+- Sons of Ivy (https://sonsofivy.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Chicago Cubs (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Friendly Confines (https://sonsofivy.com/forum/forum-8.html)
+--- Thread: Obama-themed White Sox hats? (/thread-7882.html)
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - HemisFear - 02-13-2009
Ok let's stop and reset for a moment. I'm starting to get the feeling that this is begining to turn from a healthy debate with strong opinions, to a slightly personal thing.
Let me state the following, I don't agree with you on many of your points. I do however respect the fact that you are argueing in an articulate, well thought out manner. If I at any point in this, have appeared or come off as (which it appears that I have after rereading this a few times) as snide, then please accept my appologies.
I'll continue with my thoughts on your remarks in a moment.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - Butcher - 02-13-2009
I wish I could go back in time and not start this thread.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - Lance - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17893:date=Feb 13 2009, 05:54 PM:name=Butcher)-->QUOTE (Butcher @ Feb 13 2009, 05:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I wish I could go back in time and not start this thread.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not your fault. If it wasn't this thread, it would have been another that would have gone in this direction given the personalities now here.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - HemisFear - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17887:date=Feb 13 2009, 04:38 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Feb 13 2009, 04:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->How can I put this so you will understand it? If NO ONE is arguing that things are AS BAD as the Great Depression, what does your Grandfather pointing out that it's not as bad as the Great Depression prove? No one is claiming we have 25 percent unemployment, so pointing out that we don't have 25 percent unemployment is useless. No one is claiming we have bread lines, so pointing out we had bread lines back then is useless. Defending that point makes me foolhearted and silly? Really?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, this is where I'm getting annoyed. Obama is saying that it can get that bad, plain and simple. He's saying that in so many words, if we don't do something a "catostraphic financial event" is going to happen. Considering that the only catostraphic event we've had in the United States is the Great Depression (on relative levels) please tell me what other conclusion I can possibly draw from his statement? Not only that but he then immediately follows that up with using the Great Depression as a reference point in his arguements. Keep in mind that this is the most powerful and influential man in the free world....his words..every one of them, count. To say that he's not making a clear comparison of now and the potential of what we're going through to the Great Depression is about as partisan of an arguement as I can see. It just comes off as you chosing to dismiss the entirety of his statement and the severity of his words ONLY when it is convienient for your side of the arguement.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->I am telling you I don't have the figures yet. If you want me to admit that with the data we can see RIGHT NOW, that this data says we are better off than 82, fine, you win. But it's a victory of semantics.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, yes you do have the figures. Secondly we stared this entire discussion based on the fact that Obama was drawing CURRENT comparisons (as in today) as referenced to being likened to the Great Depression and even if you don't agree wiht that, at minimum, the worst crisis we've seen SINCE .. all of which...to date..are not true. Semantics are not the issue this was the entire point! Fear + Muffled Data = Obamanomics thus far.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You need to define your argument. Is your argument that Obama is a hypocrite because he is scaring people? Because if that's your argument, frankly I don't give a shit. That's a monumentally unimportant partisan argument. And it makes no difference to me if that is how you feel.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, I am saying exactly that Obama is a hypocrite because he is scaring people while trumpeting the horns of "change" and "politics as usual in Washington". You don't give a shit because once again, convieniently it's time to trumpet the cause of the raging Democrat-demigod and point the finger at the guy behind you. From the start, I've pointed fingers at both Bush and Obama, while you have staunchy and vigorously defended Obama and pointed fingers at Bush....partisan arguement? Once again, Pot meet Kettle.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Boilerplate right wing talking points (which are pretty irrelevant to the argument here), and to be honest, fairly offensive. He has been in office less than a month and I am already tired of being told I am a mindless dolt who falls for Obama's bullshit because he has a purty mouth. Sadly, I don't see that talking point going away any time soon.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He's my president too! He works for me, just as much as he works for you. I have a responsibility to challenge my leaders and question their methods, and so does every American. Furthermore when I see and hear a man go on for two years about how different he's goign to be and the change he's going to bring and then fill his cabinet with the same old Clinton staff from yester-year, preach to me about financial responsibility then appoint MULTIPLE people who simply forget to pay their taxes, I find it pretty hard to not at minimum question the very foundation of the campaign in which he got himself elected! Secondly, please dont lump me into the down south highly conservative, bible belt fundementalist christian Republican vantagepoint. Frankly, I don't trust government as a whole and am more than willing to criticise both parties because while I definately have conservative leanings on some items, I'm actually an Independant and as this thread has shown, I don't drink either parties coolaid and am willing to praise or toss under the bus either party based on what they DO and SAY.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->And why is that, exactly? The inference seems to be these responses are beneath you, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean, or how the quote you provided is pertinent? Your original point seemed to be that while we (the great brainwashed masses, mesmerized by the pretty talking President) run around saying the sky is falling, you are seeing OPPORTUNITY! I was simply pointing out how possibly the greatest investor of our lifetimes was saying much the same thing 6 months ago, and was proven categorically wrong. My guess is, had we had this argument 6 months ago, you would have THEN been telling us how we are overreacting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reference is that Buffett did the same thing in the 1970's & 1980's, and people just like you were saying the exact same things you just said about investments that he made at those times which dipped in the first year (sometimes even two). The truth of the American stock market is, everyone is an expert and you are an idiot! (as an ideology, not me calling you an idiot)
More than any other truth, Americans want you to do well, so long as they do better! Unfortunately I took this attitude when I got started, and after much reading, study, history lessons, personal loss and gain, I've realized that anytime I hear someone make a comment like that, just how short sighted (and I speak from plenty of personal exerience here) comments like that really are. So if I came off as it being beneath me as you say, it's only because I've been there, and had I not known better, would have drawn the same conclusions.
The best illustration of this that I can make is as follows: Americans as a culture, love to save as much as they can when times are bad (money is hard to come by, prices are at their lowest), and spend as much as they can when times are great (jobs & high pay are easy to come by and prices are at their highest). My conclusion is that we are ass backwards as a culture. I don't know about you, but I save regularly, spend more when times are tough, and save more/spend less when times are great. - The Ron
When is there a better time, assuming you have the capital to do so that is, to buy a car, clothing, or home then right now?
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->Thanks for the book of the month club tip (am I the only one who found the suggestion to "check out this Adam Smith guy" profoundly condescending?), but that quote could just as easily be applied to 1932-1942. I am quite sure that people like your grandfather would find the fact that Adam Smith says "change in the economy is part of the free market" cold comfort when they went to bed hungry every night. Adam Smith may be right, but I don't see how using the "shit happens" policy to run our economy is a particularly helpful insight right now.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So when I offer yet another source for information, Adam Smith is after all the father of capitalism, and quite possibly the greatest text I can offer you (which was offered to me by someone I greatly admire...not a book club), extend to you knowledge is power....the "open minded" liberal slaps it away and then plays the victim .... nah...thats not par for the course or anything.
That book was published in 1776, and trust me when I say that his vantage point had not a shred of political leaning either way to it.
I'll leave you with one last thought...
Our country when founded was not run by lawyers as it is today. It was run by military men, farmers, businessmen, bankers, college professors, etc. The greatest two things that they (in my personal opinion) left us was this:
1. Government should be able to change
2. Government should always be challenged to ensure that when change is necissary, it happens.
A government of the people, by the people, for the people....run by nary 1/10th lawyers.....now THAT is "Change I can believe in".
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - HemisFear - 02-13-2009
Butch
Just move it to a more appropriate area. Sorry if it's gotten ridiculously off topic. That is obviously my fault.
All I really meant to do was to piss on the Obama-White Sox thing. I actually thought I might gain some favor around here for a change by coupling my lack of trust for Obama with a form of anti-white sox jargon. I had no idea the site had so many liberal minded folks on here though. I hadn't participated in any political discussions before.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - Bricklayer - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->So when I offer yet another source for information, Adam Smith is after all the father of capitalism, and quite possibly the greatest text I can offer you (which was offered to me by someone I greatly admire...not a book club), extend to you knowledge is power....the "open minded" liberal slaps it away and then plays the victim .... nah...thats not par for the course or anything.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All I have to say to you Hemi is that you are seriously obtuse. What BT meant is that you insulted him by suggesting that he should read a book that anyone with any economic knowledge has read. Shit man, do you read his posts? BT is an intelligent person, of course he read Smith. I fucking read Smith, along with probably 75% of anyone who went to college. It's very condescending of you to make that suggestion.
Of course you don't even see that, you assume that BT only reads what supports his view. That is the most insulting notion of all.
You are so blinded by your assumptions that you cannot see what BT is even telling you.
You've lost a lot of credibility. You really need to step back and process things a little better, otherwise what you think is rational thought is just dogmatic ranting.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - HemisFear - 02-13-2009
Ok I can't take on 15 people.
I realize I'm obviously the site minority. I've done everything I can to not get personal with people, I've stopped the conversation on multiple occasions to be magnanimous, and specifically complimented both BT's approach and his concepts in order to at minimum show a common sign of respect.
This is just the wrong format to go over this. The site is heavily left and while I can respect the mass consenscous, someone telling me that I'm not credible simply because their interperitation of what was said differs from mine. I had a much longer reponse to you Bricks but at this point it's best to just leave it at this.
Politics is a difficult and complex topic to discuss especially when at root it boils down to personal principle, but I'd like it stated for the record, at no point in this conversation have I dismissed a single person, called a single person a name, flamed anyone back, or told them what they do or do not understand contrary to mine without specifically addressing a previous statement tit for tat. Couple that with the manner in which I have corresponded with BT, and I feel anything but obtuse and I'm certainly not playing the "I'm offended" card.
This was just the totally wrong forum to bring this up.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - hPOD - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17905:date=Feb 13 2009, 08:20 PM:name=Bricklayer)-->QUOTE (Bricklayer @ Feb 13 2009, 08:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->All I have to say to you Hemi is that you are seriously obtuse. What BT meant is that you insulted him by suggesting that he should read a book that anyone with any economic knowledge has read. Shit man, do you read his posts? BT is an intelligent person, of course he read Smith. I fucking read Smith, along with probably 75% of anyone who went to college. It's very condescending of you to make that suggestion.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are a lot of intelligent people out there, a lot of which have not read Smith. Assuming everyone has read something is ignorant, and I don't think Hemi meant it as a backhanded suggestion to read Smith, even though it appears you or others took it that way. I call that arrogant assumption.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You are so blinded by your assumptions that you cannot see what BT is even telling you.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or you and BT are so blinded by your assumptions that you cannot see what Hemi is telling you in response. That simple minded dismissal works two ways, and it's a weak argumentative tactic. At the very least, BT tried to explain him/herself in great detail, going point for point against Hemi and that's respectable. Tearing someone down after 9/10th's of the conversation...isn't.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->You've lost a lot of credibility. You really need to step back and process things a little better, otherwise what you think is rational thought is just dogmatic ranting.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I know I'm new around here, but I didn't realize you were the majesty king giver and taker of credibility for no reason other than you (strongly or otherwise) disagree with someone on the broad of finer strokes of the discussion. The idea of being open minded works both ways, not only if someone agrees with you. The fact you call hemi "blind by his assumptions" means you feel he's "closed minded" and "cannot see your side", when you're doing the exact same thing in exchange. Just because you disagree with Hemi, or anyone else, and don't feel as if he/they are grasping the situation doesn't mean he's lost credibility.
This is typical of political or religious arguments/discussions. People who cannot see eye to eye often resort to trying to force others to see things exactly how they see them. And when a third party agrees with one of the two, they often jump the bandwagon on the side they agree with.
It's ok to disagree with each other. It's ok to perceive things differently, political or otherwise. That's the beauty of living. If everyone saw things exactly the same, or was forced to see things exactly the same, this would be a boring motherfucking world to live in. Sterile, but boring and lifeless. I've read 1984, and no thank you to a world like that.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - veryzer - 02-13-2009
the posts are way too long. can we get an abridged version of this thread?
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - Bricklayer - 02-13-2009
hPod
You are not worthy to address me.
His majesty the King has SPOKEN!!!!
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - hPOD - 02-13-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17913:date=Feb 13 2009, 09:52 PM:name=Bricklayer)-->QUOTE (Bricklayer @ Feb 13 2009, 09:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->hPod
You are not worthy to address me.
His majesty the King has SPOKEN!!!!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/poke.gif[/img]
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - veryzer - 02-14-2009
hpod said "bt gets it." why did he say that? who is hpod?
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - Runnys - 02-14-2009
What is everyone's opinion on the DeRo trade?
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - rok - 02-14-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17867:date=Feb 13 2009, 03:47 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Feb 13 2009, 03:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=17866:date=Feb 13 2009, 03:40 PM:name=rok)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rok @ Feb 13 2009, 03:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->My main problem with this entire idea of stimulus is that it will take 2-3 years before any actual jobs will be created. Getting the TARP plan right is still my biggest concern at the moment, because whether people want to accept it or not, the economy lives and dies with the banking system. A sick banking system and overly levered financial industry led us into this mess. You fix that, and everything else falls into place: real estate, consumer confidence, and small business activity. I see the stimulus as mostly an added bonus to the TARP. The main focus shouldn't be on the stimulus IMO, and once again the media and politicians have it wrong.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But they are working on TARP. Apparently not doing a very good job, but they got at least 700 billion, and my guess is that they will get more. Probably more than the stimulus.
And I thought that many of the infrastructure programs in the stimulus bill could be creating jobs in as little as 3 months?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Working on TARP, yes, but whether it actually does what was originally intended is anyone's guess. The first $350 billion went out and created some stability, but capital is still not flowing as it should. The 2nd stage is still being debated, but now appears to center around the creation of a "bad bank" that will assume much of the toxic assets that are still on most bank balance sheets. Details are still thin, so I'm not sure what to think, as much of what might happen could run into roadblocks due to contract/legal issues and could also be delayed because markets/clearinghouses still need to be developed in order to price these bad assets in order to value them for sale. That could take months, or it could take years, but it is central to our recovering from this credit market instability and to solving the mortgage mess, and thus the economic crisis as a whole.
Also, as to your point about the infrastructure spending (which I do support BTW) I think 3 months is an aggressive time table. Capital spending projects usually take between 6-9 months to plan and 12-18 months to implement on average. The government knows this. That's why I'm questioning Congress' public plea for immediate stimulus in order to avoid further economic uncertainty, when in fact the vast majority of it won't be felt for another 2-3 years. I'm not necessarily arguing against it, just saying that most of the projections are aggressive and unrealistic.
Obama-themed White Sox hats? - hPOD - 02-14-2009
<!--quoteo(post=17920:date=Feb 13 2009, 10:10 PM:name=veryzer)-->QUOTE (veryzer @ Feb 13 2009, 10:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->hpod said "bt gets it." why did he say that? who is hpod?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bone gets it. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ph34r.gif[/img]
I already explained who I was! Just a baseball fan looking for some solid baseball and other such discussions with people who have some actual thoughts. That said, I'm leaving to Vegas for a few days, so I will be back...but right now I feel compelled to do my part to jump start the American economy by spending some money after reading this thread.
<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->What is everyone's opinion on the DeRo trade?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This trade has me scratching my head, since you asked. DeRo was one of those utility players you do not let go, nor trade for a bunch of scrub pitchers. Not only was he versatile but he could help offset the loss of a potential injury that could otherwise diminish a teams production. Then again, maybe Hendry knows something we don't about the people he traded him for...or needed to dump some salary?