engage in the discussion, but answers like “there’s sufficient evidence but people like you won’t believe it” are part of why people like myself don’t take such claims seriously.
(08-01-2012 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I would say that it's a bit of a disingenuous semantic trick to try to equate the "Obama is a radical" comments with the "Obama is a tyrant" comments. Radical and tyrant are two vastly different things. I suppose the second is easily marginalized and you are hoping for a bit of guilt by association to spill over onto the first.
To be clear, I wasn’t equating them, thus the use of ‘or’ - though it’s true that I find both to be unsupported and hyperbolic, IMHO. Speaking of semantic tricks, you are taking a sentence I wrote, assigning it a purpose which was not my intention AND explaining my secret motives for the alleged purpose. You are incorrect on both counts, though I suppose I could have been more explicit.
(08-01-2012 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I think the Boortz point is that he would be a tyrant if he were not constrained by our system. I think Boortz would probably say the same thing about Shrub or any of a number of others among our past presidents.
You are probably right here. I’ll give Boortz a pass. I'm sure he'll be relieved. : )
|
|
08-02-2012 09:59 AM |
|
JustAnotherAustinOwl
1st String
Posts: 2,441
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-01-2012 08:48 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote: Without necessarily going into details about why, are there any other (post 1900) presidents you would classify as "radical"? Just curious.
Good question. Probably not. Certainly not in the “wild-eyed, left-wing radical” sense. I can see a case for FDR, but I tend to fall into the camp that sees him as part of the capitalist elite trying to save capitalism from itself for fear of a truly radical change. Which is not to say he didn’t also want to help people and alleviate suffering, etc. just that he wasn’t a secret Trotskyite.
From the “radical divergence” in policy perspective, I think there are stronger cases to be made. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, maybe Reagan, though I think Reagan’s influence is as much about shifting the terms of debate allowing a more gradual shift to the right over time. Of those, I think TR might be the most radical in terms of a long term shift. I don’t know that FDR could have done what he did without TR establishing the precedent for a more active role for government in the economy. But generally I guess I have a high bar for “radical” and don’t think any of them meet it.
Disclaimer: This is off the top of my head and I reserve the right to completely and totally change my answer at the drop of a hat. : )
|
|
08-02-2012 10:10 AM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-02-2012 10:10 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: (08-01-2012 08:48 PM)FanViaThresherSports09 Wrote: Without necessarily going into details about why, are there any other (post 1900) presidents you would classify as "radical"? Just curious.
Good question. Probably not. Certainly not in the “wild-eyed, left-wing radical” sense. I can see a case for FDR, but I tend to fall into the camp that sees him as part of the capitalist elite trying to save capitalism from itself for fear of a truly radical change. Which is not to say he didn’t also want to help people and alleviate suffering, etc. just that he wasn’t a secret Trotskyite.
From the “radical divergence” in policy perspective, I think there are stronger cases to be made. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, LBJ, maybe Reagan, though I think Reagan’s influence is as much about shifting the terms of debate allowing a more gradual shift to the right over time. Of those, I think TR might be the most radical in terms of a long term shift. I don’t know that FDR could have done what he did without TR establishing the precedent for a more active role for government in the economy. But generally I guess I have a high bar for “radical” and don’t think any of them meet it.
Disclaimer: This is off the top of my head and I reserve the right to completely and totally change my answer at the drop of a hat. : )
I had been working on my own answer to this, and had come to pretty much the same conclusions.
The one you don't mention that I would consider strongly is Shrub. I don't really consider him personally to be a radical, but it certainly seems that he punted a lot of the decision-making to neocons like Cheney and Rummy, and I would consider them as being close to the radical bar if not over it. I wouldn't say radically conservative, since there is a lot about neocons that I can't see as conservative. But there were certainly fears that they were out to bring about radical transformation, and I can certainly understand why.
|
|
08-02-2012 12:09 PM |
|
Owl 69/70/75
Just an old rugby coach
Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-02-2012 09:59 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: (08-01-2012 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: (08-01-2012 11:19 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: Not that I really have much hope of resolving this here, but I have yet to hear someone whose perspective is of the "Obama is a radical" or "Obama is a tyrant" variety offer anything of substance to back that up that seems remotely convincing.
That's probably because you are unwilling to be convinced no matter what. What would in your mind constitute convincing eveidence that he is a radical? What about tyrant?
For the record, I don't know that I'd describe him as a tyrant, though I would describe him as a radical. There is certainly sufficient evidence to support a conclusion the he is a radical, but when it is presented then people like yourself tend to rationalize around it, so I do not see much point in trying to engage.
Well, fair enough if you don’t want to engage in the discussion, but answers like “there’s sufficient evidence but people like you won’t believe it” are part of why people like myself don’t take such claims seriously.
Note that I didn't say "don't believe it" but rather "tend to marginalize around it," which is very different. And I did not intend it to be taken personally, although perhaps as you say below about yourself, I could have worded it differently to make that clearer. If you'd truly care to engage in reasonable discussion, I'd like to start with a question for you. Given all that you know about Obama, who would you say is/was the strongest non-radical influence on him?
Quote: (08-01-2012 03:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I would say that it's a bit of a disingenuous semantic trick to try to equate the "Obama is a radical" comments with the "Obama is a tyrant" comments. Radical and tyrant are two vastly different things. I suppose the second is easily marginalized and you are hoping for a bit of guilt by association to spill over onto the first.
To be clear, I wasn’t equating them, thus the use of ‘or’ - though it’s true that I find both to be unsupported and hyperbolic, IMHO. Speaking of semantic tricks, you are taking a sentence I wrote, assigning it a purpose which was not my intention AND explaining my secret motives for the alleged purpose. You are incorrect on both counts, though I suppose I could have been more explicit.
I really don't want to get sidetracked here, since I consider the above part of the discussion to be far more important. So I have comments here, but I will withhold them for now.
|
|
08-02-2012 12:25 PM |
|
Antarius
Say no to cronyism
Posts: 11,959
Joined: Sep 2010
Reputation: 87
I Root For: Rice
Location: KHOU
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(07-31-2012 09:41 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote: Well I didn't hear the comment, nor do I care to interpret it. But what I have learned is that for Obama and his associates the law doesn't seem to have any value other than determining to what ends they must go to evade it. And if you own the courts and the press you get to do pretty much what you want. So if there are problems he hasn't solved yet it is no one's fault but his.
What is the bolded portion of your comment based on?
|
|
08-06-2012 09:31 AM |
|
WeatherfordOwl
1st String
Posts: 1,168
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 10
I Root For:
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
(08-06-2012 09:31 AM)Antarius Wrote: (07-31-2012 09:41 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote: Well I didn't hear the comment, nor do I care to interpret it. But what I have learned is that for Obama and his associates the law doesn't seem to have any value other than determining to what ends they must go to evade it. And if you own the courts and the press you get to do pretty much what you want. So if there are problems he hasn't solved yet it is no one's fault but his.
What is the bolded portion of your comment based on?
A seemingly endless number of judges who make rulings that, while I admit to not being a lawyer, appear very much politically motivated not necessarily in context with the constitution, and lack of any major press even attempting to hold the current administration accountable for executive feats which seem to happen at midnight and flow against the grain of established laws, for example the orders not to enforce most of our immigration laws.
|
|
08-06-2012 10:44 PM |
|
WoodlandsOwl
Up in the Woods
Posts: 11,813
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 115
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
|
RE: Neil Boortz idiotic comment of the day
I've heard Boortz describe Obama in much harsher terms than "despot" on occasions off-air.
But basically Boortz is a libertarian. He's pro gay marriage, against the War on Drugs. He advocates the Fair Tax. He's very similar to Ron Paul.
He is much more reasonable than Hannity or Limbaugh.
You want to hear some no holds barred criticism of Obama, Reid, Pelosi, you should ave listened to the G Gordon Liddy Show. Now that was amusing.
|
|
08-11-2012 09:57 PM |
|