Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Today's required reading


Obama speaks his piece about politics, progressive critics, Fox News and the tea party, and ends on a musical note before being led out of the room. Then he pops back in and gives the best part of the interview. 

He gets it.

Please take time to read it.

13 comments:

Jester said...

I had time to read it, but it's pretty long so there's no way I have time to respond to all of it.

Let it suffice to say that I disagree with about 90% of what he said not just on principle, but because (here I go again) he didn't back up a single word of his with any credible sources (that I saw - maybe I missed something). I know that annoys the hell out of you Ian, but I'm sorry, I'm still that way.

His inability/unwillingness to tell the interviewer where he gets his information from is why (to me) the interview was a jumbled mishmash of hearsay op/ed left-wing talking points that I'm simply supposed to believe JUST because he said so. You know I hate it when ANY politician or journalist does that, even the right-wing ones, although I hate to admit when they do it cuz I'm biased that way as we all know :/

Maybe I should get a job with Wikipedia :P

NOLA Progressive said...

You know I get where Obama is coming from. I also will turn out to vote and obviously vote Democrat, so it's not like I really needed any ra-ra session, but his attitude does frankly irk my nerves for lack of a more eloquent term.

I don't expect him to win every battle or that he will be able to take the most progressive approach in all areas. I simply feel like he didn't even put up a fight for some of them. In other words don't wave the white flag until you've at least gathered the troops.

That being said, I feel that he has made tremendous strides in a short amount of time, and we often overlook how cataclysmic the situation he inherited was.

Tom Alday said...

How nice of the increasingly irrelevant Rolling Stone to provide a forum for our increasing irrelevant President Butthurt to whine to the choir for a while.

NOLA Progressive said...

Ok I'll bite. Why is Rolling Stone increasingly irrelevant? I get the insulting attitude towards the Pres. on account of you know, the fact that you are a tool and all, but why all the grrrr towards that which gathers no moss?

Ian McGibboney said...

Michael said...

That's a ridiculously easy question to answer: "Yes, it's perfectly moral. Jesus Christ's top marginal tax rate was 100%.* Next stupid distraction?"

*See, e.g., Matthew 19:21, Luke 18:22, Mark 10:21.

Ian McGibboney said...

Robert Taylor said...

Ian's attack on Bill O'Reilly asking Letterman "do you want the troops to fail" is as ridiculous as his tired old "what alternatives do Libertarians have for solving [insert issue here]".

O'Reilly's question assumes there was a legitimate reason for invading Iraq. Ian's assumes there's a legitimate reason for stealing someone's money.

Ian McGibboney said...

Jester - I don't know how you expect someone to give annotations during an interview, especially on largely philosophical matters. What exactly has you bugged?

Tom - That's clever. You come up with that all by yourself, or did some culturally enduring conservative-leaning entertainment and politics magazine (whatever that might be) do it for you?

NOLA - I feel somewhat better knowing that Obama is aware of the frustration. I think he's doing what he can and has to do. I'd like to see more too, but he makes a good point with the 90 percent thing.

Michael - I don't know how much of an impact Jesus' teachings will make on so-called Christian conservatives, much less to those here who are atheist or otherwise worship money. Solid point nonetheless.

Robert - It's a classic tactic of O'Reilly and his ilk (as well as most libertarians I've personally debated) to make an issue about something that it isn't. Bill didn't ask Dave if he thought the war was just; he asked him if he wanted our troops and mission to fail. That's a dishonest question intended to lead into a rhetorical trap. It's slimy. And I feel like those who do it do so because it's easy and sidesteps issues and the nuances thereof.

Ian McGibboney said...

NOLA Progressive said...

Do they have a clinical diagnosis for what you are afflicted with Rob? You can't even make a cogent point anymore man. It's getting bad. Seek help.

The two having nothing to do with each other chief. Look we all get it, you are pissed at Ian. Seriously dude it was played when Tom harped on that schtick. Its beyond sad for you to attempt to replicate it.

Jester said...

Geez, Blogger IS getting messed up Ian; you were right. Rob and Michael's comments aren't showing at all, just your replies to them, unless they got erased or something. I don't know what they said... unless your replies are base solely upon an undiagnosed case of schizophrenia that I don't know about! :P

Now! As far as someone giving sources during an interview/speech, it is not impossible nor difficult; I do it all the time. All a guy or girl has to say is something like, "Look, the Heritage Foundation said just last week that unemployment numbers are going up," or "MIT did a study last month in which they tested 500 people and their results were blah blah blah....". I do this every day talking to clients! I'm the furthest thing from a politician or journalist, yet they demand it of me.

And they're right. Is it so wrong to want more credibility in journalism or politics? Is it really that difficult for one to back up his or her claims with proof, or at the very least, some evidence? Is that too far outside the box to think that way with this president, or anybody else?

THAT'S what has me bugged :/

Ian McGibboney said...

Jester, I'm posting their missing comments as I see them under my avatar. This sucks. I heard it's a Blogger-wide problem.

As for the attribution thing, I suspect that's a selective call on your part. I know it isn't something I demanded of Bush. He's speaking to a reporter with a small time frame and mostly about things that don't require attribution. If his facts don't hold up to scrutiny, that's one thing, but he shouldn't be expected to speak like he's writing a polisci paper.

Ian McGibboney said...

Robert Taylor said...

@NOLA I'm not pissed at Ian. I just point out that he's contradictory. For me to be pissed at him, he'd have to actually have a position.

Ian McGibboney said...

So Robert, all of this hostility is because you're mad I haven't taken a position? Could have fooled me!

Wow. Just, wow. I'm through with you. You clearly just pull words out of your ass and see what sticks.

Jester said...

Damn. Maybe that's why Blogger is free... We get what we pay for? For that matter, how come none of my comments are being deleted, hmm?

But ok. Since I don't think that Obama's "facts" hold up to scrutiny at all, especially since he won't even/can't even back them up in passing, then you & I agree to disagree again. Fair 'nuff.

One of the reasons I too didn't like Bush was because he didn't give sources either. For real! I only voted for him because he was the lesser of two evils. His were sad elections. :(

How about an example of journalistic/political sourcing? You're not gonna believe this, but... a guy I know who does back up his topics, if not claims, is Rush Limbaugh. Before you scoff at that (you already did, I know... so take a breath before continuing), then check any article on his website to prove it. At the bottom of each are always his sources, which are usually about one or two right-wing ones and two or three left-wing or neutral ones as well.

I'm not gonna leave any links here to his site because 1: you aren't able to believe a single word I'm saying, even if you wanted to, and 2: you are way, way to close-minded to ever set foot at Rush's site even if it was to save your own life.

But I hope I made my point to somebody (anybody?) reading this, regardless.