When people then proceed to complain about his "reality check" he pulls this bullshit about pissing on Obama's parade.
It's rather hard to avoid discussing the shortcomings of the Obama administration and focus on the areas of American political life that are more amenable to activist change, when the other party to the discussion insists on turning the discussion into a defence of Obama's record.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Further, this is a massive thread with, imo, some rather good discussion in it. I don't see anyone 'insisting' on turning it into any particular thing and I certainly wouldn't characterize it as a 'defense of Obama's record' in its overall tone. You, however, seem to be insisting that you want to discuss his 'shortfalls' and that's fine -- no one's stopping you. But don't be all aggrieved if people don't agree with your critiques and interpretations. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Calling his points spurious, outright garbage, and sound but not impressive are, again, all your opinion, not fact.
These sorts of "beliefs" are qualitatively different from those of the religious, who crave certainty and too often believe they have it. But yes, my characterization of Obama is an opinion based on many observations and impressions that have been organized into a working belief. As are yours and those of rootless. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
We're not anywhere NEAR a consensus of 'impressions that have been organized into a working belief' on any of these opinions, so until we are, those of you who have hardened your opinion into belief are going to have to expect arguments from us non-believers. And until you stop stating your opinions like they're the accepted working belief, I'll keep reminding you that they're not. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
