Obama statements troubling

Don,

What about comparing people to Trotsky and Goebbels do you not understand?

 

Com'on Don, Lyle had you going too far and you know it.

 

He is talking about the fact that these programs are being shut down in Cleveland schools and I'm sure in other cities too. They are all part of education and beng well-rounded.

 

Don, you wrote:

Can we GET OFF NAFTA! It aint going anywhere, and that is the sub-point of the thread.

The REAL point of the thread is miss Using populist rhetoric, in which NCLB is another prime example.

NCLB was about schools focussing on the three basic subjects. To say schools need ADDITIONAL funding to get back to the basic building blocks makes my head hurt. With Dems it's ALWAYS about the money, and it's ALWAYS about the money because that's what the NEA and state Associations say it is.

Meanwhile ANY TIME someone wants to try new ideas in our schools, who is it throws up the roadblocks?

Yep... the same!

Watch THIS

 

Don,

When you compare America citizens to Trotsky and Goebbels you are implying that they are just as bad. You could have made your point by not comparing Americans to Trotsky and Goebbels. Right-wing Americans don't murder liberals or leftists, and that is what is implied when you compare them to people who did in fact murder their political opponents.

You need to understand this, because what you said is inappropriate and insulting, and is the exact kind of dialogue that needs to be removed from any proper political discourse.

It's like the people who compare Bush to Hilter, is it childish and frankly ignorant.

 

Back on topic

What he said in the debate was that he'd use the threat of pulling out of NAFTA in order to renegotiate some of the "labor and environmental standards". I don't see how this constitutes a "full renegotiation" as you say and I find it very unlikely that he would pull out of NAFTA triggering a crisis with Canada. In fact Russert pushed very hard on both of them repeating the same question several times to get them to commit to pulling out of NAFTA. Neither would do so saying they would threaten it for proposes of leverage and renegotiation of certain provisions. When asked if they would pull out if they could not successfully renegotiate, they both refused to commit saying they were confident that they could renegotiate.

If anything Canada would have HIGHER environmental and labor standards than the US. Making this a non-issue as far as they're concerned.

He has neither a large record supporting or opposing NAFTA. The Clinton campaign points to one quote taken out of context to prove that he DID support it.

So really this "opposition" to NAFTA on the basis of labor and environmental standards is quite weak. They vote the same way 96% of the time, he's trying to show a difference on a major issue in Ohio. So if this is pandering then he is pandering. He is trying to win after all. This is nothing compared to the pandering by Hillary who for example in Iowa did a complete 180 of her position on ethanol, or of McCain doing everything he possibly can to obscure his position on immigration.



What is interesting is how Harper is choosing to play this in Canada. Its obviously his job to ensure that Canada gets as good a deal out of NAFTA as possible. But I would think he'd be walking a tight rope. As they having little else to run on the Liberal's in Canada continually attack Harper as being in bed with Bush or they portray him as an American style conservative. This worked the first time when Martin defeated Harper in 2004 but was not enough in 2006 when he won. If he appears to be meddling in the US elections on the behalf of Republicans I would think it could cause some issues for him on the home front with elections not far off.

I haven't heard anything about Rockefeller. I assume he's supporting Obama who in turn was mistaken about Rockefellers’ position on the war. I seriously doubt this was some form of intentional spinning by advisors. If it was it didn’t work. Your lookin offal hard if you’re gonna make an issue out of this.

 

How so RedCoat? Take a look at this link.

http://www.cmsdnet.net/artseducation/home.asp

All of the arts, including dance, look alive and well in the Cleveland Public Schools. There are also two high schools for the arts in Cleveland. My community shares a border with Cleveland and the arts here are very well supported. In fact my son spends more time writing in his "advanced" math class than he does doing math. That is a problem. I was on a committee to award $10,000 in teacher grants at my son's school. It all went to liberal arts programs because there was not a single math or science proposal. Why, because we as a nation under emphasize math and science.

 

LOL, one stupid movie, but mostly because Tom Cruise is such a bad actor, if only he had a better arts in this country.

And Don, if you were to meet Lyle, he would have you at "hello".

 

Spencer.... USUALLY you have a pretty good grasp on reality. The POINT I made is the two miss-statements were intentional and I did NOT miss their meaning.

I laid both to purposeful design on the part of Obama's staff. It's highly difficult to envision that they had neither the time or the knowhow to find how Rockefeller actually voted, and that they somehow got out of sync on NAFTA.
Obama gave exactly the impression his staff wanted to give, there was no 'fine point' to it. And Canada responded exactly as expected... that there's NO 'renegotiation of parts' of the treaty. You open up one segment you open them all. Surely, his staff advisors know that; if they DONT, then that's even MORe troubling!

But I say again... this is NOT about NAFTA, it's about demagoguery.

If I WANT to bring up a 'fine point' on McCain and the Border Amnesty bill, I can find his quote that he was 'wrong' in his emphasis... that the American people told him that securing the border FIRST was the key element.

We can argue whether he REALLY intends to follow the wishes he refers to, but there's no doubt he pointed to the actual issue and got it right. I realize it sounds like the tenor of Obama's statements... but I think there's a different parse.

The MOST damning thing about McCain, though is his refusal to admit he REALLY blew McCain/Feingold. Perhaps he's waiting on the actual campaign to do that; maybe it's his worst wound to his pride and ego. We'll have to wait and see.

 

Lyle. I've got to side with Don on this one. It was clear from my reading that he chose Trotsky and Goebbels as examples of Masters of Propoganda. There was not even an implication of a comparison of the causes they represented but merely an acknowledgement of, and comparison with, that particular skillset, of which, causes aside, they are acknowledged masters of.

If I say someone sings like John Lennon, it doesn't imply that I think they are atheist socialists, for example.

Context is everything.

 

Andy, how dare you try to settle this arguement!!! What am I going to be entertained by for the rest of my work day now???

 

When you compare people to Trotsky and Goebbels you're comparing them to murderers/oppressors, not just propagandists... because they weren't just propagandists.

For example, nobody compares Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler because Hitler was a good speaker. Why do you think that is?

 

Thanks Mo. Too kind.

 

Well actually.........
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 5#23174985

 

Well you never provided a video or writing of this Rockefeller quote but I imagine he was at a rally with Rockefeller and said that like him his friend Jay Rockefeller voted against the war unlike Hillary or something there abouts . You really think the campaign would find it in its best interest to tell a intentional bold face lie and for what purposes? To boost the image of a supporter? More likely Obama remembered Rockefeller's record on the war incorrectly.

You also never said which statement by Obama was "false". Are you charging that he's over simplifying NAFTA and there by guilty of demagoguery? If thats basis for such a charge I doubt if theres a politician not guilty of it.

 

Lyle. As I said, context is everything. YOU make the extra connections, but most of us have a firm enough grasp of contextual writing to understand the intent behind the phraseology.

As for the Obama/Hitler comparison - I speak German, Hitler was not a "good" speaker, he was a passionate one who understood how to lead and inspire a mob; his speaking style was more akin to Jimmy Hoffa's. So no, there really isn't any redeeming or positive quality of Hitlers that you could compare someone with. Trotsky and Goebels, however, are acknowledged masters of propoganda; there methods are studied by ... various US government agencies because they were the best at what they did.

Military leaders don't NOT study Rommel because he fought for the bad guys.