Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 19:33 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 503667
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too
by lucas_maximus on Mon 16th Jan 2012 22:54
in reply to "RE[3]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too"
RE[4]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too
by sbergman27 on Mon 16th Jan 2012 23:02
in reply to "RE[3]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too"
Posting a statement like this in The Netherlands would be pointless - it would be chalked up as a sign of weakness on the side of the administration.
In case you haven't noticed, the US is not The Netherlands. My stay in your country was brief and many years ago. And it came at a bad time for me, personally. I was distracted. But even so, the differences were still glaringly obvious.
Thom, we're still arguing over creationism vs Evolution, here in the US. Creationism vs the Consensus Cosmology. The educational competence of our public school graduates is steadily falling through a hole in the floor, as documented by uniform, standardized testing, while our upper education continues to do well.
We're a nation of contrasts. And the bad tends to outnumber the good, by a substantial margin, viewed on a per capita basis. And yet we all have exactly the same vote. Meanwhile, politics is the art of finding the point at which your constituency is divided more or less 50/50, and pushing your own political agenda items right to the point that you think you might just be on the 50+ side of the 50/50 balance. (Sure, corporate interests and lobbies complicate the matter.)
You really cannot expect the straight-forward strategies, which might work in your country, to be as successful here.
Sad to say, but it's true. This may be why I interpret the White House statement in a different way than do you.
Sincerely,
Steve from Oklahoma
Edited 2012-01-16 23:06 UTC
RE[5]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 16th Jan 2012 23:25
in reply to "RE[4]: The negative attention was from the whitehouse too"





Member since:
2005-06-29
While I see your point, I actually mean one and the same thing: the statement is empty because it's so utterly vague and lacks any decent definitions or 'hard' words - thus making it completely meaningless. Had the statement included a "...like SOPA" or "...like current proposals in the House and Senate", the statement would actually have teeth.
Another option would be for the statement to specifically define what is acceptable, and what isn't, according to Obama. Not doing either of these two makes it an empty statement. Posting a statement like this in The Netherlands would be pointless - it would be chalked up as a sign of weakness on the side of the administration.
It's not that complicated. There's a boatload of negative publicity going on right now, and several US senators and other supporters of the bill were backpedaling - never a good sign if you want a legislation pushed through. The White House statement, in my view, had far less influence - its lack of teeth would have made it possible for Obama to sign this law without losing any political face, i.e., he wouldn't violate the statement in the slightest if he did sign the law.