4 ms·

It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. I disagree. Words have both immediate and historical significance and impact, whether by a dictator like Hitler or

by jeromec 16y ago

It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. I disagree. Words have both immediate and historical significance and impact, whether by a dictator like Hitler or a president like John F. Kennedy. What matters is what he says via executive orders, policy, and executive branch action. I agree. Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. "Mar 28, 2008 ... Barack Obama is correct in saying he is a constitutional law professor." source: FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_really_a_constitutional_law.html http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall...) Of course, if you want to play "was rumored to say", there are some doozies attributed to Obama. I will retract the rumor text. I almost didn't put it in, but I wanted to give some context for G. W. Bush's apparent disregard for Constitutional law. But I don't need to. Just watch the 6 minute YouTube video with a noted Constitutional law professor I included. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wmc60JmaLbE

anamax 16y ago
>> Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. > "Mar 28, 2008 ... Barack Obama is correct in saying he is a constitutional law professor." source: FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall... http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall...) The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. I'll ask again - if Obama is a constitutional law scholar, where is his scholarly output?
- jeromec 16y ago
  The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. You're kidding, right? Him being a scholar is an even easier proof than him being a questionable professor -- which the link I listed at FactCheck.org also asserts is true. Oxford Dictionary (First Definition): scholar (schol·ar): a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic From the UC Law School statement at FactCheck.org: "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track ... Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
  - anamax 16y ago
    >>The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. >You're kidding, right? Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. For example, even though the degree is "Juris Doctor", I don't call lawyers "Dr.". (However, I will call them "Esquire".) Meanwhile, you'd call a 6th grade history teacher a "scholar" if they teach some constitution....
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. This is not about you. It's about the definition in the dictionary. It has as a primary entry for scholar "a distinguished academic". The definition for "professor" from Wikipedia: The meaning of the word professor (Latin: professor, person who professes to be an expert in some art or science, teacher of high rank[1]) varies by country. In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair ... etc. I don't know how you equate "Senior Lecturers regarded as professors" by a university to a 6th grade history teacher who may also be the school gym teacher filling in. That's stretching things a bit.
      - anamax 16y ago
        > In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair Which Obama didn't.... In general, real professors have publications. Heck, so do real academic doctors. Honorary and "we're giving him an appointment to curry favor" ones don't.
        jeromec 16y ago
        Bottom line: Point 1: You had a problem with me referring to President Obama as a scholar. Regardless of your semantic arguments, dictionaries also define scholar as simply a student or learned person. Point 2: The university statement clarifies how and why Obama was regarded as a professor -- and not just an "honorary" one. Point 3: Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging.
anamax 16y ago
>> It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. > I disagree. Words have both immediate and historical significance and impact, whether by a dictator like Hitler or a president like John F. Kennedy. Both Kennedy and Hitler followed up on their words. Their words were significant because of their actions. With Obama, at least on these issues, the words and actions are very different.
- jeromec 16y ago
  Both Kennedy and Hitler followed up on their words. Their words were significant because of their actions. John F. Kennedy was assassinated more than a year before his first term as president was up. But thankfully his words live on as in this quote which was posted recently here on HN (and is currently the top comment in the thread!) by another member here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1528441 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1528441 The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. --JFK If speeches don't matter as you say, why did the HN member bother to post this? And why is it the top voted comment in the thread?
  - anamax 16y ago
    > If speeches don't matter as you say, why did the HN member bother to post this? You'll have to ask the poster. > And why is it the top voted comment in the thread? Wowsers, now that's an argument.... As someone said in ancient times, "this is usenet, not something important". On second thought, I'll venture a guess as to why it was posted - it sounded nice and the poster agreed with it. As to its impact on the real world....

by jeromec 16y ago

anamax 16y ago

>> Oh really? Feel free to cite any of his scholarly writings. > "Mar 28, 2008 ... Barack Obama is correct in saying he is a constitutional law professor." source: FactCheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall... http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/was_barack_obama_reall...) The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. I'll ask again - if Obama is a constitutional law scholar, where is his scholarly output?

jeromec 16y ago
The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. You're kidding, right? Him being a scholar is an even easier proof than him being a questionable professor -- which the link I listed at FactCheck.org also asserts is true. Oxford Dictionary (First Definition): scholar (schol·ar): a specialist in a particular branch of study, especially the humanities; a distinguished academic From the UC Law School statement at FactCheck.org: "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track ... Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
- anamax 16y ago
  >>The claim was that he was a constitutional law scholar, not that he was a professor. While there are overlaps between the two groups, neither one is a subset of the other. >You're kidding, right? Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. For example, even though the degree is "Juris Doctor", I don't call lawyers "Dr.". (However, I will call them "Esquire".) Meanwhile, you'd call a 6th grade history teacher a "scholar" if they teach some constitution....
  - jeromec 16y ago
    Not at all. I have reasonably high standards for scholars. This is not about you. It's about the definition in the dictionary. It has as a primary entry for scholar "a distinguished academic". The definition for "professor" from Wikipedia: The meaning of the word professor (Latin: professor, person who professes to be an expert in some art or science, teacher of high rank[1]) varies by country. In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair ... etc. I don't know how you equate "Senior Lecturers regarded as professors" by a university to a 6th grade history teacher who may also be the school gym teacher filling in. That's stretching things a bit.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > In most English-speaking countries it refers to a senior academic who holds a departmental chair Which Obama didn't.... In general, real professors have publications. Heck, so do real academic doctors. Honorary and "we're giving him an appointment to curry favor" ones don't.
      - jeromec 16y ago
        Bottom line: Point 1: You had a problem with me referring to President Obama as a scholar. Regardless of your semantic arguments, dictionaries also define scholar as simply a student or learned person. Point 2: The university statement clarifies how and why Obama was regarded as a professor -- and not just an "honorary" one. Point 3: Most academic doctors or professors with publications do not go on to become the President of the United States. Have you ever stopped to think maybe he was busy in service of the public as well as his family? Honestly, the original point was about the contrast in perspective, as far as the Constitution is concerned, between Obama and Bush. I really don't see what you are challenging.

anamax 16y ago

>> It doesn't matter what he says in a speech. > I disagree. Words have both immediate and historical significance and impact, whether by a dictator like Hitler or a president like John F. Kennedy. Both Kennedy and Hitler followed up on their words. Their words were significant because of their actions. With Obama, at least on these issues, the words and actions are very different.

jeromec 16y ago
Both Kennedy and Hitler followed up on their words. Their words were significant because of their actions. John F. Kennedy was assassinated more than a year before his first term as president was up. But thankfully his words live on as in this quote which was posted recently here on HN (and is currently the top comment in the thread!) by another member here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1528441 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1528441 The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. --JFK If speeches don't matter as you say, why did the HN member bother to post this? And why is it the top voted comment in the thread?
- anamax 16y ago
  > If speeches don't matter as you say, why did the HN member bother to post this? You'll have to ask the poster. > And why is it the top voted comment in the thread? Wowsers, now that's an argument.... As someone said in ancient times, "this is usenet, not something important". On second thought, I'll venture a guess as to why it was posted - it sounded nice and the poster agreed with it. As to its impact on the real world....