The Obama File

[madanthonywayne]

madanthonywayne

You certainly illustrate that point well.

That is patently untrue. I do not call people stupid or evil and try to keep an open mind. I also try to refrain from using juvenile terms for my opponents such as "Republithugs".

And given our current conditions where wages have been stagnant for 3 decades while corporate profits have soared, it's not foreign to reality, either.

So, you would have no problem with Obama's statement under either interpretation.

The statement is only preposterous if you deliberately distort the statement by taking it out of context and selective editing of what he said. We call that lying, by the way. Deceit, mendacity, falsehood and untruth also apply. And we've come to expect it from you in particular and the Rethuglicans in general.

You are the one that's lying. There was no editing whatsoever. I didn't originally post Obama's entire speech (which is discouraged on this site), but what I did post was not edited at all. As to out of context, you can make that argument, but I don't think the context helps much. Here's an ad put out by Romney based upon Obama's statement which includes a recording of Obama making his point in context:

I think it's a pretty effective ad. This particular Obama gaff may well go down as being as important to this election as this was to a previous election:

[spidergoat]

Howard Dean didn't go down because he made a funny noise, he went down because the Democratic Party elites didn't like him. And Obama is right, no man is an island, and those people who think they created anything in this country on their own are delusional. Of course they deserve some credit for creating a business, but to say they are the only ones is ridiculous. How about the schools? How about the roads? How about the police that preserved property rights or dealt with an unruly employee?

Here's a test, go to Somalia and try to start a business and see how far you get.

[Repo Man]

I think it's a pretty effective ad. This particular Obama gaff may well go down as being as important to this election as this was to a previous election:

The only people who will believe that lie (and it is a lie: only a willful misrepresentation of the truth could get that out of what was said) are the usual suspects who spend all of their time in the right wing echo chambers. The people who believe that Obama is a Muslim, who believe that he is not truly an American, who believe that he is a socialist, or believe that he's planning on taking away their guns. These people are completely immune to facts and evidence. You can't reason someone out of a position that they haven't reasoned themselves into. None of the people that believe this ridiculous version of what Obama said would ever have voted for him anyway.

You’re not likely to get anywhere arguing with authoritarians. If you won every
round of a 15 round heavyweight debate with a Double High leader over history, logic, scientific evidence, the Constitution, you name it, in an auditorium filled with high RWAs, the audience probably would not change its beliefs one tiny bit. Authoritarian followers might even cling to their beliefs more tightly, the wronger they turned out to be. Trying to change highly dogmatic, evidence-immune, groupgripping people in such a setting is like pissing into the wind.

The Authoritarians

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

[Grumpy]

madanthonywayne

That is patently untrue. I do not call people stupid or evil and try to keep an open mind. I also try to refrain from using juvenile terms for my opponents such as "Republithugs"

You've done nothing but call Obama and liberals various odious things. That's Rethuglicans, by the way(though Republithugs would do as well), they earned that name when they nearly tanked the economy and got our credit rating dinged because they would not let the moneyed interests pay a little more like the tax rates workers pay, holding the whole country hostage because of a pledge they made to a lobbyist instead of the Constitution(treasonous, in my book).

So, you would have no problem with Obama's statement under either interpretation.

I agree with what Obama actually said(so does Romney). And it isn't interpretation you are doing, it is lying about what he said...



You have selectively edited what Obama said in exactly the same way that the above was edited and that is dishonest, it is a mendacity, it is a lie. You and Romney are...well, what do we label people who tell lies? Knowingly and deliberately?

You are the one that's lying. There was no editing whatsoever.

That's just two more lies. But then, Willard's campaign is based on lies, Fox is based on lies, hell, the entire Rethuglican party does nothing but lie. It's a moral sickness where the ends justify any means necessary, even "Second Amendment Remedies". And the ends are winning public office so they can represent the interests of their corporate/military/industrialist masters. Eisenhower was right(and one of the few Republicans with any morals or principles since the middle of the last century).

Grumpy

[madanthonywayne]

The following is a serious question. I would appreciate your honest answer, as it will help me understand a bit more about your political outlook:

Do you agree with the following statement? The Founding Fathers limited the scope and faculties of the federal government in order to protect against tyranny, so that such tyranny could instead be invested in the several states.

No.

While their primary concern was obviously to limit the power of the federal government they were creating, splitting power between federal and state governments was one more way of creating checks and balances to ensure that the rights of the people would be protected.

[Repo Man]

Hey, here's where President Obama admits to being Muslim! Anyone who actually believes that is an idiot.

[madanthonywayne]

A recent poll shows that, after over 3 years in office, Obama can no longer get away with blaming Bush:

Two-thirds of likely voters say the weak economy is Washington’s fault, and more blame President Obama than anybody else, according to a new poll for The Hill.

It found that 66 percent believe paltry job growth and slow economic recovery is the result of bad policy. Thirty-four percent say Obama is the most to blame... and 18 percent cite former President George W. Bush.

http://thehill.com/polls/239377-the-...or-bad-economy

[Grumpy]

madanthonywayne

Do you think it is moral to lie or be dishonest to reach your goals? I don't.

"This certainly isn’t W.’s day. According to a Gallup poll released Thursday, 68 percent of Americans blame former president George W. Bush for the country’s economic woes. A full 90 percent of Democrats who responded said Bush is to blame for the weak economy, and only 19 percent said Obama should carry much of the blame. As for Republicans, they were more split: 49 percent said Bush had a moderate amount or a great deal of the blame while 51 percent said Bush deserved not much of the blame or none at all.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...r-economy.html

The Hill poll was among their own readers and does not reflect the country in general. Gallup, however, is considered to be fairly accurate(well, as accurate as polling in general can be). Since those who only have cell phones are not polled and because they tend to be younger and more liberal in their outlook, it's even worse than it appears for you and the lies you continuously spew.

But as bad off as W left the country, it is now the obstructionism and ultra-partisanship of the Rethuglicans that is holding back the economy, deliberately, for political gain. Turtleman's statement that making Obama a one term president is illustrative of this.

Grumpy

[madanthonywayne]

madanthonywayne

Do you think it is moral to lie or be dishonest to reach your goals? I don't.

"This certainly isn’t W.’s day. According to a Gallup poll released Thursday, 68 percent of Americans blame former president George W. Bush for the country’s economic woes. A full 90 percent of Democrats who responded said Bush is to blame for the weak economy, and only 19 percent said Obama should carry much of the blame. As for Republicans, they were more split: 49 percent said Bush had a moderate amount or a great deal of the blame while 51 percent said Bush deserved not much of the blame or none at all.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...r-economy.html

The Hill poll was among their own readers and does not reflect the country in general. Gallup, however, is considered to be fairly accurate(well, as accurate as polling in general can be). Since those who only have cell phones are not polled and because they tend to be younger and more liberal in their outlook, it's even worse than it appears for you and the lies you continuously spew.

But as bad off as W left the country, it is now the obstructionism and ultra-partisanship of the Rethuglicans that is holding back the economy, deliberately, for political gain. Turtleman's statement that making Obama a one term president is illustrative of this.

Grumpy

If you'd spend less time on ad Homs and more time reading you might have realized that your poll was a month old and not released Thursday. You are also incorrect about the hill poll. Nowhere does it say it was a poll of its readers. In fact:

The Hill poll was conducted July 9 among 1,000 likely voters, and has a 3 percentage point margin of error.

http://thehill.com/polls/239377-the-...or-bad-economy

[Grumpy]

So we have two different polls saying two different things, who'd a thunk it.

Grumpy

[iceaura]

A recent poll shows that, after over 3 years in office, Obama can no longer get away with blaming Bush:

I've been reading that claim since Obama's third month in office.

The predictability of that kind of assertion, the sheer inevitability of that stupid shit coming around, was a common topic of discussion during the Pres campaign in 2008: there was a large faction of lefties who wanted a Republican to win that election, because the impossibility of cleaning up W's mess in a couple of years was obvious - the thinking was: make sure the Republicans get the blame for this, and get them out of national American politics for a generation.

For the rest of us the problem with that was, and is visible now, that the kinds of historical revision and repetition of nonsense and general media abetted obstruction that would create the amnesia predicted, would prevent sticking the Republicans with the blame for their doings regardless of the White House occupant. So we'd just get a worse mess, without getting rid of the people who made it.

The bizarre spectacle of Republicans bragging in public about successfully conning that public - fixing things so no one can blame W for what W did, say - has become oddly normal, meantime.

[Repo Man]

I've been reading that claim since Obama's third month in office.

The predictability of that kind of assertion, the sheer inevitability of that stupid shit coming around, was a common topic of discussion during the Pres campaign in 2008: there was a large faction of lefties who wanted a Republican to win that election, because the impossibility of cleaning up W's mess in a couple of years was obvious - the thinking was: make sure the Republicans get the blame for this, and get them out of national American politics for a generation.

For the rest of us the problem with that was, and is visible now, that the kinds of historical revision and repetition of nonsense and general media abetted obstruction that would create the amnesia predicted, would prevent sticking the Republicans with the blame for their doings regardless of the White House occupant. So we'd just get a worse mess, without getting rid of the people who made it.

The bizarre spectacle of Republicans bragging in public about successfully conning that public - fixing things so no one can blame W for what W did, say - has become oddly normal, meantime.

Yep, lots of people called it. And I find myself regarding people whining that the economy is still lagging with contempt. What kind of nitwit would you have to be to think that things could be coming up roses so soon after such a severe crisis? I've just been grateful that it didn't completely go over the precipice. I think The Onion called it best of all.

Black Man Given Nation's Worst Job

WASHINGTON—African-American man Barack Obama, 47, was given the least-desirable job in the entire country Tuesday when he was elected president of the United States of America. In his new high-stress, low-reward position, Obama will be charged with such tasks as completely overhauling the nation's broken-down economy, repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and generally having to please more than 300 million Americans and cater to their every whim on a daily basis. As part of his duties, the black man will have to spend four to eight years cleaning up the messes other people left behind. The job comes with such intense scrutiny and so certain a guarantee of failure that only one other person even bothered applying for it. Said scholar and activist Mark L. Denton, "It just goes to show you that, in this country, a black man still can't catch a break."

[joepistole]

A recent poll shows that, after over 3 years in office, Obama can no longer get away with blaming Bush:
http://thehill.com/polls/239377-the-...or-bad-economy

Since you and your fellow Republicans have been so fond of making this allegation, perhaps you can show one instance where President Obama blamed George II for something after assuming the helm of state?

President Obama has reminded people of the mess he inherited when he assumed office -a proven fact. And President Obama has reminded people of the progress he has made while in office – another proven fact. Reminding people of reality is not blaming. Reminding people of President Obama's accomplishment is not blaming. It may make your party look bad, but restating fact is not blaming. It is reality. Wise folks learn from previous mistakes. Fools just keep repeating the mistakes of the past.

[Repo Man]

http://www.fark.com/comments/7228090/78243969#c78243969

[madanthonywayne]

Many Obama apologists have been claiming that recent criticisms of President Obama's recent "you didn't build it" quote were taken out of context. Here's Romney explaining that putting the quote in context doesn't help the president one bit:

[Tiassa]

Here's Romney explaining that putting the quote in context doesn't help the president one bit ....

Domenico Montanaro makes an interesting point:

"You Olympians, however, know you didn't get here solely on your own power .... For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We've already cheered the Olympians, let's also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities."

That would be W. Mitt Romney, in 2002.

And don't bother pointing out Mitt's context. Sure, the remarks came after he praised the athletes themselves.

Then again, Mitt Romney seems to think he should be measured by a different standard than others, so, you know—whatever.
____________________

Notes:

Montenaro, Dominic. "Romney to Olympians: 'You didn't get here solely on your own'". First Read. July 23, 2012. FirstRead.MSNBC.MSN.com. July 23, 2012. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...ly-on-your-own

[joepistole]

Many Obama apologists have been claiming that recent criticisms of President Obama's recent "you didn't build it" quote were taken out of context. Here's Romney explaining that putting the quote in context doesn't help the president one bit:

It is pretty obvious to any honest broker of the truth; President Obama was referring to the nation’s infrastructure. But you and your fellow Republicans have chosen to take those comments out of context and misrepresent them and promulgate yet another lie.

The businessman featured in Romney’s attack ad aimed at exploiting this Republican lie admits that he has accepted lots of government assistance in building his business – kinda shoots a big hole in this Republican lie.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...and-contracts/

The New Hampshire Union Leader’s John DiStato today reports that in 1999 the business in question, Gilchrist Metal, “received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority ‘to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment’…” In addition, in 2011, Gilchrist Metal “received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller, $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008…”

The businessman, Jack Gilchrist, also acknowledged that in the 1980s the company received a U.S. Small Business Administration loan totaling “somewhere south of” $500,000, and matching funds from the federally-funded New England Trade Adjustment Assistance Center.

“I’m not going to turn a blind eye because the money came from the government,” Gilchrest said. - ABC News

And Romney, agreed with President Obama’s message 10 years ago. Below is a video of Romney making nearly identical comments. We are all dependent on each other.

http://www.abc26.com/news/nationworl...,3002714.story

[madanthonywayne]

A recent poll shows that Obama's personal likability, which has long remained above his approval number, has dropped dramatically.

These data, buried deep in the latest NY Times/CBS poll (of registered voters, not likely voters) are both stark and important. In April, Obama had a 42-45 favorable/unfavorable rating, itself a shock given his vastly higher favorable ratings only a few months before. Now, he has a favorable rating of only 36% and an unfavorable rating of 48%.

http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-rat...ive/#more-9295

Dick Morris believes this drop in likability is due to Obama's recent negative campaigning. If this is true, then Obama is in real trouble since he certainly can't run on his record. Not with unemployment above 8% and a signature health care law that most Americans would like to see repealed.

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

A recent poll shows that Obama's personal likability, which has long remained above his approval number, has dropped dramatically.

http://www.dickmorris.com/obamas-rat...ive/#more-9295

Dick Morris believes this drop in likability is due to Obama's recent negative campaigning. If this is true, then Obama is in real trouble since he certainly can't run on his record. Not with unemployment above 8% and a signature health care law that most Americans would like to see repealed.

But the question isn't really whether he's more or less likable, the question is whether he's more or less likable compared to Romney.

[quadraphonics]

Yeah, notice that the GOP tries, at every opportunity, to portray the election as a referendum on Obama. It isn't. It's a choice between Obama and Romney. You don't get to vote on whether you like Obama in any absolute sense, only whether you prefer him or Romney.