Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama the Sophist
RealClearPolitics ^ | 4/27/2009 | Jay Cost

Posted on 04/27/2009 8:22:30 PM PDT by littlehouse36

Obama the Sophist

This is from the President's remarks at the National Academy of Science:

At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been.

Who the hell is saying we cannot afford to invest in science? Isn't the real argument about whether we can spend so much more (fully 3% of GDP) on science, and revitalize the economy, and save the banks, and save the Big Three, and spend more on education, and reform health care, and revolutionize the energy sector all at the same time?

I have heard "there are those who say..." from this President quite a bit in the last three months. I think it's time he start naming names. Who are these people who hold such backward-looking, unacceptable positions? If they are elected members of the government, shouldn't the President tell us who they are so we can vote them out? If they are unelected, how is it they have such power?

Or maybe there are no such people, at least not of such relevance they deserve specific mention by the President. Maybe this is just a rhetorical trick designed to make Mr. Obama's position seem like the only one allowed by common sense.

Also, the following seems a bit demagogic, doesn't it?


(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: hopecrash; obama; obamascience; stemcell
Another Obama supporter waking up.
1 posted on 04/27/2009 8:22:30 PM PDT by littlehouse36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36

3% of the gdp is around 400+ billion. just peanuts. the treasury can print that much in no time at all. and will.


2 posted on 04/27/2009 8:30:48 PM PDT by alfie (peace through superior firepower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36
What is especially annoying to me is that - to win what amounts to a few quick, short-term political points - the President is really hitting below the belt. Those who are opposed to federal funding of stem cell research are somehow un-American: they are against "free and open inquiry," and are willing to undermine "scientific integrity" and "our democracy." Why? In service to "a pre-determined ideological agenda."

Ping.

3 posted on 04/27/2009 8:35:41 PM PDT by littlehouse36 (Socialism: The Big Omelet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36

Better late than never I suppose, but I still have to question anyone who so completely misjudged Zero when he was running for office. We as a country had all the information we needed to know exactly who Obama was and what he would do if given the chance - and if we somehow missed the message it was nothing but a willful suspension of rationality on our part.


4 posted on 04/27/2009 8:37:54 PM PDT by eclecticEel ("Envy is always referred to by its political alias, 'social justice.' " - T. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alfie
The 3 percent GDP figure is so Obama.

I pegged it at 360 billion, at today's annualized GDP, but every one who believes in Sciencism, the myth of neutrality in all things scientific, lapped this excrement up without any critical thinking whatsoever. Like Dims everywhere, they actually believe they have a lock on neutral objective reality, and this is just ridiculous.

The shot at Bush was about fetal stem cell research, sure, and as though infant sacrifice were the what "everybody knows" is the "non-ideological" and responsible thing to do, and as though the Bush administration had been strangled by "ideology." What BS!

Obama's refusal to pick a NASA administrator before he picked a dog and before this ridiculous speech, now being eaten up by all scientists not schooled in rhetoric or ethics, especially by self-described "skeptics," is a strong clue about where NASA is headed.

He's simply obsessed with destroying the Bush legacy, which is not only disingenuous and unnecessary, but has to eventually backfire.

The man is psychotic.

The author is, on the otherhand, a cautious Obama acolyte who is still capable of critical thinking.

5 posted on 04/27/2009 8:52:21 PM PDT by Prospero (non est ad astra mollis e terris via)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel
...but I still have to question anyone who so completely misjudged Zero when he was running for office.

Agree. I just read the author's profile, and he is actually right-leaning. It makes no sense. You are spot on about "willful suspension of rationality."

6 posted on 04/27/2009 8:57:08 PM PDT by littlehouse36 (Socialism: The Big Omelet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36

Set up the straw man, then kick the stuffing out of him.

Typical politician’s approach to persuasion.


7 posted on 04/27/2009 9:15:25 PM PDT by Redbob (W.W.J.B.D.: "What Would Jack Bauer Do?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36

this speech has crap written all over it-lots of “big words” with multiple syllables( makes ya’ sound big don’t it?) that any 12th grader could write for that fraud residing in the WH & it’s horse hockey content


8 posted on 04/27/2009 9:16:35 PM PDT by MissDairyGoodnessVT (Off Hunting--- for the COLB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eclecticEel

Nothing. Nothing whatsoever that Obama does surprises me.

I expect the absolute worst.


9 posted on 04/27/2009 11:58:33 PM PDT by bethtopaz (www.rapturealert.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MissDairyGoodnessVT

No bull. When I wrote trash like that in high school, the paper would be handed back with “snow job” written on it accompanied by a big, fat “D.”

Also, if science occupies such an exalted place in the Obama administration, why does he insist on promoting the junk science of man-made global warming?


10 posted on 04/28/2009 6:57:08 AM PDT by Scanian (i)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: littlehouse36
It's well known that the law of dimishing returns doesn't apply to science or government.
11 posted on 04/28/2009 8:14:25 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (The age of 0bama: the transient ischemic delusions of adequacy decade.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson