News Is President Obama Ignoring Intelligent Online Input?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mugaliens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Threads
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around President Obama's perceived disregard for intelligent online input, with participants expressing frustration over his decision-making process. Some argue that the online community, despite its diversity of opinions, possesses valuable insights that could benefit political leaders. Others counter that the intelligence and expertise of presidential advisors far exceed that of average forum users, questioning the assumption that online discourse can influence high-level decisions. The conversation also touches on the complexities of political motivations and the desire for transparency from leaders regarding their decision-making processes. Ultimately, the thread highlights a tension between grassroots opinions and established political expertise.
  • #51


@DanP: Very good rhetoric. You win by TKO in first round.

(I’m sorry for that "pink accident"... :blushing:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52


Al68 said:
... I advocate libertarianism. Not anarchy...

I would send a letter of complaint to Google if I were you:

pf201103050903LibertarianAnarchism.jpg


Where is Barack? I agree with Char_Limit that this is pretty entertaining stuff. And it's so time consuming, he'd have no time to run the country. And then maybe Boehner could get some things undone.

Wait! Maybe Barry is already trapped, and trolling our forum! It's already started!

http://www.wayoutwestnews.com/2011/03/02/boehner-reveles-in-reversing-pelosis-green-efforts/"
Speaker of the House John Boehner has undone Nancy Pelosi’s steps to green the U.S. Congressional cafeteria and reintroduced foam plastic coffee cups. This morning his aid tweeted “The new majority – plasticware is back.”

Down with the Greens! Down with the Greens! Government oppression of foam plastic coffee cups was wrong! Victory is ours! Long live Lady Liberty! Woo Hoo!

:smile:

Ok then. I've got my sign for the next insanity rally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53


OmCheeto said:
I would send a letter of complaint to Google if I were you:
No you wouldn't. If you were me, you wouldn't misconstrue those search results and you would know the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
 
  • #54


nismaratwork said:
I'd give a detailed response, but others such as DanP already have quite nicely.
Mistaking a libertarian for a racist authoritarian is responding quite nicely? Even you wouldn't make that mistake. :smile:
 
  • #55


Al68 said:
Being the radical right-winger I am ...

Al68 said:
Mistaking a libertarian for a racist authoritarian is responding quite nicely? Even you wouldn't make that mistake. :smile:

Then again ... maybe you was mistaking yourself :P but It's good that you now call yourself a libertarian.
Al68 said:
Especially when I know you were never ignorant enough to actually believe what you were saying to begin with.

Politics is a whore, not fair maiden .

Peace man.
 
  • #56


Al68 said:
No you wouldn't. If you were me, you wouldn't misconstrue those search results and you would know the difference between libertarianism and anarchism.
I really do try to understand you. But I'm afraid I have to agree with the following assessment:

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html"
Libertarians are a small group whose beliefs are unknown to and not accepted by the vast majority. They are utopian because there has never yet been a libertarian society (though one or two have come close to some libertarian ideas.) These two facts should not keep us from considering libertarian ideas seriously, however they do caution us about accepting them for practical purposes.

The authors logic is a bit difficult to grasp. How can we not accept your ideas if they are unknown? But worded differently; "We don't accept your beliefs, because you don't really have any.", might be more comprehensible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57


DanP said:
Then again ... maybe you was mistaking yourself :P
Nope.
but It's good that you now call yourself a libertarian.
Yes, I do. Just like I always have.
 
  • #58


Al68 said:
Yes, I do. Just like I always have.

Which kind of libertarianism?

The one who wants to totally eliminate the state , or the one which wants to maintain the state with minimal powers, just as a law enforcement force ?
 
  • #59
OmCheeto said:
The authors logic is a bit difficult to grasp. How can we not accept your ideas if they are unknown? But worded differently; "We don't accept your beliefs, because you don't really have any.", might be more comprehensible.
Complete nonsense. Ignorance of libertarian beliefs is not the same as libertarians not having them. Libertarian beliefs are well documented, well researched, and extensively critiqued over centuries. And of course a perfectly libertarian society has never existed. The same can be said of any political philosophy.

But there is no reason to be ignorant of libertarian beliefs. They are easy to research online. But using a personal opinion site of a non-libertarian as a source is obviously the wrong way to go. Especially one such as the one you linked to which betrays gross fundamental misconceptions and fraudulent misrepresentations of libertarianism.

Just to understand the basic concept of what the word libertarian means, try this source I found with a quick search: http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian.

Trying to claim libertarians "don't really have any" beliefs is just sillyness. Libertarianism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism" , has been written about extensively since the Enlightenment by such brilliant classical liberals as John Locke, Adam Smith, Hobbes, Fredric Bastiat, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and countless others. If you were really interested, I'm sure you could find much info online, and I could even help. But I'm unaware of a good in-depth source online in a single location. Of course I haven't looked that hard, since I have a very good understanding of it that predates the internet. (We used to read real books, in brick libraries, you know. :!))
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60


Al68 said:
Mistaking a libertarian for a racist authoritarian is responding quite nicely? Even you wouldn't make that mistake. :smile:

No, and I don't think you're racist, but I think you're still falling to the belief that your view is not a different kind of authoritarian view. You want to impose your own beliefs on others in the name of freedom... always a dangerous thing. You mean it too, and don't see how that's the case, which makes it even MORE dangerous.

I don't think you're a bad person, but I think you've "stood for nothing", and ended, "falling for everything".

You can't ignore the modern move that Libs have made to become anarchists or nihilists. Maybe you would be better served by not identifying with a group, but identifying with a set of solutions to specific problems; go narrow spectrum, not panacea.
 
  • #61


Al68 said:
Libertarianism, or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism" , has been written about extensively since the Enlightenment by such brilliant classical liberals as John Locke, Adam Smith, Hobbes, Fredric Bastiat, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and countless others. If you were really interested, I'm sure you could find much info online, and I could even help. But I'm unaware of a good in-depth source online in a single location. Of course I haven't looked that hard, since I have a very good understanding of it that predates the internet. (We used to read real books, in brick libraries, you know. :!))

Libertarianism SHOULD NOT be under any circumstances confused with Classical Liberalism. 2 very different animals.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
DanP said:
Which kind of libertarianism?

The one who wants to totally eliminate the state , or the one which wants to maintain the state with minimal powers, just as a law enforcement force ?
The latter, sort of. This kind: http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian. Like I said, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I'm what the word liberal always meant prior to the turn of the century, or a classical liberal.

I know many small groups of anarchists and others use the word libertarian, but historically it has been fairly synonymous with classical liberalism.
 
  • #63
Al68 said:
The latter, sort of. This kind: http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian. Like I said, I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. I'm what the word liberal always meant prior to the turn of the century, or a classical liberal.

I know many small groups of anarchists and others use the word libertarian, but historically it has been fairly synonymous with classical liberalism.

It is now... which is why it's probably better to enunciate your beliefs, rather than identify with a label. Not bad reason to abandon labels altogether, don't you think?
 
  • #64
DanP said:
Libertarianism SHOULD NOT be under any circumstances confused with Classical Liberalism. 2 very different animals.
Nope. Not very different at all:

http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
 
  • #65


If I were Obama, and read this, I'd start WWIII.
 
  • #66
Al68 said:
Nope. Not very different at all:

http://www.theihs.org/what-libertarian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Some libertarians like to paint themselves as classical liberals, but that's kinda all. They are different.

Id say Omcheeto was right, libertarians don't seem to have a very well defined political identity.
 
  • #67


nismaratwork said:
No, and I don't think you're racist, but I think you're still falling to the belief that your view is not a different kind of authoritarian view. You want to impose your own beliefs on others in the name of freedom... always a dangerous thing.
That's just false. Please cease and desist once and for all making false claims about what I do or don't want or believe. I will tell you what I want and believe, and that is that.
You mean it too, and don't see how that's the case, which makes it even MORE dangerous.
You are very, very, VERY, confused if you think libertarianism is a type of authoritarianism.
I don't think you're a bad person, but I think you've "stood for nothing", and ended, "falling for everything".
Logically incomprehensible.
You can't ignore the modern move that Libs have made to become anarchists or nihilists. Maybe you would be better served by not identifying with a group, but identifying with a set of solutions to specific problems; go narrow spectrum, not panacea.
More logical incoherence.

Logically nonsensical assertions with no substantiation whatsoever provides nothing legitimate to the thread.
 
  • #68


Al68 said:
That's just false. Please cease and desist once and for all making false claims about what I do or don't want or believe. I will tell you what I want and believe, and that is that.You are very, very, VERY, confused if you think libertarianism is a type of authoritarianism.Logically incomprehensible.More logical incoherence.

Logically nonsensical assertions with no substantiation whatsoever provides nothing legitimate to the thread.


It seems you've confused us all... maybe you need to start explaining things, instead of challenging everyone to a meangingless debate.
 
  • #69


DanP said:
Some libertarians like to paint themselves as classical liberals, but that's kinda all. They are different.
I provided sources that substantiate the opposite claim. You have made unsubstantiated assertions about political philosophies that aren't even yours.

As a libertarian, and a classical liberal, I don't have to meet every definition ever used by anyone of either. It's not that hard to understand.

Id say Omcheeto was right, libertarians don't seem to have a very well defined political identity.
See above. Your lack of understanding of libertarianism does not equal "don't seem to have a very well defined political identity".

Historically, libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism. If you knew the subject matter, you would realize that the overwhelming bulk of alternate groups using the word "libertarian" are fleeting very small groups, not significant to the issue.
 
  • #70


Al68 said:
I provided sources that substantiate the opposite claim. You have made unsubstantiated assertions about political philosophies that aren't even yours.

As a libertarian, and a classical liberal, I don't have to meet every definition ever used by anyone of either. It's not that hard to understand.

See above. Your lack of understanding of libertarianism does not equal "don't seem to have a very well defined political identity".

Historically, libertarianism is essentially classical liberalism. If you knew the subject matter, you would realize that the overwhelming bulk of alternate groups using the word "libertarian" are fleeting very small groups, not significant to the issue.

You don't find it odd at all, that you're alone in this? You have no desire to clarify what you do believe in, but would rather exchange links?

How much of what you say is pushing ideology, and how much in good faith?... I had assumed the latter until recently.
 
  • #71


nismaratwork said:
It seems you've confused us all... maybe you need to start explaining things, instead of challenging everyone to a meangingless debate.
Are you freaking kidding me here? I have consistently provided explanations and sources while you have provided logically incoherent nonsense, unsubstantiated wild claims, outright false statements, and talk in circles every time this is pointed out.
 
  • #72


Al68 said:
I provided sources that substantiate the opposite claim. You have made unsubstantiated assertions about political philosophies that aren't even yours.
.

You painted yourself in a row as a "right wing radical", "libertarian", and "classical liberal". Like, I said, if that's not proof of a weak political identity, nothing is.

As for what libertariansim is in fact, you can learn here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
 
  • #73


nismaratwork said:
You don't find it odd at all, that you're alone in this? You have no desire to clarify what you do believe in, but would rather exchange links?
I have no desire to write out thousands of words in a post instead of a link, no. That's why we use links.
How much of what you say is pushing ideology, and how much in good faith?... I had assumed the latter until recently.
Still not making any logical sense. You are the one who consistently refuses to act in good faith.
 
  • #74


No Al... I'm not kidding you...

Your self-styled labels are no longer sufficient given the amount of sheer pique you're showing at being misunderstood. Please, explain what it means to be right wing, libertarian, liberal, constructionist?

Here's where I am, full disclosure: I think you're either confused yourself, or being disingenuous. I feel the need to know which based on YOUR words, not some links. If you can't do that, then like a physicist who fails the "bar" test... I don't think your understanding is deep. If you can, why not do it and turn this around?
 
  • #75


DanP said:
You painted yourself in a row as a "right wing radical", "libertarian", and "classical liberal". Like, I said, if that's not proof of a weak political identity, nothing is.
Nonsense. Unsubstantiated absurd assertions have no value in the matter.
As for what libertariansim is in fact, you can learn here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
Seriously? You're going to tell a lifelong libertarian, who has studied it for decades, how to learn what a libertarian is?
 
  • #76


Al68 said:
Nonsense. Unsubstantiated absurd assertions have no value in the matter.Seriously? You're going to tell a lifelong libertarian, who has studied it for decades, how to learn what a libertarian is?

Why should we accept your authority when you're all over the map, and unwilling to back it up yourself? You're asking for more than you've earned, period. You certainly don't show such mercy to others...

I'm done with this... if you want to take a stand, great, if not, then you're just derailing this thread. Either way, I'll read, but I can't take this seriously.
 
  • #77


nismaratwork said:
No Al... I'm not kidding you...

Your self-styled labels are no longer sufficient given the amount of sheer pique you're showing at being misunderstood. Please, explain what it means to be right wing, libertarian, liberal, constructionist?

Here's where I am, full disclosure: I think you're either confused yourself, or being disingenuous. I feel the need to know which based on YOUR words, not some links. If you can't do that, then like a physicist who fails the "bar" test... I don't think your understanding is deep. If you can, why not do it and turn this around?
I'm done with this nonsense. I am more than willing to answer anyone's legitimate specific questions.
 
  • #78


Honestly, it's still way off-topic, and it's not funny anymore. Can't you find a different thread to argue about what libertarianism is?
 
  • #79


Proton Soup said:
i haven't watched him in a while. i assume he still does analysis for Fox. but he always gave an insider view into the way these people really think. at least for the politickin to the public side of things.

Really? He just struck me as a guy with a nasty grudge, bordering on obsessive hatred.
 
  • #80


Al68 said:
I'm done with this nonsense. I am more than willing to answer anyone's legitimate specific questions.

Do you believe that Judicial activism is real, and if so, what primary examples of it would you give? This is a question about your SC views claimed.

Why do you believe that removing a centralized authority would be beneficial for such a large and diverse country would lead to anything except chaos? What organizing principles do you envision in your political 'utopia' if you were to create one?

If Obama was in fact reading this, what advice do you give him, beyond, 'get out of office, I don't like you', and how, in the real world, does your political philosophy manifest in this country? What advice in line with SC, Libertarianism as you've defined it, would you give to help the country NOW?
 
  • #81


nismaratwork said:
Really? He just struck me as a guy with a nasty grudge, bordering on obsessive hatred.

they hung him out to dry. he's got a right to a grudge.
 
  • #82


Enough bickering. Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

News Court: Obama Administration Flouting the law
Replies
24
Views
9K
News Criticize your choice for president
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Is Obama too thin to win the presidency?
Replies
29
Views
5K
News Obama Misspeaks on Egypt Relationship Or does he ?
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
News Is President Obama solely to blame for our increasing national debt?
Replies
13
Views
3K
News Did Obama's Unilateral Strike Policy in Pakistan Already Exist?
Replies
4
Views
3K
News The Obama Administration is Violating the Law
Replies
4
Views
3K
News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?
6
Replies
298
Views
72K
News Will past personal issues affect Obama's 2012 campaign?
13
Replies
643
Views
72K
News Will Obama's New Plans for Domestic Oil Drilling Lower Gas Prices?
Replies
19
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top