Obama economic adviser: Don't give jobs to white workers

[GabonX]

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=263543

[Backglass]

Highly conspicuous editing. Why did they cut him off right before his clarification?

I would like to here the entire, unedited piece before I trust some unknown wacko site called "breitbart.tv".

[GabonX]

We all know that in your eyes Obama and the left can do no wrong. You've made your point that you're unwilling to listen to legitimate criticism many times. It's quite clear that you believe him and all those whom he chooses to accompany himself with as infallible ..

[got tonkaed]

Poorly titled video imo. I think the person who posts it, while getting an interesting an discussable clip out there makes a bit of a mistake in the scope, at least until the end.

The idea behind the stimulus seemingly is to invest in areas where they are proposing they will have the highest social return. While you could debate this quite at length, i dont think the premise is really all that faulty (if you accept of course that the gov. should be taking efforts in this direction - it is a big gov stance). While seemingly the use of White male construction workers makes for a soundbyte it is rather unnecessary to the point. Through the projects they are trying to stimulate as much social return as possible, which is arguably why you would take on a infrastructure project in the first place. Now they probably could have said just as effectively and far less awkwardly that they were going to try and emphasize getting expedient passage of projects that will both allow for infrastructure improvement and for stimulus to lower income laborers. While anyone can quickly throw out the snippet the video poster did about a layoff not caring about the color of your skin (which it presumably does not) its about as effective of a serious argument as left wing thinkers bashing the right for being racists when the really is nothing there.

The point he is trying to make on the first issue, the social stimulus via enhancing human capital for long term unemployed workers is made around the 19 second mark. Admittedly the more interesting issue is actually near the end when they talk about how they are going to try to do this at a federal level. Conservatives who are worth their salt should be much more disappointed in this (though again using redistribution as a silly rhetorical device cheapens the point). Its an interesting issue, as seemingly many different states are going to need infrastructure improvements, but a few states are not in great fiscal shape by any stretch. The positives of the idea would seem to be that if this program was able to be developed at the federal level you maximize the potential positives by leaving the state legislature out of it, assuming incompetency on the behalf of the state legislature. Of course the obvious to spot negative is that you force the federal government to continue to erode much of the spending ability of states which should be able to in theory more effectively allocate the money. Whether or not they could do this while giving lower skilled low income laborers the shot in the arm is questionable, but you dont always kill both birds with one stone.

I dont think its an idea im all that thrilled with, but i can see why they were trying to pull it off. Good vid and an interesting little clip, however the analysis from the uploader is unfortunately not that nuanced and a little intellectually weak.

[GabonX]

I wish it was an uninterrupted clip without text but I didn't feel like looking for one.

[got tonkaed]

I wish it was an uninterrupted clip without text but I didn't feel like looking for one.

I mean its only a minor issue really, i think it just shows that without the ability to really critically listen, you miss or fail to analyze relevantly what you are recieving as information.

[Backglass]

I wish it was an uninterrupted clip without text but I didn't feel like looking for one.

Of course you don't. We all know that in your eyes Obama and the left can do no right. You've made your point that you're unwilling to listen to what they actually have to say and only believe what you read on extreme right wing "news" and blog sites. It's quite clear that you believe him and all those whom he chooses to accompany himself with as incapable. ..

[GabonX]

I wish it was an uninterrupted clip without text but I didn't feel like looking for one.

Of course you don't. We all know that in your eyes Obama and the left can do no right. You've made your point that you're unwilling to listen to what they actually have to say and only believe what you read on extreme right wing "news" and blog sites. It's quite clear that you believe him and all those whom he chooses to accompany himself with as incapable. ..

I listen to all sides. Regardless of there being text, the clip still shows direct dialouge between politicians.

I don't know that I've ever posted a blog entry as a source, and if I have it was in passing. If you have a problem with one of my sources let me know in the topic and I'll find ten more stories that cover the same story. It's on you now to provide an actual example of what you're talking about.

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid. Would you happen to per chance be a child Backglass?

[Nickbaldwin]

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid. Would you happen to per chance be a child Backglass?

Considering it was directly ridiculing you....

[GabonX]

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid. Would you happen to per chance be a child Backglass?

Considering it was directly ridiculing you....

Setting me up with a straw man and then using a emoticon to embelish his point. It's a very high intellectual exchange indeed..

..Anyhow, care to finish whatever point you were trying to make?

[Backglass]

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid. Would you happen to per chance be a child Backglass?

LOL. I would suggest you scroll up and see exactly on which post emoticons first appeared, my hypocritical friend.

<--For You.

[Napoleon Ier]

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid. Would you happen to per chance be a child Backglass?

LOL. I would suggest you scroll up and see exactly on which post emoticons first appeared, my hypocritical friend.

<--For You.

At least he doesn't punctuate every bloody three word burst with the damn things.

Sorry, I mean:

LOL. At least, like, he doesn't, you know, punctuate every you know, three word, sorta burst, with like, emoticons.

[Backglass]

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid. Would you happen to per chance be a child Backglass?

LOL. I would suggest you scroll up and see exactly on which post emoticons first appeared, my hypocritical friend.

<--For You.

At least he doesn't punctuate every bloody three word burst with the damn things.

Sorry, I mean:

LOL. At least, like, he doesn't, you know, punctuate every you know, three word, sorta burst, with like, emoticons.

Really pisses you off doesn't it.

I find it funny that your vain attempts at mockery always come across like 80's "Valley Girl" Speak. Very telling, actually.

[GabonX]

Really pisses you off doesn't it.

I find it funny that your vain attempts at mockery always come across like 80's "Valley Girl" Speak. Very telling, actually.

It doesn't make me angry but it does appear childish. If you're a child I'll assume you're just spouting out your parents opinions which are coincidentally the exact same as your own. If you're an adult then I'm dismayed by the lack of substance in any of your posts. You spout opinions and attack the character of members of the site but I've yet to see you back anything you have to say up with..well,,, anything...

[john9blue]

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid.

You got a problem with that?

[GabonX]

P.S. You don't have to end every post with an emoticon, it makes me feel like I'm talking to a highschool kid.

You got a problem with that?

It's more the lack of sunstance than anything. If a highschool student were to argue by providing figures, current events, statistics, or historical facts that would be one thing but that's not what I see out of this poster.

[FabledIntegral]

We all know that in your eyes Obama and the left can do no wrong. You've made your point that you're unwilling to listen to legitimate criticism many times. It's quite clear that you believe him and all those whom he chooses to accompany himself with as infallible ..

And everyone knows you specifically search online for any possible flaw you can find about him to discredit him; especially when your "credible" sources are anything but.

[MeDeFe]

The use of emoticons should be modelled on the use of footnotes. The main differences are that there is no need for enumeration and that they can appear at the end of a paragraph and not only at the bottom of a page. However, just as it is detrimental to the reading experience when sources are cited in the middle of a paragraph and disrupt the natural reading flow, emoticons diminish the pleasure of reading on the internet when they appear in the middle of a sentence, even when they appear between two sentences they can detract from the experience.

[jonesthecurl]

Like, how?

[Backglass]

Really pisses you off doesn't it.

I find it funny that your vain attempts at mockery always come across like 80's "Valley Girl" Speak. Very telling, actually.

It doesn't make me angry but it does appear childish.

It is also telling that you can not follow a simple thread. I was replying to my sheepherder friend.

If you're a child I'll assume you're just spouting out your parents opinions which are coincidentally the exact same as your own. If you're an adult then I'm dismayed by the lack of substance in any of your posts. You spout opinions and attack the character of members of the site but I've yet to see you back anything you have to say up with..well,,, anything...

Oh, I see. Evidently in order to have "substance" one must peruse extremist websites for whiny right-wing "news" stories, and then re-post them here whilst pounding ones chest. Got it.

I will try to do better. <--for you.

Obama won. You lost. Get over it.

[Napoleon Ier]

Obama won. You lost. Get over it.

Oh, right.

So, basically, no matter how incongruous, inane and destructive his policies may be, no matter how two-faced, no matter how corrupt, the leader of a modern democracy cannot be criticized because he won, and the citizens he is supposed represent who do not see his every move as infallible and sacred, "lost".

That's a view that speaks volumes about how you view the concept of American democracy, and why so many of your like-minded countrymen were misguided into making the choice they did.

[Backglass]

incongruous...inane...self destructive...two-faced...corrupt

No. Your words above speak volumes. Your mind (and several others around here) was made up long ago.

My country made the right choice this time after eight years of horrible mistakes. That's the truth...and the truth hurts when you lose the game.

We all know that in your eyes Obama and the left can do no wrong. You've made your point that you're unwilling to listen to legitimate criticism many times. It's quite clear that you believe him and all those whom he chooses to accompany himself with as infallible ..

And everyone knows you specifically search online for any possible flaw you can find about him to discredit him; especially when your "credible" sources are anything but.

[GabonX]

And everyone knows you specifically search online for any possible flaw you can find about him to discredit him; especially when your "credible" sources are anything but.

Like I said, if you have a problem with one of my sources make a note of it there. Stating that I post information that isn't credible doesn't mean anything without providing an example, and single example is still a long way from establishing a pattern of misinformation.

The ball is in your court now.

Oh, I see. Evidently in order to have "substance" one must peruse extremist websites for whiny right-wing "news" stories, and then re-post them here whilst pounding ones chest. Got it.

Most of the articles I post come from orginizations that don't have political affiliations. Here and there I'll post something with an agenda but even these sources are factual. The claim that I only post "whiny right wing news" has no merrit unless reporting facts qualifies someone as "whiny" and "right wing." If you want to see someone who makes a logical argument for the other side as opposed to rambling aimlessly look at spurgistan's posts. He at least debates with facts as opposed to emoticons.

These both are examples of posts without substance. They both make claims without taking any effort to specify what they are talking about. Essentially their strategy is to ignore legitimate facts and demonize the the one who presents them. It's ad hominum and illegitimate.

[Backglass]

Most of the articles I post come from orginizations that don't have political affiliations.

Oh yes, you are very fair & balanced. We all see that you have no agenda whatsoever with your post choices. <--for you.

[GabonX]

Most of the articles I post come from orginizations that don't have political affiliations.

Oh yes, you are very fair & balanced. We all see that you have no agenda whatsoever with your post choices. <--for you.

I never claimed that I don't have opinions on things. It's quite obvious that I do. The difference between us is that I support mine with facts while you rant and rave and post smilies without supporting any of your claims.

You're still ducking the question and avoiding addressing facts. Attacking me does not lend credibility to your arguments. You have yet to demonstrate that I have posted untrue information or to provide any kind of intellectual debate.

is not an argument.