muted.

Yep.

For the most part, most labor/ entry-level jobs open in seasons. You have to apply before those seasons start.

Quick question to those who claim that the scholars are obviously biased because he's ranked 15th out of 44: What exactly screams "bias" from that? Is it because he's ranked above the middle in an above average spot (probably in the lower end of that) or is it because of perceived biases based on the fact that the men who drew up this list have weighed both positives and negatives over the short and long term?MattUD1

The main thing is because the top ones are generally regarded where they are because of what they did( a lot of presidents share a similar set of views with them). However, Obama, who hasn't really done much, makes a seemingly-high appearance. That indicates to me that they're now wanting to value beliefs and ideas over actual results and sensibility. Either they're biased towards Obamaesque views, or, their list is simply an errant and irrelevent.

If these "scholars" did weigh pros/cons, they must be ignorant of human nature, the cyclical nature of human behavior in societies, or of the importance of logistical thought.

Hold on now, "non-specific occurrences"? I didn't just link you to promises that Obama has made; I linked you to promises that Obama has fulfilled - i.e., what he said he was going to do is now in legal force - and of those there are no fewer than 119 fulfilled promises and 37 promises on which Obama reached a compromise, which comes out to 156 promises that Obama has now completely acted on. How much more specific can you get than actual legislation that outlines exactly what will happen? Your post makes me feel as though you didn't even read the links I provided, because I cannot imagine how else you would have mistaken promises made with promises kept.

GabuEx

I'm a jackass. I exclusively read through the quoted text (which was simply regarding what was said) and presumed that's what the article was about. I disregarded the "promises kept" part after not noticing the "promise kept" bar on the right of each instance. I apologize. That was sloppy and inconsiderate.

However, I'm not going to say those are big things to do. A lot of it is funding (which is passive-action), and, overall, it's safe indirection towards change.

If things pan out, he could be credited for indirect support of progress--which would be more than what some presidents have done. But, on a seperate issue, that wouldn't make him a great president, considering his decisions aren't actually what's bringing the positivity. Just, being a more open enabler (which is important, but much less than what he can do).

this is where we're having a hard time communicating, I think. I find the "correlation does not imply causation" principle pretty self-eplanatory and able to stand on it's own two feet. Thus, I don't know how to explain it any better than the tiger/rock type of analogy (the point of which I also see as self-evident). I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, as I'm at a loss as to how to explain my point better.

Applied Tiger/Rock Example

Underlying Principle/Fallacy

mattbbpl

You're attempting to resolve this through law, which needs rationalization. Rationalization needs personal analysis(ie logistical consideration) to function accurately. If you consider Bush's outlandish operation logistically (ie "how does that affect the general plans presumed of who attacked us?), you can establish information for rationalization to use. He's not elaborating; you're ignoring the practical effect of Bush's assertion.

It's the same processive error that people end up concluding, "Well, everything's subjective. I have an excuse for my actions." It's attempting to rationalize before they've made an effort to learn of the system they exist in.

All the ones who's majority of action was as described above I hate.

FDR, TR, and Lincoln all brought about change, for good or bad. (but I move from not-hating to liking because of the mass of good ideas that were IMPLIMENTED)

[QUOTE="Sudsy86_"]

It was an exaggeration. Of course he is somewhat capable. But when you're that far below the threshold, all your cards become irrelevant.

Health care was certainly an exception. But, overall, he has not brought much "change". And what he has changed could be the modern equivelant of a dumb, weak people choosing to sacrifice levels of power for--well, I was going to say "security", but in this case it's not even that.

GabuEx

Beyond health care reform, there's also the financial reform bill that looks likely to pass next week, and those two accomplishments alone are probably bigger accomplishments in terms of difficulty than what many other presidents accomplished during their entire terms. And then there's these and these. I mean, how much "change" do you need to see before you'll be willing to say that Obama did something? What do you think a president does?

In the links, most are non-specific occurences. It isn't significant to say "I will do what I can to make your life better." It's avoiding specific definition and, thus, a non-assurance. In practical terms, you're not assuring anything by saying,"I assure you nothing specific or necessarily ." It's just arbitrarily using vague terminology to establish communication. And that, too, is useless in this case because there isn't anything actually being communicated.

Now, these are more specific than, "I will what I can to make your life better." But they're only two steps further (ie, "I will do what I can to make sure your lives are better in these areas, by doing something that improves it."

Now, why might someone who's pressured to tell people what they want only tell non-specifics. If you have socialized with anyone ever and have thought about past experiences, you should know that it's because, either, a) he doesn't have anything, or b) he knows that the specifics actually aren't desirable to whom he is speaking.

How much "change" do I need? I don't know; maybe change.

I'm not a rguing that he should be dismissed immediately. I'm simply claiming that I'd like some actual causation before accrediting him with actually preventing such attacks. The following logic doesn't sit well with me: 1)America didn't experience terrorist attacks of this magnitude for decades before 9/11 2) We then experienced one on September 11, 2001 3) Over the course of the next 7 years no further attacks occured 4) Bush prevented such attacks from occurring during that timeframe.mattbbpl

Then don't try to apply rationalization yet. You're not applying enough accessible information to make it work. Think logistically, instead. Consider Bush's actions, in a very general way. Very generally, how probable is it that his assertion on their operation disabled any possible further plans? It's not practical to examine the fact it's not rational. It's not an attempt to rationalize, but, rather, to feed answered questions to a premise.

The causation could very easily be his outlandish assertion on a mass group of land covering presumably more than where they existed.

If you can't rationalize, think logistically. Nothing is necessarily the case. But we've gotten this far by exploring inference, anyways

[QUOTE="Sudsy86_"]

He doesn't know how to do anything.

GabuEx

He got health care reform passed, which people have been trying to do for about a century now.

"He hasn't done things I would like the president to do" is not the same as "He doesn't know how to do anything".

It was an exaggeration. Of course he is somewhat capable. But when you're that far below the threshold, all your cards become irrelevant.

Health care was certainly an exception. But, overall, he has not brought much "change". And what he has changed could be the modern equivelant of a dumb, weak people choosing to sacrifice levels of power for--well, I was going to say "security", but in this case it's not even that.