Obama's speech was a dud, a mosaic of demagoguery and self-plagiarism

Self-plagiarism???? (0.00 / 0)

An oxymoron if there ever was one.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 04:39:28 AM UTC

Are you obtuse on purpose? (0.00 / 0)

"Gee, I had no idea..."  Simple J. (Festus) Malarkey  

---

by: V @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:25:44 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's a literary device Simple (0.00 / 0)

Full Disclosure


http://www.redmassgroup.com/pr...

---

by: Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:44:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As was mine. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:06:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ya got half (0.00 / 0)

of the word right.  The other half is slang or a misused prescription drug.

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 11:57:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

USe a dictionary... (0.00 / 0)

...and you will find that you fit the profile of the latter part of the word.

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:06:02 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That (0.00 / 0)

you are both ignorant and a moron does not mean you can project that on others any more than you can project your character flaws of dishonor and dishonesty.....but I took your advice and sought a definition:

Self-plagiarism (from wiki)

Self-plagiarism (also known as "recycling fraud"[50]) is the reuse of significant, identical, or nearly identical portions of one's own work without acknowledging that one is doing so or without citing the original work.

If I EVER plagiarized my one published work anywhere else, it would be UNETHICAL self-plagiarism, which in no way is an "oxymoron."

"I acknowledge having racist and classist and sexist feelings of white male superiority." -John Howard

---

by: ElectricStrawberry @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 16:38:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, a real critique of your critique... (5.00 / 1)

Given that Mitt Romney do not acknowledge the US troops CURRENTLY fighting overseas, your criticism of the President not acknowledging an era in history that ended 25 years ago is a real head-scratcher.  

Equally puzzling is your suggestion that the President should skip over the policies of the last 30 years and lay the blame regarding the challenges we face on policies implemented 80 years ago.  This speaks more to your ideology driven critique than offering an honest cause and effect analysis.  

And where did you take your history and economic courses?  Associating Keynesianism with the 1970s?  What government stimulus efforts are you referring to during this period?  I'm sure you'll come up with a few examples, but they will pale against Keynesian efforts from other generations.  Also, Keynesianism is the use government policies to stimulate the economy.  This stimulation can happen two ways: direct government spending without corresponding tax hikes to off-set the spending or indirect means of cutting taxes, while maintaining government spending.  Both have the net effect of injecting money into the economy and both rack of national debt.  One way is favored by Democrats and the other by Republicans.  But they are both Keynesian policies.  You will deny this, but the fact is we are all Keynesist...conservatives just call it by another name: Supply side economics.

Finally, you offer no evidence of "self-plagiarism", yet I detect a large degree of self-pleasuring on your writing.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:32:17 PM UTC

In case you need a source: (0.00 / 0)

Here's Bill Kristol criticizing Romney for not mentioning Afghanistan or the troops: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bil...

---

by: eury13 @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 12:41:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keynesian isn't same as supply side at alll (0.00 / 0)

One way is favored by Democrats and the other by Republicans.  But they are both Keynesian policies.  You will deny this, but the fact is we are all Keynesist...conservatives just call it by another name: Supply side economics.

Keynesian:  gov spends more during downturn to take the place of the reduced non-private spending.

Supply side:  reduce barriers to producers of goods and serives-not just taxes but regulation.

You're completely mistaken that they are the same economic theories.  Historically speaking, a Supply side economist would say that "supply creates its demand" and that producers should be less restrained by government.  

A keynesian would say exactly the opposite, that "demand creates its own supply" and that the gov should pump money into consumers' hands during a downturn.
 

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 13:01:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Nope. (0.00 / 0)

David Stockman:Tax cuts are part of a supply-side economic model, but deficit-financed tax cuts are not: "There's no free lunch, and we're kidding ourselves if we think we can borrow more money in order to have a short term stimulus. This is straight out of Keynes, and i'm shocked that Republicans think it is good policy."

Given that the Reagan tax cuts in the early 80's were also deficit financed, even's Stockman behaved like a Keynesian.  

Also, I don't care what the so-called supply siders SAY, I care about what they do.  And, despite your revisionist spin that supply side was about reducing barriers--the Lafleur Curse (er, Curve) was all about how tax cuts would stimulate more than enough economic growth to pay for the tax cuts (still waiting for that to happen.)  To deny supply-side was about deficit financed tax cuts to stimulate the economy is to deny historical fact.  A very trendy thing to do for conservatives nowadays.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 14:27:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Keynes and the 70s (0.00 / 0)

And where did you take your history and economic courses?  Associating Keynesianism with the 1970s?  What government stimulus efforts are you referring to during this period?  I'm sure you'll come up with a few examples, but they will pale against Keynesian efforts from other generations.

Frankly, I think he's spot on with the observation that Keynes theory was generally rejected in the 70s:  butter and guns and the Great Society of the 60s did little but raise inflation AND unemployment, something that wasn't supposed to happen at the same time.  So, in the 70s, with the rise of the Chicago school and Milton Friedman, Keynes theory was rejected.  Monetary policy was strongly applied in late 70s and probably responsible for the Carter loss.

So, now we're full circle with liberals pointing to FDR (but not pointing to LBJ) claiming that Keynes theory works and Gov must spend more, not noticing that we have spent more ($16 trillion debt?) and it's done quite little.

Elizabeth Warren: a bankruptcy professor, bankrupt of ideas

---

by: gary @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 13:12:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"A Mosaic of demagoguery" (0.00 / 0)

Perhaps the most poetic post title ever posted on RMG.

I give you a five for the title alone..."5".

We are headed for a 'Fiscal Cliff' and the country just elected a dope whose motto is 'Forward'.  

---

by: Vote3rdpartynow @ Fri Sep 07, 2012 at 17:15:16 PM UTC

Who caught this in Obama's DNC speech… (0.00 / 0)

This is still bugging me. Obama's DNC speech "I've signed trade agreements that are helping our companies sell more goods to millions of new customers, goods that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America." (APPLAUSE) Obama wants things that say "three words" "Made in America."  Please try to find anything that has "Made in America" not Made In USA but "Made in America."  For all the scrutiny in Obama's speech is there not one that reads the label or is there something wrong with saying USA? Is this an executive order to change all labels or an ultimate gaff? Will changing from Made In USA to "Made in America" suddenly create the tens of millions of jobs promised? Can anyone here explain this?  

---

by: 1stRichard @ Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 03:02:31 AM UTC

This Bud's for you. (0.00 / 0)

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 03:13:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is (0.00 / 0)

Budweiser was sold to the Belgians, Budweiser had a Made in America Festival, they had a promo Festival can but still said Made in USA. Close but not there    

---

by: 1stRichard @ Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 07:44:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The beer isn't still brewed in America? (0.00 / 0)

---
"That it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but whether or not it failed cannot be definitively said." - Metropolitan (1990)

---

by: Patrick @ Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 14:38:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yet another example of... (0.00 / 0)

...the liberal lamestream media covering up for Obama?

Or an example of delusion emitting from a basement dwelling?  I mean really...a trying to spin a "gaffe" around Made in America vs Made in the USA.  

---

by: Simple J. Malarkey @ Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 13:25:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looking for more information (0.00 / 0)

All I did was ask questions that could cost not only my business but also millions more businesses, and would it cut or create jobs. With only demagoguery and ridicule present, I suppose this means more jobs lost. You have no clue as to the expense of changing regulations, a typical moonbat troll.      

---

by: 1stRichard @ Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 19:43:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What's up with Apple? (4.00 / 1)

Have you ever noticed that Apple products say

Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.

Did they secede from the USA?  

That may just be cool marketing, or it may reflect some radical ideology. Steve Jobs is, I think, one of the people described as believing in The Californian Ideology". Look what's in the "See Also" section:

See also

Carmen Hermosillo
Jeffersonian democracy
Libertarian transhumanism

The California Ideology is now being seen as a narcissistic failure:

In the 2011 documentary, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, Curtis concludes that the Californian Ideology failed to live up to its claims:
The original promise of the Californian Ideology, was that the computers would liberate us from all the old forms of political control, and we would become Randian heroes, in control of our own destiny. Instead, today, we feel the opposite-that we are helpless components in a global system-a system that is controlled by a rigid logic that we are powerless to challenge or to change.[7]

---

by: John Howard @ Sat Sep 08, 2012 at 22:58:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]