The Obama File

Discussion in 'Politics' started by eyeswideshut, Oct 5, 2011.

  1. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    “This decision is not easy for any lifelong Republican. In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama, the first time I ever voted for a Democrat, because the Republican Party was drifting toward a dangerous path that put extreme party ideology above national interest. Mitt Romney heads a party remaining on that dangerous path, proving the emptiness of their praise as they abandon our service members, veterans and military families along the way.” – Republican Senator Larry Pressler

    It’s good to see another rational and honest Republican these days. Unfortunately they have become a dying breed. And Romney’s inability to exhibit any leadership over his party is most distressing. What the Republican Party needs most is a leader that can take the party back to its traditional foundations.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    This video:


    In addition to demonstrating why he shouldn't be re-elected, really shows how the presidency ages a man. I mean, does that even look like the same guy? He looks at least 10 years younger there then he does now.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Obama is amazing!
    Some bombs are worth over $1 000 000/ each, and America had been dropping them like confetti for 2 terms prior to The Obama Administration. He inherited 2 wars with Libya thrust into his face and has still managed to show job increases every single month for the past 3 years.

    This man not only finished in the Top 10% of students at Harvard University, but also beat out thousands of applicants to become president of the Harvard newspaper.

    The cost of the Iraqi/Afghanistan wars have cost every American $15 000.00 . Every man, woman, and child in America has spent $15 000 to remove Saddam Hussein and kill Osama Bin Laden out of their taxes, yet some Americans are too slow to understand that these wars hurt Americans. We see the explosions and death tolls overseas, but the money has been siphoned from the taxpayers with each bomb dropped and troop sent.

    Some Americans don't realize that Obama was elected in a Recession that he has turned into a time of new economic growth and prosperity. The recession is ending, and job growth is continuing.

    I know there are a few uneducated hicks who liked George Bush Jr, but he was arguably one of the stupidest presidents in History and his Oil roots was the only thing putting him in power. His policies buried America in debts not only incurred from the wars.

    Perhaps you need to have a brain to not buy into anything using Obama as a scapegoat for Americas debt/economy. Many people are naive enough to vote for whoever their hairdresser says is someone worthwhile.

    Yet tied in the polls is a religious freak. I am sorry but Mormon is like the extremist form of Christianity. Mormons openly practiced plural marriage, a form of religious polygamy. Mormons dedicate large amounts of time and resources to serving in their church, and many young Mormons choose to serve a full-time proselytizing mission. Mormons have a health code that eschews alcoholic beverages, tobacco, coffee, tea, and other addictive substances. They tend to be very family-oriented, and have strong connections across generations and with extended family. Mormons also have a strict law of chastity, requiring abstention from sexual relations outside of marriage and strict fidelity within marriage.

    I believe religion should not govern decisions in the White House, but policies such as those involving gay rights, gay marriages, abortion, might come under fire with a preacher at the helm. Could a devout preacher return fire if attacked by nuclear weapons?

    The preacher wishes to repeal Obamacare. Free healthcare works well in many countries including Canada. Romney and his family are very wealthy and will never need free health care, but nobody should die because they cannot afford treatment. If your son or daughter lost their job should they die because of it? If you can answer that you could care less about the poor and jobless then by all means vote for Romney. You will make a good team.

    In 4 years we at least see job growth and better international relations and trade, Obamacare, curbing Wall street excesses, and promote tariffs and other measures to stop cheap labor from stealing American jobs. This is not a president who spends his days golfing. He has worked.

    I doubt educated people needed this refresher, but some people should know Obama is the obvious choice despite what your hairdresser may say.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    And the waves roll on

    Funny thing about Republicans and personal accountability: It never applies to them.

    I mean, Bush was re-elected. Of course, he never said he would be held accountable, did he?

    And he wasn't.

    Then again, part of the question Obama is facing is whether the voters will blame him exclusively, or recognize the Republican effort to sabotage the country.

    Life goes on, to be certain, for the living.

    We are born; we die. And the waves roll on.

  8. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    That's rich, especially after 4 years of Obama blaming his predecessor for everything until he finally was faced with a problem he couldn't pin on Bush. What did he do? Send out Hillary to take the blame

    That is, until he got tired of hiding behind her skirt and finally took responsibility for something at the debate.

    But all that aside, doesn't he look a lot older than in that video?
  9. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member


    Has it begun to sink in that Rmoney is going to lose this election? Nate Silver, a most accurate poll analyst(if slightly Conservative),has Obama's likelihood of reelection going back above 70%. And while Rmoney had a good ride going, he's stalled and the base 2% lead by Obama is reasserting itself. Of course, that means absolutely nothing, it is the polls in the "swing states" is what will determine who is President. Actually, whoever wins Ohio is likely to be President. There the news is not so good for Rmoney, they have tightened, but Obama still leads.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member


    Perhaps you would be good and provide some evidence to support your allegations? When did Obama blame his predecessor for any of the events that have transpired over the course of the last 3+ years? Has President Obama blamed his predecessor for anything Obama has done? No, he hasn't. You are making stuff up again in the grand tradition of the Republican/Tea Party. Simply pointing out how things were when Obama came to office, pointing out truth, is not blaming. It is being honest.
    Two, not only did Clinton take responsibility for Benghazi, so did President Obama – within 24 hours of Clinton’s press announcement.

    If someone destroyed your home, would you ignore the fact that your home had been destroyed? President Obama and the Democrats inherited a severely damaged economy and a fiscal crisis to boot.
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member


    Are you really that naïve?

    Or are you just pushing more of your elephant scat?

    As I noted last week:

    In the Libya case, the question must ultimately be, "Who's in charge?" And unless we want the president personally setting the watches at our embassies around the world, the answer is that the Secretary of State is in charge.​

    The United States has well over two hundred foreign service missions around the world. How much time do you believe the president should spend setting the watches at each one? And then maybe he should swing over to Ag and carry out the meat inspections himself?

    Oh, I got it: Maybe the president should perform all the FDA drug assessments himself. You know, since neither Commissioner Hamburg or her boss, HHS Secretary Sebelius are, by your outlook, responsible for the workings of their agencies.

    Yeah, that would work, wouldn't it?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    —you don't seem so outraged when it comes to attacks against the foreign service under President Bush. True, he never hid behind anyone. But neither did he take responsibility.

    So can the two-bit sexism and moronic naïveté.

    Or, perhaps, ask yourself whether you should complain when people just shrug and write you off as an idiot.


    Serwer, Adam. "The Truth About Attacks on Our Diplomats". Mother Jones. October 3, 2012. October 23, 2012.
  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Straw man reductum ad adsurdum bullshit. Of course the president doesn't need to do everything himself, but when the shit hits the fan, it should be him on TV taking responsibility, not the secretary of state.

    I'll ignore your various insults as boilerplate.
  13. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Well, what do you expect?

    Shall people, then, simply ignore your various insulting posts as boilerplate?

    Because I really would like an answer to certain questions:

    • Do you really think your political perspectives are realistic?

    • Why are you so inconsistent insofar as you have every appearance of holding Democrats to different standards than you do Republicans?​

    On that last, I seem to recall Republicans arguing that President Bush never said certain things, and they had a point. Of course, with the Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice all saying it, there is a reason why people attributed statements about smoking mushroom clouds and Saddam Hussein's involvement in 9/11 to the Bush administration. Yet such attribution seemed quite unacceptable to Republicans.

    Now, of course, a Democrat is in office, so all the rules change.

    Oh, yeah, another question I'd really like an answer to:

    • Why does the Republican idea of "personal accountability" not apply to Republicans?​

    Now, maybe you find such questions insulting, but, as I suggested, I find most of your political posts these days insulting for their stupidity. Given your poor outlook on the average voter, one wonders why you insist on malinformation.

    And yes, the presidency does take a lot out of a person. President Bush seemed to age ten years between his inauguration and the end of 2001, and there are obvious reasons why.

    • • •​

    Remember you're dealing with someone who sides with the party that thinks acknowledging facts of history equals an apology. No, really. Consider how Jennifer Rubin, the right wing blogger for The Washington Post defends the apology tour. Her list of apologies contains no actual apologies.

    This is what it comes down to:

    • Parent comes home, finds grandma's heirloom vase broken into pieces. Turns out the child was playing baseball in the house. The parent asks what happens, and the child says, "Sometimes pitchers miss the strike zone." Well, what? It's true. And a bean-ball never looks good on a pitcher. But what parent considers that an apology? And since we were all children at one point, I'm wondering who all thinks they could have gotten away with that "apology".​

    That's essentially what we're dealing with. Goshy-gee, I would have liked to have had the Republican "apology" standard when I was a kid.

    It would seem, at some point, that simply acknowledging reality qualifies as an "apology" to Republicans.


    Savage, Dan. "Word of the Day: Malinformed". Slog. September 29, 2012. October 24, 2012.

    Rubin, Jennifer. "The myth of the myth of apologies". Right Turn. September 23, 2012. September 24, 2012.
    Last edited: Oct 24, 2012
  14. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Which is what he did.
  15. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    That is just one of the many details Mad likes to repeatedly ignore. How can anyone take Mad seriously when he repeatedly ignores reality?
  16. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member


    Well...he is mad and ignoring reality is a definition of being mad, isn't it?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    If Madanthonywayne is this upset about what happened in Libya on Obama's watch, he must surely wish that Ronald Reagan is rotting in hell over the 241 Americans killed in the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983.
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Why be so insulting?

    Now you're just insulting him. (See #569 above.)
  19. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Of course.

    To the extent that that is true, it's no doubt because I don't trust most Democrats. Just as you don't trust Republicans.

    To be honest, I think you are more guilty of this particular sin than I (although, I will confess that one's own bias can certainly affect one's interpretation of such matters). You consistently demonize your opponents to an extent that would make Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and even Michael Savage proud. While such rhetoric may be good fun, it is a serious impedement to any serious discussion.
    Please be more specific regarding why you believe this to be the case.

    Republicans hardly hold a monopoly on "malinformation". You might be interested to note that there is no need for your new term. Here's a paper from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on the subject:

  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    (Something, something, Burt Ward)

    There is much about politics that is distasteful; we'll come back to that in a moment.

    But let us take the Benghazi attack as an example. The communication from the administration to the public does sound a lot like political tradition. The problems with the Republican political salvo on this are simple enough to describe:

    • Sorry, I'm not going to pretend that cautious statements are something new in politics. It seems you're perfectly willing to do so.

    • There is nothing that could possibly have gone wrong at Benghazi that could possibly compare to the Iraqi Bush War. Yet Republicans don't seem to be quite as upset at President Bush and his cohorts for that blatantly and willfully deceptive blunder as they are at President Obama over what happened in Libya.

    • If we're supposed to lynch President Obama politically because the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Her Excellency Susan Rice, stated the situation according to the CIA's assessment, why not hold President Bush accountable for the lies of National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Secretary of State Colin Powell? (Perhaps you don't recall the arguments about whether or not Bush said Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, or the mushroom cloud line, or whatever all it was that he never actually said, but, instead, came from his administration.)​

    Feigned naïveté? Blatant double standards? It's hard to see how you, or anyone else, could consider the bullshit you're trying to sell as realistic.

    Sleazy? I think so. Effective? We'll find out. Realistic? No, not an ice cube's chance in Satan's ass.

    I consider this simplistic insofar as certain sleights of reality are deeply seeded in the American culture. Sales? Law? Politics? The art of persuasion in our cultural history relies on a certain amount of smoke and mirrors. To wit:

    • If you want to sell me a car, perhaps you'll tell me about its fuel efficiency. Perhaps you'll tell me about the airbags. Or the sound system. Or its skidpad rating. And it's likely that you won't mention the statistics on the damn thing bursting into flames unless I ask directly; even then, you'll try to downplay the problem. That's how sales work.

    • What isn't considered ethical is to slander your competitor by accusing their product of having a propensity for bursting into flames when, in fact, it doesn't suffer that same problem.​

    In truth, I don't really think the difference is difficult to discern.

    Perhaps it's time to thrash these sleights of rhetoric and reality out of our political discourse, as people increasingly complain about how distasteful such things are. But don't pretend, as the Republican narrative demands, that the cautious statements of an administration dealing with an evolving crisis are anything new. And certainly don't pretend that there is something here bigger than, say, the Iraqi Bush War.

    Do you think that, perhaps, the conduct of those political opponents has anything to do with it?

    In so many cases, all things seem to be the same to you. For instance, if I say someone lied, that person ought to turn around and say I lied. Why not? It's the same, right?

    But it's not the same if the facts favor one argument over another.

    We had a row once over racism. You really didn't like being accused of racism, but you did like using the rhetoric. And you really didn't like the explanation of why you were perceived as racist, so you whined about personal attacks, put on your mod hat, and erased the post.

    But here's the thing: Is all criticism of Obama condemned as racist? No; only the parts that are actually racist. You know, like the "tar baby" crack from Rep. Lamborn. Like the whole Obama-the-foreigner tinfoil conspiracy theory. The periodic flare-ups of "Black Liberation Theology".

    Perhaps you don't like Republicans being condemned as misogynists, but have you actually paid any attention to what they've been saying and doing? Women should only be paid the same as men according to the generosity of their bosses? Make a lemon situation into lemonade? God blesses rape with pregnancy? Some women just rape easy? Anti-pregnancy ninja systems in a woman's body if she's raped? The question of how to respond to these ridiculous, derogatory ideas isn't a matter of principle to Republicans; it's a risk calculation.

    The list goes on. If you really want to suggest that one's reaction to repugnant bullshit is equivalent to the bullshit, you're welcome to keep trying to sell that line. But there will come a point when people will simply tune you out.

    Well, let's see. There's the whole idea of the Iraqi Bush War; I've already noted Republican hypocrisy on that count. And then, for all the right-wing rage about what happened at Benghazi, where was it when our foreign service suffered even more attacks under Bush than Obama? Oh, right, Bush is a Republican.

    The president will be held accountable? How do you define being held accountable? Republicans block the American Jobs Act? Hell, they even blocked a veterans' jobs bill. And on top of it all, they complain that President Obama has no jobs plan? What, is that aside from the jobs plan he's already put in front of the people, and the Republicans said no to? Will you hold Republicans accountable for their efforts to stifle the economic recovery? Will you hold them accountable for trying to lie about it?

    How about Obamacare? Where is your wrath for all the evil socialists at the Heritage Foundation? Sen. Bob Dole championed the individual mandate and the Heritage plan in opposition to the Clinton health reform initiative, and Republicans actually sent that evil socialist trying to destroy America to the Big Ticket in 1996. Are you actually going to vote for that evil socialist Mitt Romney? Come on, man. If the plan is evil socialism that will destroy America (and why is the U.S. so goddamned weak in the Republican outlook?) then why aren't you so upset at the conservatives who invented the plan, the Republicans who pushed it, or the Republican who enacted it in Massachusetts?

    Your idea of accountability, as near as I can tell, is to blame President Obama for other people's racism. You know, because they're not actually racist? Because, well, it's Obama's fault for making them so mad that they were forced to resort to racism?

    All of this is perverse and dishonest. And the result of your pathetic equivocation is that it's okay to say bigoted things, but it's a crime against decency to call it bigoted? It's okay to lie, but a sin to call it dishonest?

    Give it a rest. It's not realistic, and people shouldn't be obliged to take that kind of excrement seriously.

    True, just like Microsoft never held a monopoly on operating systems.

    Which brings us back to the beginning. Salesmanship and spin are one thing. Outright lying is another.

    Can you actually tell the difference?
  21. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

  22. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Why shouldn´t Obama take D. Trump´s 5 million?

    When preacher got $1000 check from owner of the town´s whore house, some of his congregation said: "Tear it up - that´s the Devil´s money." He wisely replied: "Yes, but I´m sure God will be pleased to see it doing his work."

    Main question I have is could Obama give a million to the United Negro Fund, or would that cost him too many red neck votes? Perhaps only $200,000 to the UNF would be OK with 4,800,000 with $100,000 sent to each of 48 states with the lowest academic ratings to fund scholarships to community colleges training unemployed for available jobs. Or better still give $100,000 to all 50 states and his own 1 million: $500,000 to the UNF and $500,000 to planned parenthood.
  23. Grumpy Curmudgeon of Lucidity Valued Senior Member

    Billy T

    Yeah, they totally shut up about his birth certificate when he released that.

    1. Donald Trump has no intention of paying the wager(see reasons 2,3,4,5).
    2. Donald Trump is a clown, not a serious actor. Dignifying him with a response is what Donald is after, making himself "Huuuge"!.
    3. "To my satisfaction" is Donaldese for "When Hell freezes over". Note his "satisfaction" with the official long form birth certificate.
    4. Donald Trump could not lay his hands on 5 million unless he was taking a tour of Rmoney's Cayman bank accounts.
    5. Donald just got fired from Trump Properties(for incompetence and dishonesty), he really needs that 5 mil. thing to go away!
    6. Donald is a huckster, a self promoting child, an oligarth wanabee, he fits right in with Mittens' crowd of "Mad Men".


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page