Was the Bailout Necessary for Companies 'Too Big to Fail'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    List
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the comedic value of George W. Bush's public speaking and the memorable phrases he coined, known as "Bushisms." Key highlights include the release of a list of top Bushisms, such as "misunderestimate" and "mission accomplished," which have provided ample material for comedians and internet humor. Participants reflect on Bush's unique verbal gaffes and compare them to other political figures, including Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin, suggesting that Bush's style has set a high bar for future politicians in terms of comedic potential. The conversation also touches on Barack Obama's perceived lack of humor and the challenges he faces in generating similar comedic material. Additionally, there are debates about the definition of a "constitutional scholar" in relation to Obama, emphasizing his academic background and teaching experience. Overall, the thread highlights the intersection of politics and humor, showcasing how public figures can become sources of entertainment through their verbal missteps.
  • #31
Clearly seycyrus doesn't realize that Obama IS a Constitutional scholar.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
seycyrus said:
Oh, I don't know... something a bit more rigorous than what one gets by taking the words apart and applying the definitions in a minimilistic manner.

I guess maybe I reserve that title for something more.
Like what exactly?
 
  • #33
Ivan Seeking said:
Clearly seycyrus doesn't realize that Obama IS a Constitutional scholar.

No, what is clear is that I realize he meets the minimal requirements of the definition, but as was expressed clearly, think that the term should not be so loosely applied.
 
  • #34
seycyrus said:
No, what is clear is that I realize he meets the minimal requirements of the definition, but as was expressed clearly, think that the term should not be so loosely applied.
So how would you like it applied?
 
  • #35
Gokul43201 said:
Like what exactly?

Oh, I guess maybe teaching the subject for ten years or some other similar length of time, and writing a bunch of historical papers and books.

I think it's obvious what I'm geting at. What is *your* minimum requirement for the title?

Has Obama ever claimed he was a constitutional scholar?
 
  • #36
I don't know if he has called himself that, but he has taught the subject for 12 years at the U-Chicago Law School, according to the wiki.
For twelve years, Obama served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School teaching Constitutional Law. He was first classified as a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996 and then as a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

The teaching experience is clearly a big point in his favor. But the lack of publications may be a disqualifier, in the traditional sense.
 
Last edited:
  • #37
seycyrus said:
Oh, I guess maybe teaching the subject for ten years or some other similar length of time, and writing a bunch of historical papers and books.

I think it's obvious what I'm geting at. What is *your* minimum requirement for the title?

Has Obama ever claimed he was a constitutional scholar?

Here's something that may clear this up.

Frumpy credential?
Legal affairs reporters sought out Obama for years before he ran for U.S. Senate or president. CBS News quoted him as "Professor Barack Obama" in a 2000 story on whether African Americans deserve reparations for slavery.
So why didn't Obama play up the law professor -- technically "senior lecturer" -- part of his resume more in his run for U.S. Senate two years ago? Do political strategists consider it a frumpy credential that wouldn't register with voters?

"It's probably not the main qualification people are looking for," admitted Northwestern University law professor Dawn Clark Netsch, a former candidate for Illinois governor. "To suggest anybody is going to be on their feet shouting 'huzzahs' for that -- I don't think so."

"Given the fact that most people are trying to define him before he defines himself, a look at his resume will show he had a variety of experiences," said Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who teaches law at Georgetown.

Erika Walsh, an '02 grad practicing family law in Chicago, called him "an extraordinary scholar on the law."

"I can't imagine there is somebody out there smarter than he is," she said. "Many of our professors are so brilliant they are eccentric. But Barack Obama has an ability to reach across differences and communicate with people effectively."

Added Janis, "Some professors are just kind of going through the motions with you. He actually seemed to take everyone's point of view seriously. If he could bring that to bear in the international level with foreign dignitaries and heads of state, I think that would put us in good standing with the rest of the world."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/253391,CST-NWS-prof12.stng

And

And those were just the beginning, all annotated with nuggets of known and arcane information about civil rights that clearly illustrated how the United States proceeded from there to here. And here (moving beyond Frederick Douglas’s, Jesse Jackson’s and Al Sharpton’s runs for the presidency) stands Barack Obama, a professor of constitutional and civil rights law (not unlike Browne-Marshall), as well as the first mainstream black candidate for President.

http://www.nobles.edu/home/news_item.asp?id=443&zzSec=school
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
I agree that Obama is an intelligent individual and has taught the classes in question.

I have not found a formal definition of "Constituional scholar".

Certainly the accepted definition lies above what a mere parsing of the words would suggest? Are we not all (or at least a large percentage of those who debate or ever debated constitutional issues) "scholars of the constitution"? I don't think any of us would accept *that* criteria...would we?

There must be a more rigorous criteria. If someone knows the accepted definition, please provide it. I have been asked to provide my thoughts on what criteria would satisfy the phrase, and have done so. Will others do the same?
 
  • #39
seycyrus said:
I have been asked to provide my thoughts on what criteria would satisfy the phrase, and have done so. Will others do the same?
You made an assertion about whether or not the label was justified, so it is only fair that you describe what criteria you used to arrive at this assertion.

I made no assertion of any kind on this matter.

But let me say this: I think that comparing someone who has taught the subject for 12 years at one of the top law schools in the country (over half that time in the highly coveted position of Senior Lecturer) to a bunch of people debating the subject on a discussion forum sounds pretty ridiculous.
 
  • #40
haha some of these were funny. my teacher had a huge poster in our history class of bushisms... some like

'i've been in the bible everyday since I've been the president' hahahahaa...
'this thaw took awhile to thaw, its going to take a while to unthaw' WTF?
'war is a dangerous place.' hahaha
'How can you possibly have an international agreement that's effective unless countries like china and India are not full participants?" -LMFAO

ah man there were more can't really think of them it's been awhile
 
  • #41
Definition of a Scholar:

scholar |ˈskälər|
noun
a specialist in a particular branch of study, esp. the humanities; a distinguished academic : a Hebrew scholar.
• chiefly archaic a person who is highly educated or has an aptitude for study : Mr. Bell declares himself no scholar.
• a student holding a scholarship.
• archaic a student.

Oxford Dictionary
 
  • #42
Gokul43201 said:
You made an assertion about whether or not the label was justified, so it is only fair that you describe what criteria you used to arrive at this assertion.

I made no assertion of any kind on this matter.

Excuse me perfessor!

Since the subject was under discussion, it is only fair that you too provide your thoughts on the matter instead of the endless one-liners. Which is why I asked. Thanks you for your reply.
 
  • #43
I just did, in my previous post. You're welcome.
 
  • #44
seycyrus said:
Excuse me perfessor!

You do realize that Gokul is a high accomplished physicist, right?

Where are you now Gokul... was it MIT?
 
  • #45
baywax said:
Definition of a Scholar:
Oxford Dictionary

I was referring to the difficulty of finding an accepted definition of "constitutional scholar".

But using your definition of the single word from Oxford, I still have problems in applying it to Obama. Did Obama specialize in Constitutional Law, at the expense of what other sub-disciplines?

The other three definitions are, again, loosly applied.

I myself have never heard Obama refer to himself as a constitutional scholar. Perhaps he thinks the title is reserved?
 
  • #46
Gokul43201 said:
I just did, in my previous post. You're welcome.

That's why i thanked you.
 
  • #47
Ivan Seeking said:
You do realize that Gokul is a high accomplished physicist, right?

Where are you now Gokul... was it MIT?

I'll have to visit next time I'm there.
 
  • #48
seycyrus said:
I was referring to the difficulty of finding an accepted definition of "constitutional scholar".

But using your definition of the single word from Oxford, I still have problems in applying it to Obama. Did Obama specialize in Constitutional Law, at the expense of what other sub-disciplines?

The other three definitions are, again, loosly applied.

I myself have never heard Obama refer to himself as a constitutional scholar. Perhaps he thinks the title is reserved?

Is it relevant? How many of these guys would you consider constitutional scholars? http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
BobG said:
Is it relevant? How many of these guys would you consider constitutional scholars? http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf

I think it is relevant. Especially if there is a *reason* why Obama does not use such a term to refer to himself.

There is a reason why physics students (with complete sincerity) sometimes refer to their instructor as "professor" even though the instructor would never do so, there is a criteria to be met, he knows what it is, and knows he has not met it.

Edit: As for the supreme court justices. I certainly think they specialize in constitutional law, so they certainly satisfy that part of the criteria.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." GWB



And that's the way it is...
 
  • #51
baywax said:
"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." GWB



And that's the way it is...

The free market ceased to exist as soon as we heard the cry "Too big to fail!". He abandoned free-market principles because there was no choice.
 
  • #52
Ivan Seeking said:
The free market ceased to exist as soon as we heard the cry "Too big to fail!". He abandoned free-market principles because there was no choice.

Que?
 
  • #53
By definition, there is no such thing as "too big to fail" in a free market. I believe it is true - the bailout was necessary - but the facts are the facts.

Ironic and perhaps ominous: As the credit crisis was realized and we started hearing "Too big to fail!", companies too big to fail then merged with other companies too big to fail.
 
  • #54
Ivan Seeking said:
By definition, there is no such thing as "too big to fail" in a free market. I believe it is true - the bailout was necessary - but the facts are the facts.

Ironic and perhaps ominous: As the credit crisis was realized and we started hearing "Too big to fail!", companies too big to fail then merged with other companies too big to fail.

I'm hearing a Bob Marley tune in there somewhere. No, Jimmy Cliff... the original... "the bigger they are, the harder they fall...woooooo".