• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Poligaf episode 2010: The Empire Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
The prospect of a government shut down should scare the hell out of Democrats because they're terrible at framing or messaging anything. Without GOP control of the Senate, there's no common villain. If the government shuts down, GOP will easily paint it as Obama's fault.
 
Patrick Klepek said:
The prospect of a government shut down should scare the hell out of Democrats because they're terrible at framing or messaging anything. Without GOP control of the Senate, there's no common villain. If the government shuts down, GOP will easily paint it as Obama's fault.
No it shouldn't.
Nothing make the people realize they need the government like its absence.
But the GOP is not dumb enough to try it.
 
Patrick Klepek said:
The prospect of a government shut down should scare the hell out of Democrats because they're terrible at framing or messaging anything. Without GOP control of the Senate, there's no common villain. If the government shuts down, GOP will easily paint it as Obama's fault.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/07/IN4J1G5VII.DTL

This is the framing for the next two years. Debates will now boil down to "Barry is Jimmy Carter" vs. "Mr President Obama is FDR!"

joy
 
Chichikov said:
No it shouldn't.
Nothing make the people realize they need the government like its absence.
But the GOP is not dumb enough to try it.

Amazingly, the GOP has already been successful in framing Obama as the one who is unwilling to compromise or cooperate across the aisle to get anything done. A government shutdown would not go over well for the administration.
 
eznark said:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/07/IN4J1G5VII.DTL

This is the framing for the next two years. Debates will now boil down to "Barry is Jimmy Carter" vs. "Mr President Obama is FDR!"

joy
No one is claiming that Obama is FDR, not even this article, in fact, especially not this article.
It's true that there are conservatives out there who are comparing him to Carter, but don't look for an equally dumb comparison from the left to somehow justify such stupidity.


sangreal said:
Amazingly, the GOP has already been successful in framing Obama as the one who is unwilling to compromise or cooperate across the aisle to get anything done. A government shutdown would not go over well for the administration.
Yep, it's tragic that policies first put forward by republicans are now somehow socialism.
At the end of the day, you have better chance of selling people a program you believe in than some weird Frankenstein hybrid abomination than no one thinks is a good idea (and get branded as communism anyway).
If you're going to get panned for it, might as well put on policies that you think are going to work.
That what you were elected for.

RustyNails said:
AIM has always been a superior IM client.
Free speech does not grant you the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or peddle AOL products.
 
JGS said:
I'm not sure where the confusion is lying in this. I did not say I believe this.

The question was asked why there would be a law. The official answer has more to do with corruption than it would ever be "because we're being paid off"! Duh!

Get a grip. Geez
Immediately after the bill passed, the author and primary proponent in the House was hired to be the head of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical lobbying group, with a two million dollar payout.

Former Congressman Billy Tauzin, R-La., who steered the bill through the House, retired soon after and took a $2 million a year job as president of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the main industry lobbying group.​
The bill was corporate wellfare for the drug industry, and Republicans were pretty up front about that. Within the caucus, it was a primary motivator for passing the bill.
 
Chichikov said:
No one is claiming that Obama is FDR, not even this article, in fact, especially not this article.
It's true that there are conservatives out there who are comparing him to Carter, but don't look for an equally dumb comparison from the left to somehow justify such stupidity.

This is the third article or TV segment I've seen this week begging Obama to mold himself after FDR and dive headlong into class warfare. I guess maybe it will die down but more likely this will pick up. Of course, Robert Reich is a real piece of work, so maybe the left will just ignore him.
 
eznark said:
This is the third article or TV segment I've seen this week begging Obama to mold himself after FDR and dive headlong into class warfare. I guess maybe it will die down but more likely this will pick up. Of course, Robert Reich is a real piece of work, so maybe the left will just ignore him.
You're confusing two different things here -
There are many voices calling on Obama to follow in FDR's footsteps (and I am one of those voices, though an infinitely insignificant one), and if he does, he would've earned those theoretical FDR comparisons (for good or for bad).
But you claim that the left somehow compare him to FDR, like the right try to compare him to Jimmy Carter, and that's false.
You try to create some sort of false equivalence here, like Obama is a champions to liberals, where he really isn't.
I'm sure you can find some idiot who made that comparison on inauguration day, but I doubt you'll find a serious voice to make this case now, in fact, I'd say that anyone making those comparisons now is not serious, by definition.
 
Hairtux said:
Mitch McConnell is on Face the Nation. Whenever he fails to answer a question (which has been nearly every one, so far), Bob Schieffer starts laughing. Good stuff.


will this be put online? i need to see this.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
What does that have to do with Medicaid?
It's a message saying "we don't want you, nor need you." The timing isn't only incidental. 20 states are planning to sue over the new legislation as well.

gcubed said:
you dont understand this thing called reality... its cute though, everyone else who wants no limits and pre-existing condition coverage while not requiring a buy in mandate has me hopeful that one day drugs may be legal, because it seems a decent portion of the population is on them
What difference does it make? They've pretty much come out and said they have no power to enforce payment of fines. It's like handing out optional parking tickets. They have no way to leverage people into paying it.

How long this will last, I don't know. I suspect not long. I have no intention of paying the fine.
 
Chichikov said:
You're confusing two different things here -
There are many voices calling on Obama to follow in FDR's footsteps (and I am one of those voices, though an infinitely insignificant one), and if he does, he would've earned those theoretical FDR comparisons (for good or for bad).
But you claim that the left somehow compare him to FDR, like the right try to compare him to Jimmy Carter, and that's false.
You try to create some sort of false equivalence here, like Obama is a champions to liberals, where he really isn't.
I'm sure you can find some idiot who made that comparison on inauguration day, but I doubt you'll find a serious voice to make this case now, in fact, I'd say that anyone making those comparisons now is not serious, by definition.
Oh, no. What I'm saying is that when it comes time to frame the discussion they will want to compare him to FDR. He hasn't shown his cards yet as to what direction he will take once he gets back. These articles are just laying the foundation.
 
nyong said:
It's a message saying "we don't want you, nor need you." The timing isn't only incidental. 20 states are planning to sue over the new legislation as well.


Medicaid is not the Healthcare Reform bill, or as you might understand it.. it is not Obamacare.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
Medicaid is not the Healthcare Reform bill, or as you might understand it.. it is not Obamacare.

EDIT: To be nice....

I'm aware that Medicaid is not Obamacare. However, both are federal programs. Texas is beginning to pull out of and away from federal healthcare in order to do their own thing.
 
nyong said:
...

This is clearly going right over your head. I'm aware this isn't Obamacare. Puzzle it out.


Your logic is retarded (and if this is the actual Republican logic, it is retarded as well). So you are saying that Texas is sending a message that they don't need the government imposing on their autonomy. Well, why don't they just end all federal programs? Cut ties completely? They are just selecting Medicaid, why not Medicare? Why not other federal programs? This has nothing to do with the Healthcare Reform bill, and it wouldn't send a message as such. If they sue against HR, that would send a message against the bill, not this.
 
eznark said:
Oh, no. What I'm saying is that when it comes time to frame the discussion they will want to compare him to FDR. He hasn't shown his cards yet as to what direction he will take once he gets back. These articles are just laying the foundation.
And what I'm saying that if he continues going down the same path, no one will compare him to FDR.

Or do you argue that if he decide to follow FDR he will be compared to him?

I honestly not sure what you're trying to say, but somehow I'm sure you caused Rhodes to fumble in the endzone.
Happy now?
How many taints do you think he still have in him?
 
quadriplegicjon said:
Your logic is retarded. So you are saying that Texas is sending a message that they don't need the government imposing on their autonomy. Well, why don't they just end all federal programs? Cut ties completely? They are just selecting Medicaid, why not Medicare? Why not other federal programs? This has nothing to do with the Healthcare Reform bill, and it wouldn't send a message as such. If they sue against HR, that would send a message against the bill, not this.

Medicaid is jointly funded whereas Medicare is not. Texas isn't "pulling out of Medicare" because there is nothing to pull out of. They are, however, one of the 20 states suing the federal government over the new legislation.
 
Chichikov said:
And what I'm saying that if he continues going down the same path, no one will compare him to FDR.

Or do you argue that if he decide to follow FDR he will be compared to him?

I honestly not sure what you're trying to say, but somehow I'm sure you caused Rhodes to fumble in the endzone.
Happy now?
How many taints do you think he still have in him?
I'M TRYING TO WATCH FOOTBALL!

If he plays hardball the left will frame his as FDR. That's what I am saying. No matter what the right will frame him as Jimmy Carter.
 
I don't seem to remember Carter achieving half of what Obama has in two years. In terms of poor leadership the comparison can be made, but that's about it
 
nyong said:
Medicaid is jointly funded whereas Medicare is not. Texas isn't "pulling out of Medicare" because there is nothing to pull out of. They are, however, one of the 20 states suing the federal government over the new legislation.


If the message is supposed to be "we don't want you, nor need you," it would be hypocritical to accept any federal programs, jointly funded or not. The message is retarded.


btw, have you finally admitted that you are not an independent moderate?
 
PhoenixDark said:
I don't seem to remember Carter achieving half of what Obama has in two years. In terms of poor leadership the comparison can be made, but that's about it

h6Pwq.jpg


Sure, it doesn't quite measure to reducing your military presence in a foriegn quasi-soverign country of your own creation to 50,000 soldiers, but still, if nothing else, it equally impressed the Noble peace prize committee.
 
CEOs of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.
Dat trickle.
 
quadriplegicjon said:
If the message is supposed to be "we don't want you, nor need you," it would be hypocritical to accept any federal programs, jointly funded or not. The message is retarded.

No it wouldn't. This is specifically with regards to healthcare. I don't think Texas is for abolishing the federal government entirely.

One thing I didn't realize, until I dug a bit further, is that the (explicit) reason Texas wants to pull out of Medicaid--right now--is because of expansions to the program mandated by Obamacare. I should have done a bit of research prior to responding to you, but there is a direct unquestionable link between Obamacare and Medicaid here. It actually started with Texas doctors threatening to stop treating Medicaid patients.
 
PhoenixDark said:
I don't seem to remember Carter achieving half of what Obama has in two years. In terms of poor leadership the comparison can be made, but that's about it


All Barry needs to do is grow some balls. Thats all, grow a pair
 
Norwegian Wood said:
All Barry needs to do is grow some balls. Thats all, grow a pair
I've heard stories of Obama taking calls from Clinton after they settled their primary squabbles, but he's gonna need daily coaching on how to jujitsu the arseholes.
 
nyong said:
No it wouldn't. This is specifically with regards to healthcare. I don't think Texas is for abolishing the federal government entirely.

One thing I didn't realize, until I dug a bit further, is that the (explicit) reason Texas wants to pull out of Medicaid--right now--is because of expansions to the program mandated by Obamacare. I should have done a bit of research prior to responding to you, but there is a direct unquestionable link between Obamacare and Medicaid here. It actually started with Texas doctors threatening to stop treating Medicaid patients.


"we don't want you, nor need you"

your words, not mine.

it should read, "we don't want you, nor need you, except for when we want you or need you"
 
Ether_Snake said:
Why do they keep saying "Mr. Obama" in this article instead of President Obama? I don't recall ever reading "Mr. Bush" when he was in power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/us/08forces.html?src=twrhp


I think as long as you reference him as the President in the first instance, you can drop the title thereafter. I see articles that do this then keep referencing them as Bush/Obama throughout the rest.


Like this one:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1080312,00.html
 
Ether_Snake said:
Why do they keep saying "Mr. Obama" in this article instead of President Obama? I don't recall ever reading "Mr. Bush" when he was in power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/us/08forces.html?src=twrhp

they've always done this. they'll initially refer to him as "President" then switch to "Mr."

for instance: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/02/politics/campaign/02george.html?scp=6&sq=george+w+bush&st=nyt

...that day that stunned him and the nation, Mr. Bush began learning in earnest about the lethal powers available to him as commander in chief. He soon sent soldiers off to fight in the mountains of Afghanistan and in the streets of Baghdad, and as the still-bloody battle rages in Iraq, he faces an electorate deeply divided over whether he rushed into war without adequate cause.

Mr. Bush has proved himself very much his own man in the Oval Office. He differs, perhaps deliberately, in substance and style from his father. A willful, hands-on manager, he accepts advice and guidance from his inner circle, but often follows his own impulse for bold action.

If Mr. Bush has left the nation more polarized, on domestic policy as much as on his approach to national security, he expresses few regrets. And though he appears a little less cocky, he is no more prone now than he was four years ago to self-doubt.

"I can't tell you exactly how determined I was prior to 2000," the president said in an interview last week. "I can tell you that now, I am resolute and determined to succeed, and to lead this country."

Mr. Bush will have a place in history. Precisely what it will be depends in large part on whether the course he has set results in stable democracy in Iraq, helps contain Islamic extremism and achieves the right balance between advancing American interests and trying to knit together a fractious world.

As a leader and politician, Mr. Bush has displayed traits that infuriate and intimidate his opponents and sometimes surprise even his supporters. In a complex world, he rejects ambiguity for the certitude of the choice between good and evil and the comfort of a morality shaped by his religious faith. When faced with a political setback, he has a knack for capitulating and then claiming victory.

Perhaps most of all, the president who ambled through his first 40 years remains a man of enormous ambition, ferociously determined to succeed - and at last outdo his father - in what he calls the final campaign of his life.

Mr. Bush is a street-smart, intuitive politician, heavily influenced by Lee Atwater, his friend and his father's attack dog of a campaign manager in 1988. He is ruthless, quick to pass judgment and quickly figures out what other people want from him and what he must do to get their support. Unlike his father, he sees the world not through the nuance of policy but through the combat of politics.

wooops, didn't even see Toxic's earlier reply. :lol had me beat by a good hour
 
I remember someone complaining about the Times using "Mr. Bush" during his presidency. They wanted it to say "the President" or "President Bush" each time and thought the Times was purposefully slighting him.

The Times has followed this convention for a century, and it applies to anyone in any office. They'll do the same for Mayor Bloomberg.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I think as long as you reference him as the President in the first instance, you can drop the title thereafter. I see articles that do this then keep referencing them as Bush/Obama throughout the rest.

Yep, AP style says titles are only necessary on the first reference. It's not a respect thing, just a, "we've always done it this way" thing.
 
Ether_Snake said:
Why do they keep saying "Mr. Obama" in this article instead of President Obama? I don't recall ever reading "Mr. Bush" when he was in power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/us/08forces.html?src=twrhp
They did that with Bush throughout his entire first term on NPR. It drove me crazy as I was assuming it was a sign of disrespect for how the election went. The second term they didn't do it, but I learned that they were allowed to say it either way.
 
Ah I see. I knew it was like that in some other countries but didn't know the NYT did.
 
Apparently dems now want to drop the DADT issue from the defense authorization in order for it to get passed. I swear if they drop that and not the stupid DREAM crap I'm voting straight 3rd party tickets the ready of my life.
 
teiresias said:
Apparently dems now want to drop the DADT issue from the defense authorization in order for it to get passed. I swear if they drop that and not the stupid DREAM crap I'm voting straight 3rd party tickets the ready of my life.

Dream Act has almost unanimous support among Hispanic immigrants. That's why they included it, and also why they won't drop it.
 
Rand Paul saying that military spending cuts must be on the table.

Have fun with that one, GOP :lol :lol :lol
 
teiresias said:
Apparently dems now want to drop the DADT issue from the defense authorization in order for it to get passed. I swear if they drop that and not the stupid DREAM crap I'm voting straight 3rd party tickets the ready of my life.


The Republicans did not vote for the bill because of the DADT repeal, not the Dream Act. They just used the Dream Act as a bullshit excuse. It's also not the first time the Dream Act was added as an amendment (it obviously did not eventually pass), but they had no issues starting the debate in the past.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom