• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Newsweek cover: Why Are Obama's Critics so Dumb?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
kind of glosses over the pres's biggest violation of the constitution, along with a) extending patriot act AGAIN), b)not shutting down GITMO like he said, and now basically allowing US Citizens to get sent there indefinately(but he promises he wont!!!) and says its OK because well atleast we can't be tortured(LEGALLY)
These are just minor issues. It's obvious that you're just another dumb Obama critic. 😉
 
kind of glosses over the pres's biggest violation of the constitution, along with a) extending patriot act AGAIN), b)not shutting down GITMO like he said, and now basically allowing US Citizens to get sent there indefinately(but he promises he wont!!!) and says its OK because well atleast we can't be tortured(LEGALLY)

That was more or less his point: You being the rare exception, most criticism of Obama is off the mark and childish. A missed opportunity for his opponents at best; they end up sending the Independent vote his way.

What others here have been pointing out:
That is not unlike what many of Obama's critics on this forum do every day.
Instead of substantive debate, they make up names to call him. This does not help their cause.
 
As someone who subscribed to Newsweek for the better part of forty years it's sad to see what they have become. The 24/7 TV "news" channels have pretty much killed a major part of the traditional market for Newsweek, Time and Business Week-people reading for current events. About 2-3 years ago Newsweek basically abandoned this model and remodeled itself to focus about upon in depth analysis articles about current events, in depth articles about interesting topics in the arts, science,etc and opinion pieces. After a bit of a rocky start I thought the reworking was very successful.

Newsweek was then sold to a white knight, Harmon, about a year ago. Rather than continue the tack they were on, they changed again. Now Newsweek is almost entirely opinion pieces, generally structured to attract attention (like the one that is the subject of this thread) with interesting, in depth articles maybe every other issue, if that.

The final straw for me was an opinion piece by their editor when Occupy Wall Street started. He argued Occupy was misguided, and cited a charity poker game held by Wall Street biggies as a principal reason how they benefit society. Shades of Marie Antonette! My subscription lapsed shortly thereafter, unrenewed but lamented for how far a once great magazine had fallen.
 
These are just minor issues. It's obvious that you're just another dumb Obama critic. 😉

am I that transparent 😳

That was more or less his point: You being the rare exception, most criticism of Obama is off the mark and childish. A missed opportunity for his opponents at best; they end up sending the Independent vote his way.

What others here have been pointing out:
That is not unlike what many of Obama's critics on this forum do every day.
Instead of substantive debate, they make up names to call him. This does not help their cause.

yesm but his points would appear more solid if he masked the reach around going on 😛

it was hard to wade through his fanboyism and actually read most of it :|
 
Just correcting your mistake saying he was a Bush supporter when he left that camp back in 2003.

Leaving a camp implies that he was in it. This means that he was in fact a supporter. You just contradicted yourself.

How many posts have you made in this thread btw that haven't backed up the article 100% btw?
 
The thing with the right - sorry, A thing with the right - is that they've forgotten to have any limits to 'the right'.

The right is the "easy" target here, but what do you think about Sullivan's point that many on the left believed that Obama was further to the left than he actually campaigned?
 
The article more or less hit the nail on the head in matching my opinion of Obama. I voted in the primary for Hillary because I didn't buy all the kumbaya stuff about how both political parties would suddenly disarm in his presence. Fortunately, that's not the president we've gotten. We've instead gotten a very moderate pragmatist who generally brings in the best experts on whatever topic he wishes to tackle (the end of DADT was a good example, the recently proposed military cuts, where he got the full support and participation of the Pentagon is another). I agree with Bowfinger that it is perhaps a little optimistic to think that the way he's done everything has been completely planned, but he has generally moved in the correct direction. I also have yet to see a well reasoned rebuttal to this piece that goes beyond dismissal and name calling.
 
The article more or less hit the nail on the head in matching my opinion of Obama. I voted in the primary for Hillary because I didn't buy all the kumbaya stuff about how both political parties would suddenly disarm in his presence. Fortunately, that's not the president we've gotten. We've instead gotten a very moderate pragmatist who generally brings in the best experts on whatever topic he wishes to tackle (the end of DADT was a good example, the recently proposed military cuts, where he got the full support and participation of the Pentagon is another). I agree with Bowfinger that it is perhaps a little optimistic to think that the way he's done everything has been completely planned, but he has generally moved in the correct direction. I also have yet to see a well reasoned rebuttal to this piece that goes beyond dismissal and name calling.

^^ Very well put. The critics of Obama that I have personally met generally let out the crazy the more they talk about him. I personally like the more moderate approach, but it seems to be one that people are abandoning lately.

I've had people literally yell in my face about Obama being a communist Muslim who "wasn't even born here", etc.. By yell I mean that in the most literal sense - the more they got worked up, the more and more bizarre ideas about Obama just started flowing out of their mouths.

It kind of shocked me the first time I heard someone act like that, because this is literally the first time that I had seen someone react that way about a president of the US, whether they were dem or republican. Sure I've met plenty of critics, but Obama just seems to unleash the crazy in people, I can't explain it. Heck I've heard people go "Baaaaaarrrraaaaaaccckk HUUUUSSSSSSEEEEEEIINNNNNN Oooobaaaamaaaa!", as if his name somehow made him a terrorist in the white house.

Now the latest political smear campaigns already have him being quoted out of context and trying to paint him out to be some sinister bad guy, almost like a batman villain. "He'll take our guns!", "he's a GODAMN MUSLIM!", "He's a communist, he'll convert this country into China!", "he wasn't born in the US, he's not even a US citizen!"

I've heard it all and I'm starting to really feel like americans are taking a turn towards the crazy side by letting themselves get all hyped up on political channel bullshit. When I try and trace back the river of shit, it seemingly flows primarily from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.
 
Leaving a camp implies that he was in it. This means that he was in fact a supporter. You just contradicted yourself.

How many posts have you made in this thread btw that haven't backed up the article 100% btw?

Not sure if i understand you. Sullivan was a Bush supporter until 03' when he decided to support then Senator Obama. I was correcting a previous error where umbrella had claimed Sullivan was a Bush supporter, implying that he had supported Bush until 2008.
 
Back
Top